Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
The market moving event of the morning is University of Michigan Sentiment. It is one of my favorite indicators. It's definitely my desert island indicator. This is the preliminary read for June, and you're looking at the index sixty five point six. That's a seven month low, current conditions, low expectations falling one, your inflation expectations rising to three point three. Joanneshu is the University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers Director
and she joins us. Now, Joanne, what led this decline?
I think we need to look back one more month to really understand what's going on. Between April and May, consumer sentiment dropp about ten ten percent, and between May and June it's essentially flat. Yes, it's a little lower between June than May, but really it's within this margin of era and we should interpret that as no change. But what happened this month was that compared to last month, consumers were getting rared that labor markets were starting to weekend.
They were worried that interest rates were not moving in the right direction, and that the inflation slowed down wasn't really happening high and fast enough. And that's exactly how consumers continue to feel right now. Those concerns remain in place, and consumers don't really see a material change in the economy between last month and this month.
Joe, and it seems like again, inflation. We hear it in you know, some of the political polling that we see, and we see it in you know, some of the other I think surveys that we see. It's still a big, big issue for consumers. Even if the rate of inflation is slowing, those higher pricing levels are really problematic, aren't they.
That's absolutely right. The share of consumers that are telling us that high prices are eroding their living standards remains quite high, and in fact, it did go up between May and June. However, consumers have noticed that inflation has slowed, and that bears out in the inflation expectations that that have come down quite dramatically over the last two years
and even in the last last six months or so. However, consumers, you know, aren't really sure that inflation is going to continue decelerating at at a pace that they would like. And you know, there are aspects of inflation that continue to be really troublesome, in particular the cost of housing and insurance. These are things that are going to continue to weigh on consumers even if gas prices come down, our food prices come gas prices come down, and food inflation comes down.
Now, of course it has happened though before the FED meeting this week, when we sort of got more insight into the dot plot and sort of whatever cuts we may get, would consumers feel materially different maybe on your second read based off of that or No.
It's possible that they may feel different at the end of the month, but I wouldn't necessarily interpret any change between now and the final reading as attributable to uh, the FED policy announcements and the FOMC meeting consequences. You know, consumers aren't really paying attention to that. What they will pay attention to is, you know, if if they're starting to feel some relief as they are working through their budgets, and if they are starting to see any sort of
positive developments or continued strength and labor markets. The big deterioration in labor market expectations that began in May, you know, was on the heels of some weakening jobs reports, and and so we'll we'll see what consumers experiences are like through the rest of the month.
Very good, Joanne, Thank you so much for joining us. Juan Shoe, She's a Surveys of Consumers director at the University of Michigan. Not just good football players, but good economists as well. So that's we like at the u University of Michigan.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on applecar Play and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business Act. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Joining us now, Harold Krent. He is a professor of law at Chicago Kank College of Law, the author of the book Presidential Powers. Harold, we appreciate you jumping on with us. So the news, of course is a bumstock ban is tossed out by the Supreme Court walk us through what you know, what you've seen, and your reaction.
Yeah, I mean, I think your discussion of it was right on point. There was a nineteen thirty four statute called the National Firearms Act, which bans machine guns, and so the question is whether this altered semi automatic shotgun a machine gun. It does in many ways because it fires automatically. However, it looks different and it's trigger mechanism is slightly different in terms of how many times you have to press it before you can shoot a large
number of shots. So it functions identically to a machine gun, though it works slightly differently. And so the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco is the agency in charge of regulating guns in our federal system, and it has changed its mind about whether a bump stock is equivalent to a machine gun or not. Originally it's said that it was distinct from a machine gun, and so it did not outlaw use of the bump stock under the National Firearms Act.
But after the Las Vegas tragedy, as you suggested, it was indeed the agency under the Trump administration which had a fresh look and on the qualities and characteristics of this bump stock and said, you know, because it functions so similarly to a machine gun, we are going to classify it as a machine gun and therefore consider it
banned under the Act. And the six ' three conservative majority basically was not persuaded and red machine gun in that sort of narrow context, gave no deference to the agency whatsoever, and concluded therefore that a bump stock was not a machine gun and therefore the agency had overset its bounds in trying to ban it.
