Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. So here's the latest ABC News confirming Vice President Kamala Harrison former President Donald Trump have agreed to a President and Your debate on September tent. The two sides hitting the campaign trail in full force today, Harris holding a rally in Phoenix as Trump heads to Montana. Jeanette Lowis Tratiguez joined us now for Moreette, this has been agreed. September tenth is the day on ABC. I just wander, from your perspective, who
is most at risk? Go aga into that.
I think that Trump is a little bit more worried about his positioning since Harris has gotten into the race and is now the Democratic nominee.
So I think he is actually looking at.
This to try to have a similar a similar debate as he had on June twenty seventh against President Biden.
So I think there's more risk there.
What we're definitely seeing since Harris has gotten into the race is a lot more momentum on the Democratic side. You've seen the national polls a three point five percentage point move from Trump, who had been up about three percentage points to now Harris being up just about a half a percentage point. In the swing states that matter for this election, you've seen a move of more than
two point five points in Harris's direction. So now we really do have a fifty to fifty race where it could be a very close calm November, and I think he really wants to use the debate to try to rehighlight and be able to attack Harris on some of the key issues that he thinks are un lacking.
Now, Jenette. He also yesterday in his press conference, Donald Trump floated to other debate who was more at risk of having more debate time when it comes to not just on this ABC News one, but Trump was floating an NBC News debate as well as a Fox News debate.
You know, it's interesting.
So obviously, I think the June twenty seventh debate that was probably a bit of a surprise to many people. You know, usually the incumbent president does lose their presidential debate, but that was just quite a different debate than I think anyone was expecting.
Trump could be more.
Disciplined in the debates, as we saw in the June twenty seventh debate, but at the same time, there could be you know, different reactions, kind of like what we had in his press conference yesterday, where that could actually hurt him. Now, if Harris is also on the defensive and he's actually get able to get a lot of blows, that can hurt her, So debates can actually be quite
up in the air. I think that's why we also kind of want to see what happens at this first debate, and if that means we want more than one usually, but obviously we do have three. So I think Trump is now trying to go back to that traditional mode. But that's also a lot in a couple of weeks right before the election, so we'll see what happens.
We also heard from Kamala Harris yesterday, the Vice president talking about the fact that her team has scheduled or she's asking her team to schedule a sit down interview before the end of the month. Unclear if that means it's going to be scheduled for August or potentially September, but there was also reporting that they would maybe want to sit her down with her feet pee pick Governor Wallas.
Do you get a sense that the campaign is trying to shield her from some of these more direct confrontations with journalists.
You know, I think it's unclear. I think one of the things that this has been a very fast campaign, so it's only been three weeks. I think to some extent, she might be still trying to get her feet under her and make sure that she kind of knows what.
Her policy positions are.
So there could be some of that in part of the delay as to really be doing more of these interviews. But I think also she's kind of has the momentum at this point now.
She is a better debater.
She is better in front of the camera, I think than she has been in the past, So I think that does have a benefit for her, But there could be other factors that I'm not quite sure exactly what they may be, but I think this is something that the Trump campaign is now trying to latch onto to try and make that saying that she won't show up in front of the press, she won't do interviews, and she won't take.
Questions to that.
She's been vice president for about four years now, Is it a problem she doesn't yet know her policies?
Well?
I think it's also just, you know, as a vice president, she's trying to toe the line of what the president Biden wanted right now. You know, we've seen that she's not taking necessarily the same positions that she took as a candidate in the twenty twenty cycle, so things like fracking, she's trying to like moderate her position on Israel a
little bit. I think these are the things that she wants to really make sure she has really ironed out better, because obviously we know in this new cycle that people love to take anything that you say and then kind of spin it. So I think she also wants to make sure she does have her messaging down. But she does also have a risk there that if she's actually not showing up in in front of the press, she's not able to answer questions and talk about our policies.
That can also be a risk for her campaign as well.
Janet, just before you go, quite clearly the vice president is driving enthusiasm at the top of the ticare how is sent in House? Rice is evolving since Spiden dropped out and she stepped up.
Yeah, So one of the biggest things that we've seen is that since Biden got off the ticket and Harris is now the new nominee, we've seen the odds of a Republican sweep drop quite a bit. They were fifty five percent on July sixteenth, They're now down to thirty two percent this morning. And you also have twenty five percent odds of a Democratic sweep and twenty five percent odds of divided government in the scenario of a Democratic president, Democratic House.
And a Republican Senate. I think what's interesting about.
This cycle is is that you could have divided government under either scenario whoever wins the presidency, just because the margins are so tight right now in the House and the Senate. So, for instance, if Harris is getting a lot of momentum, the Democrats only need a net four seats to win the House, and those are seats that are also in states like Alabama, and there's one seat in Alabama, there's seats in California and New York and New Jersey. The Democrats do have an opportunity to flip
this cycle. So if she has momentum, even if she doesn't win the presidency, there is still a possibility the Democrats could have control of the House. On the flip side, the Senate does look like it's going to move to the Republicans because you have a center or mansion no longer running in West Virginia. I think that becomes a Republican pickup. And then also John Tester is currently down in the state of Montana, so that could be another pickup.
So there is this.
Interesting dynamic where we could have divided government no matter what. So I think that that's something that we need to look forward to because it's obviously going to have big implications for what policies can be enacted next year, and particularly as we're talking about the debate. I'm sorry, it's about taxes and the debt ceiling debate.
Jeanette got it, just fantastic. ANCIL always do not load their astrtigus days that I says Donald Trump using a Marijuanca news conference to express frustration at the Federal Reserve. The comments echoing of Wall Street Journal report back in April saying that Trump's allies are drawing up plans to blunt the Fed's independence should he win a second term, a report that Trump's team has since pushed back on.
Repeatedly joined US Now to discuss his Republican Congressman Frendshill of Arkansas Congressman, I'm going to start with a really dangerous question. What is the former president talking about?
Well, Jonathan, great to be with you. I think every president in the modern era has certainly criticized the FED and lashed out and trying to have more control over the FED. But since World War Two, having FED independence is important. We want to try to have price stability. That's their mission. I wish they focused only on the
price stability, but nonetheless that's their mission. And over my time in public life, I've seen presidents try to influence the FED through moral suasion by calling them over to the Oval office. Baker and Ronald Reagan with Valen Green span for the nineteen eighty four A vote election year. But the bottom line is the FED can appoint, be able to have fled's chairman appointed by the President to
the Senate confirms that position. The House and Senate conduct major oversight over the operate fat Well, there is political tension.
There, Congressman. We heard from Jared Bernstein, of course, from the White House director of the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors. He tweeted this yesterday saying history cannot be clear regarding the lasting and damaging inflationary consequences of ignoring this lesson, of reversing the hard earned progress of the past half century. So you agree with the White House that the FED should remain completely independent, Well, I agree with.
The record of history that the FED should be independent. That's a central bank tenet that the FED should generally, the central bank of a country should be independent of the fiscal authority or or the legislator of brench to
protect the price stability. And as I say, since World War Two, when we had actually Treasury representation on the FED board, that's been done informally through the appointment process to make sure the President's pleased with whoever the chair is, and the Senate confirmation process, and there have been times during tension where there's been White House meetings with FED
chairs or White House influence. Richard Nixon famously trying to influence Arthur Burns during the nineteen seventy two election cycle, the Jim Baker and Ronald Reagan antidote that I just mentioned. But structurally it's maintained its independence, and I think that's important.
So let's talk about some of the FED policy. When the Foreign President was talking about this yesterday, that he would potentially have a better gut feeling or interest rate should be, he said that heat chair Powell tends to be a little bit lead on things. He gets things a little bit too early and a little too late, and he says he would have this feeling potentially he'd
be a better FED chair because of that. Do you agree with where the FED is right now or do you think they should be cutting and if so, do you think it'll be political for them to take this cut? In September, well Sherman Bella says they're data dependent.
I think that's good, But I think the way to avoid these kinds of fights without much assurance of what direction of the other is to have a rules based monetary policy, the so called John Taylor Rule from Stanford University. John and I work together on the White House Staff in the nineties. The so called Taylor Rule would make a range of mathematical recommendations on the targeting of short
rate rates by the FED. As opposed to it being just a group of individuals on the Board of Governors deciding that, or as Jim Grant refers to it, a PhD standard, we would actually have a rules based standard. Some others want to go back to a gold standard. But a rules based standard would have a range of guidance to the Fed of whend to cut and how much to cut, and that would take some of this instinct out of it.