So, Professor, I know we're just minutes into this, but I mean, what are the practical ramifications of this decision today?
Well, if we want to ban bump stocks, it has to be from Congress. Congress is only then. I don't think that there would be an issue under the Second Amendment. Obviously somebody could raise it, but I think, you know, grenades and machine guns are not the kind of usual weapons that were around at the founding, and so therefore presumably they can be banned by Congress, but they can't be through an act of an administration. It has to be from our elected representatives themselves.
Do we learn anything about how the court voted and what the opinion looks like in relation to the other gun case that is on the docket for.
Them, I don't think so. I don't think there any kind of seeds or any kind of clues about what's going to happen in Raheemi, which you know, I agree is far more controversial case. But this is sort of a you know, if you look at this case from on high, it's sort of remarkable, right, I mean, a bumpstock converts a shotgun into something that is automatically firing
and has the same characteristics as a machine gun. And if we can ban machine guns because we don't think that's needed for you know, hunting or any other kind of lawful use of a weapon, then I don't understand. It sort of defies belief that six of our justices rejected an agency decision under the Trump administration that have classifies these bump stocks as converting a shotgun into a machine gun.
So, Professor, how rare or unusual are six to three decisions like this in terms of party lines being so you know, rigidly followed. How do you think about that? Just in the history of the Supreme Court?
Yeah, And I don't have great statistics going back in terms of the set sort of you know, conservative liberal
fissures within the Supreme Court. But we've certainly seen periods of time where the voting structures are comparable to this, where there is a block on one side and a block on the other, and only in the cases are more interesting, of course, when their decides come together or they have sort of innovative decisions that bridge the gap and you can get a majority of liberal conservative together.
So it does reflect the fact that there's polarization. There's question about it, and the six ' three is you know, obviously was true on the Dodds case and the abortion case and many others, and we'll continue to see that.
There was another case deciding today that had to do with the rights of immigrants to get a second hearing at an asylum and it was not a major case on the asylum law because they had to do with how defective the notice was for a defective notice for a hearing, whether or not they should be allowed if it's defective to have another notice for a hearing before they're reported.
But once again sixth to be split. So it's not surprising and I think we're going to see more of these and with the next twenty or so opinions that are to come.
When you take a look at the rest of the docket for the Supreme Court, what are you focused on most in terms of how what it will tell you either about the court makeup or the ramifications.
Well, to me, and since I do focus on the administrative law of how set that this court is to dismantle our traditional notion of what administrative agencies are and how administrations can regulate the environment and regulate the business sector. Those there are at least three extremely important cases that are pending, and they have the seeds in them of radically reshaping how our government works, because if you take away the powers of these governing administrative agencies, there'll be
a lot less regulation. And a lot less regulation can mean, obviously, in most people, more pollution, more practices by businesses that hurt individuals, and that's what is really gaining my focus.
So, Professor here, presumably does the Supreme Court do they care how the public views them? Or are they really just pure independent, they're there for life type of thing.
You know, it's a great question. I think that Careen once one way, I mean Chief Justice Roberts in particular has been known for trying to shore the institutional respect of the Court. But a lot of the members of the Court, and obviously it's if you want to name names. I mean, it's no secret that Alido in particular is that the view that I have power. I don't know how long I'm going to have this power. This is a unique moment in history where we can really contribute
to the rearranging the way the government works. And he'll do that and it doesn't care at all about what people think of him. So I think there is a split amongst the and I think Justice Barrett is probably with Chief Justice Roberts so that they do care about the institutional legitimacy of the court. But there are some members of the Court who just want to take the moment in the sun and use the power to the best way they can to shape America in their image.
Right.
Well, we really appreciate your incident analysis here for us. Harold Krentt, he's professor of law at Chicago Kent College of Law and author of the book Presidential Powers. Again, that breaking news that in a six 't three vote along ideological lines, the Supreme Court voted a criminal prohibition put in place by the Trump administration to ban bump stocks is thrown out. That bam tossed out by the Supreme Court.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple Car playing Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Let's get to Tesla back in the news again. It looks like our good friend Elon Musk is going to get that pay reward that he believes and now his shareholders believe that he deserves. David Waltz joins us Detroit Bureau chief for Bloomberg News. David talk to us about what this pay package is from Tesla for Elon Muskin and kind of what does it mean for the company.
So that this was a big package negotiated in bombing stock stock options going back I think twenty eighteen. And the controversy is that shareholders said that this is a rubber stand board put in place by Elon. They didn't really have a great view into what they were getting.
So spurred a bunch of lawsuits, and Delaware Chancery Court ruled in the shareholder's favor it's expected to be under appeal, but shareholders approved it, and so that really complicates things as we get into the appeal that shareholders who feel aggrieved are going to go into court saying that they didn't know what they were getting and it's not a good deal, even though the majority of shareholders who hold
the stock now approved the deal. The other thing that they passed is that Tesla will change its domicile to Texas, where the headquarters already is more business friendly laws there. And so if Tesla wins its appeal, or even if they lose it, Elon and the board could just create another similar pay package for him in tex Is under Texas law, and then it would probably start this cycle all over again, but it would be in a different court that could be more friendly to the company and
to Elon Musk. So you know this, this is far from over, this whole fight over the pay package. What it does mean for a near term right now is the shareholders are endorsing Elon Musk and they're saying, we you know, this is the guy we want to stick with. Wind loser draw on the legal actions.
So are we done talking about it now? Like I mean, are we done?
Well, what else does it mean for Tesla? You know the bigger issues I think for this company?
Well sure, but now I know the bigger issues. But before we move on, like in terms of the pay package drama, that book has closed.
No, it's far from closed because the Delaware so Tesla appealed the judge's ruining. So there's going to be another round of litigation on this thing, and who knows how far it could go. Now that's what I mean. Let's suppose the shareholders win and Elon doesn't get his pay package because the court overturns it. What would probably happen is the Tesla board would come up with another similar package, so it would be an all new one, maybe of
similar value structure. However you want to do it for Elon Musk, but they would do it now that the company is domiciled in Texas. They'd do it under Texas law. The fact that they changed their domicile the Texas doesn't matter for this lawsuit because the pay package was done when Texas was a Delaware or Tesla was a Delaware corporation, and so the pay package, what the board did, and the litigation involved is all done under Delaware law Testya's
leaving Delaware. Elon's taken a couple of his companies, including X, out of Delaware, and he's all, he doesn't like being regulated, he doesn't like the laws there, so he's left. He's even going to send them a cake with a parting shot that he's leaving Delaware. But so if you, you know, even if you you have this next round of litigation, even if the shareholders win, they could just come up with another package that rewards him and you could have
this fight all over again. So many more chapters to go in the pay package dispute. Who care? Yeah?
So okay, you were trying to then talk about the broader industry and I made you go into the lawsuit again. So how do they tie together?
Well, what the shareholders are basically saying is despite the fact that that Tesla as a growth company has kind of stalled out, they still believe Elon Musk is the guy to take them there. And the challenge that he faces now to deliver on Tesla still being a tech company, still being a growth company, is you do either have to recharge so to speak. They're electric vehicle sales and they've stalled out for a number of reasons, particularly in the US. One is the cars are old and kind
of stale. They all have the same look to them and they haven't freshened it up. The Modelsques looked the same for twelve years now, and everything else is sort of a derivative of that stylistically. And then there's just a lot more competition. You have four General motors BMW, Mercedes very aggressive in the US, and you have the Chinese ev makers in China in Europe very aggressive as well.
So he's got a lot more competition than he had a few years ago on all these markets, so it's tougher to get growth, which is why he's moving to this. We're an autonomous vehicle AI company and we'll see what happens in August when they show us that. But that's going to be a tough one. I mean, you've got crews and you've got Weimo out there for years now trying to show that they can develop robotexti's and it's
it's really tough to make that work. But that's what's going to con and shareholders that it's a tech company.