So Congressmen, given that, and this is a criticism, other people have said that the FED needs more of a framework. They don't have reliable framework at this moment. Do you think that's something that should be mandated in for the FED? Would you like to see something along those lines.
I would like to see a rules based framework. And when Chairman Powell was before the Committee a few weeks ago, I asked him the status of their reassessment of their very famous decision in August of twenty twenty, in the middle of a pandemic, to just let inflation run a little hotter than two percent, knowing that they could rein it in which I think.
Is a.
Strong presumption that I don't know that's based in fact as we've witnessed since twenty twenty one. I think that is an opportunity for the Fed to reassess using a rules based framework for their monetary policy.
A Congressman, since we last spoke, this race has changed a lot, particularly in the last month. Can you talk to me about how you see things evolving right now when it comes to the issues. I think the impression that a lot of people have that are coming on this program right now is that we're not really talking about those so much. It feels like we're talking about the enthusiasm, the vibes, and the improvement that we're seeing on the Democratic ticket since the sitting president dropped down
of the race. When it comes to the issues, I know that you're very, very focused still, Congressman, on immigration, Can you walk us through the things that you're concerned about and do you think the former president is doing a decent job of prosecuting the case?
Well? First, let's start there. I think to win this election, it's a great opportunity for President Trump to be re elected. I think his policies are much more in alignment of my views are on the economy and national security, and particularly border security. But we've got to stay focused on the issues and get off some of the personalities here. Let's focus on the issues, and I think your President
Trump and his vice president nominee JD. Evans focus on the issues of national security, the border, community, policing, inflation. They went and they went hands down on the border. What I'm the most concerned about by the horrible Biden policy of an open border is not just the millions of people he's allowed in the country that we don't have a full instinct of what to do about or how to handle it, and swamping our border patrol system, but the number of terrorists, people on the tear watch
lists that are in this country. And we've asked a Chairman Turner of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Grain of the Homeland Security, and I have persistently for months asked for this administration and the FBI and Homeland Security to tell us where these people encountered on the terror watch list are in this country, what has happened to them? And when you think about millions of god aways, how many more people are in the country that we don't know
about that we did not encounter. I find this very concerning in light of the Pakistani comments about the Trump assassination attempt, of the continuing Iranian documented Iranian influence in the country on assassinations, in the recent Philadelphia discovery of an isis K network that was operating the country having come across our open border.
Kamorsman, if you're so concerned about the border, why did the Republicans then ditch this idea of the legislation that was circuling starting in the Senate with Langford when it came to border security.
Well, first we passed HR two, which is the preferred approach for House Republicans on both immigration reform and border security. We got it passed, we sent it to the Senate, there was no action on it. Senator Langford did a good work trying to find consensus in the Senate, but look, he was still facilitating thousands of people, undocumented people coming in the border. He was not taking the concrete steps that we put in HR two. So I think Am Marie.
That was the key difference for Speaker Johnson, for House Republicans, and that's why that bill did not proceed in the center.
Congressman, we have to do this more often, sir. It's going to catch up. And I promise if you I say this every single year Razorbacks football, We're going to make it happen this winter. Okay, going to make it happen. All right, Thank you, sir. The Congressman French Shill of Arkansas. Deborah Netshirt of Jennison, expecting to growth to continue for Lily, writ in this thanks to a significant ramp up in manufacturing capacity, uptake is going to increase dramatically in twenty
twenty six to twenty eight. This will translate into significant sales and earning acceleration. Debra's joining us now to walk us through all this and expand and give us detailed Deborah in a way that I think we've been lacking over the last few weeks or so. Welcome to the program. I think for many people, and I'll speak for myself when it comes to Novo versus Lily, I don't know what the difference is, what the drugs are and what the real distinction is between the two companies is Debora.
Can you help us with that? What is the distinction between those two firms and the treatments and the drugs that they're putting out to market.
Sure, well, thank you very much for having me. It really does feel like they are part of the same conversation lately and thought about as one company, doesn't it.
So Lily we'll start with Lily.
Lily is a little bit more of a diverse company than Novo. They have a huge business and diabetes and obesity, as we've talked about and as everyone knows, but they also have been incredibly successful in oncology and immunology and are just launching a new drug for Alzheimer's. But because of the sheer size of the diabetes and obesity business, a lot of the rest of Lily doesn't not get talked about. The main drugs for Lily are ze Bound and Manjaro. Is that Bound is marketed for obesity, whereas
Munjaro is marketed for diabetes. Novo is a little bit more of a diabetes pure play. They've had a very long They've had a long tenure in diabetes with a big insulin business, turning to the golps. They have ozebic for diabetes, they have ribeltis, and then they also have a GOV which is their obesity drug.
I also understand the difference between those obesity drugs themselves. For example, one of the big criticisms of Novo was you have this drug that comes out and it allows people to lose weight, but you have a problem where people are losing muscle mass that in a way they're almost becoming less healthy because of that. Who is at the forefront of addressing that issue.
Well, I think I think the jury is out whether or not the muscle mass is really an issue right now. We need longer term data on obesity, which we don't yet have. I think the one thing that you should think about is we at Jennison really focus on the long term, and if you look at the long term data from diabetes, we're not seeing any adverse events related
to this difference between muscle and fat laws. So I think we just need a little bit more time and a little bit more data to see whether or not this is a long term issue with these drugs.
And in the meantime, I mean the adoption and even just the addressable market for these drugstebra is really big. Since the nineteen seventies, the United States has had an up trend in obesity rates. Are we about to witness a wholesale societal shift where for the first time really since the Great Depression, that obesity rates are going to start to fall.
It would be really great if we could do if we could see that because there is such a large downstream effect of obesity on other body systems. One of the most interesting things about the gops is just the number of different diseases that they are having an impact on. Seen a positive cardiovascular risk reduction in morbidity immortality. We've seen an impact on liver disease called MASH. We've seen positive impacts on slapapnia. We've seen positive impacts on kidney
disease and other types of cardiovascular diseases. So hopefully, as time goes on and these gops are adopted, we'll see this downstream effect take place. I think the thing to focus on is since the obesity mids have come out, we've really been supply constrained, and both Lily and Novo have made really positive strides on supply and are going to be exiting twenty twenty four with significantly more supply than they've ever had before.
There's been a ton of enthusiasm, but you say utilization isn't even close in terms of percentage of these drugs in the market. Where do you see this going in terms of percentage of the next five ten years.
I mean significantly higher than we are now. We're really still only in the single digits when you think about obesity, so we have a long.
Way to go.
There's a lot of people, Debora, as you know, trying to develop second derivative trades around this story, and I just wonder for you and the team what the process is that you go through to develop those kind of trades. I can save you from our perspective on this program.
We've had everyone from talking about the snack business all the way through to the airline business and talking about the savings on fuel costs of all things, Debora, if the average passenger loses some weight, how are you thinking about those second derivative trades?
Well, when we think about when we think about the second derivative trades, we're really focused on any I'm looking at drugs that can actually move the pup forward, not really be similar to where we are now.
For the obesity market, we.
Believe is going to be incredibly different and segregated in lots of different ways in ten to fifteen years from now. And by that I mean there's going to be different types of drugs and different types of administration profiles and and timelines. And you take the drug for people that need to lose different amounts of weight, so there will be a lot more options.
If you need to lose twenty five.
Percent of your body weight or ten percent of your body weight, there's going to be a drug for you. There's also going to be a lot of combination drugs for patients who have comorbid conditions. So we're really paying attention to companies that are going to be able to
move the puck forward and find a differentiation. The thing that's really interesting is even Lily, when they were on their second quarter call yesterday talking about the amount of R and D that they are doing that Novo's doing, they haven't stopped with these Neither of these companies have stopped with developing drugs and R and D. They are still pedaled to the middle to try to develop the
next best thing. If you look at what's happened with supply and just the sheer number of clinical trials an a newcomer coming into this market is going to need to spend a significant amount of money on both R and D and manufacturing to really play. So it's not only about can you develop a drug that has weight loss that is better? It's what else does this drug do? How is it different than what we have? Is it
more tolerable? Is the administration profile more favorable? And then also can you develop a really broad phase three program and afford to develop a really broad Phase three program to demonstrate efficacy across as many diseases as both Lily and Novo have and are.
Continuing to And then can you.
Build manufacturing and scale it up and build supply to really be able to be a meaningful entrant.
In this market.
Yeah, that's not easy. That so, Deborah, appreciate your time and place. We've got to make this happen. I have no doubt we'll be talking again soon. Debonnat shut There of Jennison Associates. This is the Bloomberg Sevenants podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angio politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from
six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.