All right, David, thank you so much. We appreciate that. As always David Welsch, Detroit bureau chief for Bloomberg News, giving us the latest update on our good friend Elon Musk and Tesla working towards getting that pay package passed form fifty six billion dollars. That gets your attention.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. We'll catch us five weekdays at ten am Eastern on applecar Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just say Alexa, playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Alex still alongside Paul Sweeney. This is Bloomberg Intelligence Radio. We bring you all the top news and business and economics through a lens of Bloomberg Intelligence analysts. They cover two thousand companies and one hundred and thirty industries worldwide. I just want to point out here that the CAC forty is down another three percent today, so we are picking up some steam as we're about a one hour away from the close of European trading, so keep your
eye on that on very high volume as well. In the botto market, you're seeing a continued bid into the bar market. Is it the FED is it safe haven. There are lots of different theories out there as well, but over the whole week so far, the tenure is down twenty two basis points. That's a pretty solid move, So we want to get more on that with Pria Israe Fixed and Come portfolio manager JP Morgan Asset Management.
She joins us. Now, Pria, I think Barclays came out and said, like, look, it's gone too far, like like we want to store it here a little bit. This buying move has gone too far. What do you think?
I don't agree.
I mean, I think there's been a perfect storm the last couple of weeks. Growth is slowing, inflation is finally decelerating. I think we can put that first quarter high inflation prints behind us. We realize that was an outlier, not the start of a reacceleration. So you have growth and inflation both slowing. You know, I think the market is really pricing for growth to slow down to a little below potential, but we don't know, you know, the jury
is out there. Plus we have this political risk which is out there, and we're heading into an illiquid summer. I mean next week itself, we have a holiday in the middle of the week. I think people are getting nervous about the carry trade online and that's what we've seen a little bit this week.
So I'm not sure it's done.
I would not be selling into this, but you know, particularly when it comes to treasuries, I actually think people who've been positioned for a soft landing, which we have been, we've been owning high quality spread product, risky assets. I think actually owning some treasuries is a good hedge because there is really only one safe haven asset in a world wide inflation is declining, and that's still treasuries, and we're not pricing.
In that much.
We're still above, you know, north of four percent on the tenure. So I actually think you're supposed to own those hedges. You're supposed to have liquid assets alongside any of those soft landing traits that you have on.
What is a high quality spread product.
So I'm glad you asked that because it is across the you know, whether it's investment rate, credit, high yield. I think they're parts of high yield that I would say are high quality securitize credit.
So within the ABS C MBS sector.
So I think you dig in, you look at what the companies or structures. You know, what is that money being used for if there's good cash flow. We looked at some of these single family rental you know there it's a business model where you're earning cash flow based on people paying rent, which we know that rent.
You know, rents are are high.
So I think making sure you know the business model there's free cash flow, there's no releveraging of the company or the structure. I think owning that in a diversified way, so we own you know, IG credit, so investment grate credit, high yield credit, securitize credit.
I think that's what we would call.
You know, most of them in the index, many of them not in the aggregate index.
So these would be bonds where.
You're earning that spread for the fact that you're taking on some credit risks, some less liquidity risk, that's what you're giving up, but you're picking up that spread because corporate fundamentals are still very, very strong, and so that's what we're That's why we still like high quality spread product because this is not like other times when there's been a lot of leveraging up or companies are not
doing the right thing with their money. I think as long as you dig in, you realize what you're buying. There's a lot of opportunity within fixed income here.
So it's just to be clear, it's it's credit risk, but it's calculated credit risk. But duration risk is a no no.
Now I think it's now it's getting to levels where duration risk is attractive to I know, we might be disappointed with the FED. The FED sort of moved to one cut this year. I think the Fed has a little bit of PTSD from what happened earlier this year where they signal rate cuts by June and then we get three months of very strong inflation numbers, and so I think the FED is very much data dependent.
But I think owning some duration, owning some five.
Year treasuries or ten year treasuries is attractive because you know, I mean, we can debate whether the first cut is in September or December. But let's look at total amount of cuts the market is pricing in the end point after all these cuts to be three seventy five. The Fed's own estimate for long run DOT is two seventy five.
There's one hundred basis points spread.
I think in a soft landing, the Fed's cutting to three percent, so there's room for rates to decline in that five to ten year part of the curve in a hard landing. So if things slow down more, the FED has told us they're going to be aggressive. They're going to cut much more more than that neutral rate. So I think owning duration risk can I've been nervous around duration risk while inflation was high. I think we take a lot of comfort with some of the inflation numbers.
We're getting the totality of the data. We just slowing down, you know, inflation expectations being anchored the inflation data itself telling you it's really shelter and auto insurance. So if the inflation fear can be put a little bit in the rear view mirror, I think owning some duration risk here, particularly as we're going into an illiquid environment where some of the growth data is showing signs of cracking, I think you should own some duration risk as well.
Some fives intense April.
Let's say I'm a analyst at JPMorgan Asset Management and cover you know, the cable, the high yield, the telecommunications sector in the highyield space. If I commit to your office and say I love this industry. I think you should be buying some of these cable and telecom bonds. Do you care about calls like that or do you just buy credit metrics, ratings metrics, that kind of thing. How are you in terms of giving some way to certain industries.
Yeah, so, I think in general we like to overweight industries, you know, utilities which have the whole electrification or anything linked to AI. So I think we think of industries that are sort of growth industries, industries of the future, versus those that are not. So I think we'll do that work. But then you have to look at valuation at some point if a company is still going to
be around. I mean there are cable companies will tell you which may not seem like they're the companies of the future, but they have solid cash flow, they have plans to reduce some of that leverage, and we own some of those in our funds.
And then we look at valuation. Where are those.
Spreads and if they're you know, there might be double B, single B. There are certainly some cable companies in that range. It can offer value. I think what you'd want to think about is diversifying those forms of return particularly we're going into an election time period where there will be wider dispersion, So I actually think I would listen carefully, ask the questions, understand what the company's plans are for
the debt that they're raising, where are levels? And I think there's value even in a sector which you might say have structural challenges, before we let you go.
I just want to end on Europe because, as I was mentioning, the CAC forty is down three percent. You are seeing a bin to the bond market over in Europe. But it's been a really tough week for France and the spread is really blowing out between France and German tenure. Is there a trade here for you?
You know? Not yet.
I still think there's a washout that's happening. I mean the periphery, whether it was France so Italy. We're very consensus long carry trades. But at some point I have to think we're not talking about France leaving the Eurozone, so at some point we'd want to dip in. I think closer to the election, I will say I hesitate trading political risk. It's impossible to really trade it by very binary risks, but at some point I think if those spreads widen out another twenty thirty basis points, I
think we can start to leg into it. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, because again, you know political risk, and we saw this for so many years in the European crisis.
It's difficult and things can a little.
Bit spill out of control as people de risk. But I think the fundamentals are still strong. Let's see, even if you get the worst case scenario from a market standpoint, will they deliver and will they talk about as much spending that is being talked about. I think there's a campaign season and then what actually gets done. So I think we look at details, we look at.
Poles and at some point, but I think we were still in the early innings.
Afterwhid and pretty it's fair enough and that's what we saw over in Italy with Georgia Maloney. It wasn't as bad as everyone was worried about. Pria Israel fixed and come Portfolio Manager, JP Morgan, Asset Management.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple car Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Say Alexa, playing Bloomberg eleven.
Well for the month of June, Folks, Bloomberg Radio is committed to bringing you segments and guests focus on the topic of equality.
Earlier in the.
Week, guest host just met and I spoke with Yin Maguire, President and CEO of the National Minority Supplier Development Council. We first asked her to talk to us about where we are in this country in terms of implementing diversity.
There is a surge in litigation as a part of very ideological, well funded, and well coordinated effort among a small group of organizations that are completely out of a step with the vast majority of Americans. We have a thought leadership partner called Public Private Strategies Institute. They commissioned Mourning Console study that a few months ago, and the study found that majority of corporate senior executives across all
political affiliations that support the diversity initiative. They believe that diversity initiatives played a critical role in the success of their companies. For example, seventy five percent of them self described as conservatives. Seventy seven percent described themselves as a moderates and eighty nine percent our liberals, and all of them recognizing the positive contribution of diversity initiatives to their
business performance. And so these lawsuits really are part of larger strategies to constrain the ability of business leaders to make decisions for the benefits of their companies. And you know, I came to this country with the one suitcase and one thousand dollars to pursue my American dream, and because I believe America supposed to be a place that one has a freedom to achieve, has a freedom to earn, and has freedom to make decisions, and has freedom to prosper.
And so we're seeing an organized movement to stifle that freedom.
Do you think this is mostly political driven or is it shareholder saying I'm just not sure you've proven to me that it's in the best interest of me as a shareholder to pursue diversity.
I think it's a political driven and it's an ideological movement. We have, you know, NMSCC made up hundreds of thousands of corporations, and so we have a daily dialogue with corporate executives and they believe in the value of diversities. Sometime people don't like the words the E and I, so then let's find the new words, you know.
But the.
Outcome of the diversity initiative is yielding positive business results. It's a good just good for the business.
When you're talking about the American dream and then also corporate America, some of the strides that have been made, but still some pitfalls there. Where did those pitfalls stand? Because you were talking about the litigations, Where are those issues and why are there those litigations, what are they involved in?
So the litigation, as I shared earlier, is a really ideological, well organized effort to block the participation for underserved group into our economic lives.
And it's not new.
So the attack on diversity and opposition to economic equity has been there for a very long time. But if you look at data and effects, it says otherwise. You know, it's very different from what you're hearing in the media.
Right.
So, for example, McKenzie's and the company reported that companies that are more culturally diverse, actually they're yield I think thirty seven percent more profitability than average companies and diverse suppliers who we serve, and they actually provide in the range of, you know, a little less than nine percent cost savings compared to average companies. They realize about three
to seven percent procurement savings. So there are tremendous economic value for diversity initiatives in corporate America.
What about minority businesses.
So the minority businesses, they are ready to compete every day. We work with them to certify them, to develop them, to connect them to opportunities, relationships and a capital. And we have businesses, you know, they started as a startup, a small business and and they grew to be a mid size and to large sized businesses. And we have businesses out there. Forcus example, one of our certified mbes
actually helped design and build finance Liguardi Airport. I was I was walking through the Loguardia Airport right, yes, under the construction.
Over the last decade, I.
Used to avoid Loguarda airport, but since the reconstruction by our mbes, like, I actually want to fly to logard right.
I don't want everyone to know though, because it's so easy to get there from my apartment.
Yes, it's easier, right.
We have mbes there are design and building natural gas power plants, and so they're definitely contributing to our economy every single day. And actually, we're releasing the twenty twenty three Minority Business Economic Impact Study, and you're going to
see some of the reports come out. I'm very pleased to share the NMSDC certified Minority owned businesses generated about three hundred sixty three billion dollar in annual revenue, and that is five hundred and fifty billion dollar economic output, two million jobs, and one hundred and forty nine billion
dollar in wages. And if we continue that trend, that we can actually reach a trillion dollar goal for NMSDC certified mbs by twenty thirty and that's one point five trillion dollar economic output and four million jobs.
So I know you and other advuracyads recently sent a letter to Fortune five hundred companies advocating for DEI. What's been the response to that letter? Any follow up?
Yes, I'm very proud to stand with eleven other CEOs of a broad range of business organizations representing Black, Asian, Latino, woman, LGBTQ,
disability venter owned businesses. We represent seventy plus percent American and we wrote open letter to Fortune five hundred company CEOs really share with them the business cases for diversity, and I really encouraged them to continue to invest in the initiatives and it has been tremendously positive and in fact, working ongoing dialogue with them, continue to share best practices
and problem solving. In fact, I was with a Fortune five hundred company CEO and talking about you know, people just need to stop debating on the term and the words and with the feelings, and we just need to understand why corporations are doing it and why they are doing it. And corporations just need more choices of suppliers, including inclusion of diverse suppliers so they can build rezilient
supply chain. And a corporation is going to need more diverse talents so they can build product services to diverse customer base. Right, so it's really a pure simple business, good business.
Yep.
All right.
That was Ying Maguire, President and CEO of the National Minority Supplier Development Council, talking about diversity in the workforce in the economy and she represents these suppliers all throughout the country.
This is the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast, available on apples, Spotify, and anywhere else you can get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, Bihar right Now, dio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal