Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern on Apple CarPlay or Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube right now.
Joining us on the equity market bracket is someone with a definitive memo working with heymen at evercore is, says Julian Emmanuel, where Sally Good brief ust this morning. How does the Hymen Emmanuel world look with a one point seven percent growth rate? It's gotta change.
It definitely does change.
And there's no question about the fact that when you think about what's gone on the last four to six weeks, you're at one of these points where if you go back before the pandemic, we saw the soft data lead the hard data consistently for the decade before the pandemic. That has not been the case since twenty twenty consistently. But the questions are now open as to whether it is. And so you know, whether it's one point seven, one point five or.
Maybe even two if if things.
Stabilize, the risks are clearly to the downside and you have to account that for that in different ways.
ISI I are the kings of hard data. What's the hard data, you guys see?
So the hard to the hard data is very mixed. Our team, the survey's team, led by my esteem colleague Oscar Slaughterback, basically, it's it's very mixed. There's seen, and it's even more complicated by the fact that, you know, we've had a very poor weather winter and actually this this has been a very poor cold and flu season,
so there's also that going on. And then of course when you think about the stress and the jobs market, it's primarily concentrated in that area in and around sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue, So very very conflicting signals.
How did FED Chairman j pal do yesterday?
Amazing?
Why knocking the cover off the ball?
Because basically, what what.
He needed to do was project a sense of calm in an environment that is anything but calm, and he did, and he made the point. You know, you can argue whether the word transitory was appropriate for the situation or not, but he went out of his way to make sure that that got across. And if you look at the last trade war in twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen inflation was in fact transitory.
So where do we go from here? If you're an investor, I mean you're stepping back. You're saying, hey, I've had at the peak to try off at a ten percent pullback in the marketplace. If I'm in the if I'm in a nastac maybe twelve thirteen percent. Is that a healthy pullback in an otherwise okay market or do we have something really else to worry about here?
Well, in our view, this is a pullback, okay, okay, But look, this is one of these times where the path of policy really is going to set the narrative in terms of whether the pullback has more to go, or whether we think you're actually starting a bottoming process, you know, let alone the fact of something more sinister. The market, to be clear, is pricing stagflation right now.
Julian Emmanuel with a seventh corps ISSI A lengthy conversation to get us started this morning. Wendy Schiller on the Department of Education will be with us from run University, and then on foreign exchange, which was really sophisticated this morning. Audrey Child Freeman a strong hour here on YouTube. Subscribe to Bloomberg podcasts out on YouTube. Okay, Julian, so, I did a nominal GDP math which I learned from ed Heim,
and while they fed, you know, guidance came out. Mohammad Alarian nailed it in a note later in the day out of Cambridge where he said, okay, you got a growth dynamic, you got an inflation dynamic, and nominal GDP came in as a sum total a little bit but pretty much level nominal GDP. Do you guys model out it, we'll see a reduction and nominal GDP. And if we do, does that fold over into reduced revenues at the top line.
Well, in theory it could. But from our point of view, when you think about, you know, the trajectory of both sales and earnings in corporate America right now, it's actually reasonably strong and it goes back to the psychology of the last couple of years. So, in essence, corporate America has actually been preparing itself for the conditions we see now.
Brilliant Let me jump forward. Then, can they cut costs fast enough? Can they adapt to maintain margins?
They have shown it so and there kids don't see that and you bet against corporate America at your peril.
You absolutely do.
Uh.
And from from our point of view, the last couple of years is the reason that the markets were able to survive the shock of you know, the interest rate medicine that we got is because we were so prepared. And then there's this wonderful little tool that's going to backstop productivity. I know we're tired of talking about it, but AI is is is.
They let AI and ed Hymenshow?
Yeah, I can't believe it?
Can't help it?
How do you do AI with a black sharpie?
All right?
So, Julian, if the inflation impact from Taryston mayor be transitory to some degree, how about the hit the one just overall economic growth? Is that a serious issue? That economic growth forecast need to be tempered a little bit?
Well, and and you're seeing it. But again, what's important is the psychology around the jobs markets. It is literally all about jobs. And we like to say that on balance, if you're the retail investing public, you don't necessarily have to sell your stocks while you've still got a job. And so from our point of view, the way the jobs market unfolds is.
Very very important here. And you know, we're just going to have.
To see what the echo of the DOSEE layoffs is in the private sector.
So what are we doing with US stocks here?
I had late last year, earlier this year, I had everybody outside the US rushing into the US stock market. I'm hearing now some of the international buyers are leaving the stock market.
What are we doing with this?
So and no question, that's probably the biggest question we're getting, you know, with international investors selling US stocks. You know, our view is that even if you get a prolonged period of rest of world outperformance, this is not a zero sum game. You look at the last period that happened. It's been so long ago we can barely remember it. But in the OOS all the boats floated. And frankly, again,
this is why policy is so important. There could be a world where there is you know, very positive outcomes globally for policy. There may also be a world where that's not the case, which is why the markets and the economy and sentiment is on such an edge right now.
Tell us about the last paragraph of your claim. Note you go in and you know, I know it's a look back, but you sum up the revenue dynamics, revenue misses down the income statement, earnings dynamics, earnings misses. Do you believe I don't know when is Jay? Let me. I can go to the Bloomberg terminal, folks and look up the statistic because Paul Sweeney taught me how to do it. There we go, JP Morgan. April eleven is when we get JP Morgan?
What is that?
That's nine days after the world ends on April second? Do you have any certainty about the uncertainty of your acclaimed last paragraph looking into the next earning season?
Well, so this is going to be a season where what you're going to want and half starts, as you pointed out, nine days after you know, quote unquote liberation day for tariffs and so so, how is corporate America going to react to those nine days and talk about the path forward?
That?
The issue here is will we be able to chart a somewhat clearer path forward? In terms of the commentary, It's less about what this quote looks like, particularly for the financial companies, which you know you're gonna have mixed messages, great trading, slower banking, But it really is about the path forward and what the view is whether this uncertainty will in fact begin to dissipate.
All right, So given that uncertainty, what are we doing right now? Am I buying stocks? Am I buying bonds? Am I buying alternatives? What are we doing here? I'm mind buying protection? Maybe I don't know.
No, we're not buying protection that that we're that may change in front of April. Second, if the market were to stabilize and get a little bit complacent here.
But I think when you look at this morning, you know.
This is really a process as opposed to and off to the races type of environment or where you typically see volatility come in. We are gently accumulating. We're rebalancing based on the draw down, with the knowledge that the preconditions that end bull markets, with the biggest challenge of those being an impending recession.
And we have to have faith and there is you know, as.
An investor, you've got to have faith, period, but having faith that the course of policy and the resilience of the economy is enough for twenty twenty five not to be a recessionary or which we believe it to be quickly.
Here evercore Isi, how do you go through the process of the recession.
Call right now, jobs jobs, jobs, Okay?
I agree? Four point four percent unemployment, right.
And so the question is when the unemployment report comes out the first week in April, you know, our investors, is the psychology around that report going to be such that we can take that's below one hundred thousand but still positive, okay? And what's the reverberation around that? And from our point of view, we think there will be a resilience built in at that point.
Julian Emmanuel, thank you so much. Terrific summation brief there and economics of evercore Isi and his equity market at work as well.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern. Listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Now. On Gold hugely anticipated with the Gabelli Goldfund, Chris Mancini with us, the portfolio manager for Gabelli Gold. Where do you model gold out? I mean, Chris, if you take a vector, you take the price of gold logarithmic y access, and you extrapolate out where we are. How brave are you to extrapolate out the price of gold.
That's a great question, you know. I'm I'm not that brave. I think that's the answer. After years in this industry, it's like it's very you know what, what is it? The you know, fortune favors the bold. But I'm not so sure it makes sense to be too bold. I mean, I think but but I but I do think that that it's not so brave to say that I think the gold is at least going to stay at this price here, It'll be at least where it is now
by the end of the year. And I think that so that, you know, maybe that is being bold because I think that that that buy and large. There are a lot of people, you know, on the cell side who are saying that it's going to be lower by the end of the year.
I love as Our squared. I think they have his first of all, as are squared is lower than Mario Gabelli's. But I think nobody in the world as an R squared is removed from the performance of the S five like Chris.
Yes, hey, Chris, you know skill on my screen.
What I've got is the price of gold, and I look at it every day, and I quote it every day for our listeners and viewers here.
How about the gold mining companies, how do you think about them? How do they how did they typically perform visa VI the price of gold?
Yeah, well that's that's the key I think is because is because what's happened is that over the past five years, what typically happens is that there's a leverage involved in the gold miner's relative to the price of gold. And that's because there's there's operating leverage. Right, So it costs, say, right now, fifteen hundred dollars an ounce to get an ounce of gold out of the ground, and when the price of gold, yeah, it's right, So it's pretty.
How has that changed over the years.
It's changed.
Yeah, it's changed pretty significantly. So before COVID in twenty nineteen, it was around one thousand dollars an ounce. Now it's around fifteen hundred dollars an ounce, and that's primarily because during COVID it was extremely extremely difficult to mine, Like obviously you can't mine from home, and there were right there were, so there were lots of restrictions in place and things like that are social distancing, quarantine, someone got sick,
they had to quarantine everybody around them. The state of Western Australia essentially had a lockdown of the entire state, so you couldn't get people in and out of the state. And there is a lot of labor that works in the Western Australian as it came from Eastern Australia, stuff like that, So the wages in Western Australia went up a lot, and all these little idiosyncratic things that happened
all over. It really caused the price of gold, sorry, the cost to mine gold to go up so much, and then the cost of kind of stayed there, so we're still at this level where like So what happened was that the price of gold was too was fifteen hundred, the cost was a thousand. The price of gold went to two thousand during COVID, the cost of mind went up to fifteen hundred, So the miners didn't really do
that well whereas they normally should. And what's happened now though, is that the price of minus fifteen hundred, but the cost went from two thousand to three thousand. So we're seeing that the leverage now, but it hasn't been reflected in the minors.
Help me with am like one of your major holdings, Agneco. I guess it is a Canadian company, Venerable, it's been around sixty years. I don't think, I mean, Paul, it's not Apple computer return. But I'm sorry you look at it versus a major US bank or a major consumer goods. I mean, basically, Chris, they're minning money, right, I mean the total return is substanting.
That's very true. No, no, no, that's very true. I mean so that's why I said, I mean, it's we don't need to be that bold to predict that goal is going to stay at three thousand. But that prediction would mean that for Agnico Ego, for example, at three thousand dollars an ounce, they'd degenerating around an eight percent
free cash flow yield. So they're generating and you know, with some growth, so that free cash flow yield should grow over the next couple of years, and so like, yeah, these companies compared to bans, compared to tech companies, are generating you know, substantial free cash flow, so you know, you.
Know, and folks off the twenty twenty two bottom Agnico whatever. However, Agnago Eagles only up one hundred and eighty seven fifty one percent per year, Chris Vancini fifty nine percent of your portfolios. Canadian tariffs discussion. I mean, you know, how do tariffs play in to move in a bar of gold over the Lisa Mateos.
Account in America. Well, that's a good question. No tariffs on gold yet. I mean, but the good thing about gold really is that it's, you know, such a large amount of value. Isn't such a small amount of space because it is so dense, right, and it's so meaning that like theoretically, if there were tariffs on Canadian gold to come into the United States, the Canadians could send their gold to Switzerland on a you know, one planeload.
Wouldn't be that big of a deal to send it to Switzerland, and then the Swiss could do what, you know, could sell it in Germany or they or in you know, somewhere in Arabia or something like that. So it's not it really shouldn't affect the miners too much, thankfully.
Twenty seconds Is White Fang your favorite movie The Klondike Gold Rush?
Yeah, well, you know, it's it's up there. I do, like, what's what's the other one Klondike Strike, the Alaskan gold right, So they're all really good.
Don't be a stranger, Christmas Seon, Thank you so much.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday starting at seven am Eastern on Applecarplay 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 Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Morgan Stanley. She has the worst job she is to tie in US policy. Good luck the cacophony of Washington right now, whatever your politics into trying to hang on to your capital and maybe put it to work to make some form of return. Monica Gerre is incredibly experienced with legit budget duties for the City of New York and also a lot of good work in the House of Representatives. You know, the halls of the House. You
must be on the phone. What are the Republicans and separately, what are the Democrats of the House telling you about the madness down there.
I think that everyone is just trying to get through this as quickly and smoothly as possible, at least from the budget perspective. You know, they're essentially trying to take Doge and Elon Musk recommendations and bake them into this
new budget bill. One of the things that I try to remind folks is that while there's all of this market uncertainty around tariffs, cutting and just general geopolitics, that by the end of the year, so if you're looking August to September, if for thinking about federal fiscal years what I'm talking about, there's likely to be some resolution and for the political sort of rhetoric to die down for a moment, because those tariff piece and the cuts are all going to have to be baked in, right,
They're going to have to actually finalize them to vote on that bill.
I mean, the power of you and Michael Jesus Morgan staling together is really a lot of academics. Do you see tariffs in any way moving the needle on revenue generation for the budget?
The very high end estimates is that they think they can get a trillion. Around a trillion one point three
was the highest estimate I've seen. Realistically, it's seeing closer to maybe seven hundred eight hundred billion, But you have to take into account that they're also going to be tabulating existing tariff revenue, in that they're going to essentially be taking all tariff revenue getting it through these external Revenue Service, a new sort of quasi a agency that's going to funnel the money through the federal government to the treasury versus just going straight to the treasury.
Right.
It creates a dynamic where now they can count it.
To the budget.
So it's already existing revenues that the US Treasury is already receiving, plus new So we have to see exactly what that's going to be in total. So do the new tariffs actually move the needle that much?
Not much?
Does the ship with a phrase shell game come to mind?
Just the federal government in my mind.
She just lost me their completely, But she knows what she's Monica, talk to us about kind of the budget, keeping the government running the budget.
I'm told it. Just give us the timeline.
What should be aware of here as investors.
They're going to have to have a final sort of blueprint by May. That's what we're expecting May. Now, ok, right now we're March. That you'll have you'll have an understanding of what are the top priorities. It doesn't mean that they're not going to change. They can change, as we all know, right until midnight before the bill is passed, So you have we're likely to get those final priorities in May, and then the Senate is really going to have to hammer out what they want this tax bill
to look like for us. When we're thinking through the cuts, the biggest risk to the economy is do they go too far, especially on the labor piece. And we're already seeing some softening with the you know, the the jobs numbers and you know with consumer data, and so how far does the federal government go? How does that impact not just federal labor, because federal labor only counts for one point nine percent of the labor force. It's how to the second derivative, the contractors, right get impact.
Contractors.
I'm not sure exactly that because if you're thinking about the it's not just contractors, it's also your grant recipients, nonprofits, universities, so it's a broader ecosystem. And so I don't have a direct estimate on that today, but when we're thinking
through this, it's how how deep do they go? And then do they actually you know, I guess make good on the bet that then they can you know, spur growth in the second half of this Congress, meaning twenty twenty six, because Trump really has these two years to do business.
But at the Northern Illinois University, you were hunkered down there waiting to do your public policy career. Is there any history in the United States of America that budget cuts create growth.
That budget cuts create growth? I don't think so that's from my understanding. Budget cuts do not create growth. Fiscal stimulus right creates that multiplier effect right for.
The edge I saw with one two and that the Biden stimulus.
Well, one of the things that you're that you're trying to sort of balance here is that part one of this administration is that restructuring, downsizing, cutting, and part two of his of his his legacy setting for Trump. So we're looking at the growth piece on the back end of this. So if you're looking at Trump one point zero, in the first time he was in office, he started
with a stimulus piece and then followed with austerity. So we're in the reverse scenario now and we just have to see if it's going to work out.
So when you're talking to your clients and they ask you about the Trump strategy of near term pain in the economy for longer term gain. Do you tell your clients that's something you can bank on or are you kind of dubious as to whether that can take place?
I would just say I would say more the latter category, right of making sure that we're being prudent about how we're positioning and the sectors and industries that we're looking at. So one of the things I've found interesting through not just assessing which sectors and industries are buffered from tariffs, is that they actually also align with many of the pro growth deregulatory policies of Trump. So things like financials
are likely to do well. You could see some activity on alternative energy in the United States, so not traditional energy, but alternative energy utilities. Other defensive sectors are have that buffer from tariffs. But when we're thinking about pro growth, its healthcare, financials, energy, and that alt section.
Can you see pro growth if your own powers modeling one point seven percent? I mean, we're in a legit stagflation concern. I don't understand. I get Washington doesn't understand economics and finance. We all know that, but can they really establish a quote unquote pro growth strategy.
I think they can in twenty twenty six. So for us, you have to account for the tax cuts and deregulation coming to really fruition in that second year.
This year.
No, So from a tactical perspective, it's trying to find when I'm highlighting those sectors, it's where we see an overlap with tariff's and growth policy, right, tariff tariff insulation and the growth policy. So I think that that's an interesting place to look and try and essentially hedge on both of those issues.
Thank you so much, Monica gre Morgan Stanley on policy this morning.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday starting at seven am Eastern on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg Terminal.
Daniel Kurtz Fhalen had to take over the iconic Foreign Affairs and everybody said, right, and he's hit the ball. I mean, if you're up in Boston, it's at Homer over the turnpike, onto the roof of the cask and flagon. He is hit the ball out of the park. The latest issue is on fire. It sits on my thing next all of his folks. It's like one or two expensive Martinis to get the absolute best in international relations. For example, on their website Foreign Affairs website, you can
read Robert Litheiser, who establish Trump Trade one. You could read Gordon Hanson of Harvard definitive on trade policy and right next to it, and they both appeared in the show recently, Doug err when a Dartmouth was with us the Incoherent Case for tariffs. Daniel kurtz Phalen joins us now with his magnificent magazine. Daniel, you guys must be going twenty four to seven as well. What to bone In Irwin say about what we're witnessing in Washington.
Well, thanks, Tom. I always appreciate the.
Marketing.
We should probably be integrating that Martini line into some of our marketing copies. So I'll suggest that our business side. It's a wild time in international politics and American politics. As as you all know extremely well. You know the bone Irwin piece what we asked them to do. These are two great economists. Doug Erwin probably one of the greatest authorities on trade in the United States at this point, we ask them to really look at the different arguments
and take them seriously. Different arguments for tariffs. Bob Leithheuser, as you noted, has has made you know, sophisticated cases for the use of tariffs and rethinking the trading system. You saw the Biden administration frankly take up, take up some elements of that and run with it in ways that would have seemed surprising not very long ago. But what Bonerer would do is look at the different arguments you can make. Trump has of course talked about tariffs
for a long time. He says it's the most beautiful word in the English language. This has been one of his his fixations for decades at this point. And what they say is that, look, tariffs can work for various ends. If you really want to foster domestic industry, if you want to use it for leverage over other countries, as we've seen in the last few weeks, all of that works. If you want to raise some revenue with it, that works.
The problem is that Trump thinks you can do all of these things at the same time, and each one
of them in some ways undercuts the other. So if you want to use you know, to take the example that we've seen recently, tariffs for leverage to get other other countries to change their behavior, whether that's you know, Mexico sending troops to the border or you know, Canada making at least sort of performative moves on fent and although I'm not sure there's any real substance of that, then you're going to end up taking the tariffs off
relatively quickly and they don't have the other effects. If you leave them in place, despite that, then other countries aren't going to see them as you know, reasonable incentives to change behavior. So you could you kind of target them here, but trying to have them do all these things just becomes this incoherent mess with all the uncertainty for business and everything else.
So, Dan, we think about the discussion in tariffs, which is obviously ratchet up dramatically over the last several months. Is globalism, which is a theme many of us grew up with in business, Is globalism dead?
Well, it's certainly dead in the United States. I think what's really interesting right now is that you see much of the rest of the world continuing with something that looks, you know, fairly familiar to those of US who would have been looking at some of these dynamics a decade or two ago. So you see, you know, Europeans, for example, continuing to look at new kinds of trade relationships with with each other and beyond. I think you'll see interesting
dynamics between between Europe and China. For example. Europe and made a pretty hard turn against China and sees real economic threat, but at a moment when that doesn't have a lot of options, I think you'll see more more activity between between Europe and the Chinese, or Europe and parts of the global South, and certainly in Asia. They're still very, very committed to something that looks a lot
like you know, old school globalism. So I think what could happen is that it'll become, you know, in some ways more fractured. You won't have this sense of a true kind of global trading system, but you'll have lots of regional systems, and then you'll have parts of the world without the US that will continue to move forward. I think the administration thinks that we can we have the economic leverage, the economic might to avoid paying real
cost for that. I think we'll see in time, whether you know, the US feels left out of something that is bringing benefits and bringing power to other countries, especially China and Dan.
Another hallmark of the Trump administration has been a greater sense of nationalism and maybe at the expense of globalism, and pulling back from some of the traditional relationships, whether it be NATO or just our support and how we view your much less our trading partners kinda in Mexico.
Do you believe that that would outlast.
The Trump administration in the sense that let's just focus on ourselves.
Here, Well, you do see it.
It's not so much a turn inward but a real interest in making deals with other strongmen. So you see Trump much more interested in this kind of great power diplomacy with Putin or with shi Jinpang or with you know, Nearendromodi or other kind of strong leaders that he sees is able to really really do business with him, really make deals while he's beating up on allies and really using leverage on allies. So that's I think a pretty different vision of the global system than we've seen in.
A long time.
There are a couple great pieces in the issue that Tom mentioned that that try to make sense of this.
Daniel I could go all about Foreign Affairs magazine, but because of your expertise in China, I've got to ask folks, the book is a China mission. It won every award of twenty eighteen. Daniel kurtz Falen on George Marshall dragged out a retirement General Marshall just shut up and go to China and fix it for us, which, of course George Marshall attempted to do. How do we repair a China US relationship or is it forever on a bipartisan basis fractured.
It's a great question, and it's been one of the really fascinating things to watch in the first couple months of the Trump administration. Was really during Trump one that you saw that bipartisan consensus, that hardline on China start to form, and Trump was, of course one of the
big drivers of that. What we've seen in the past couple of months is signals that he may take a very very different approach at this time, and I think the Chinese government is really kind of waiting to see what that looks like, starting to develop options for what
a kind of a real deal might look like. I'm skeptical that you could really get a kind of grand bargain between the US and China that would wipe away all the really complicated issues, not just about trade and technology and fentanyl, but also about Taiwan and the South Chennessee and all the potential crises in the relationship. So I think you saw in the last part of the Biden administration an attempt to at least create some stability
in the relationship. It's not a return anything that we would have seen a while ago, but to at least prevent it from really going off the rails in ways that it seemed like it might for portions of the last few years.
I can't say now, folks about Foreign Affairs, A blistering essay by Marianna Masakadu and where are we going with the globalization? Paul Sweeney just spoke of Daniel Kurtz fail and driving the ship for Foreign Affairs Magazine as our lead editor. I just can't say enough again about the need for subscription.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast in live each weekday starting at seven am Eastern on Apple Corplay 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 play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
The newspaper's huge number of really interesting story last night, Lisa, how'd you find three of them? What do you have here?
All right? So here we go.
Right, we were talking about filling out the bracket.
I did it.
I have Michigan winning.
Okay.
David Western got to you because I see what happened, and.
He said, I heard you talking about it.
You have to go with Michigan.
It's not a bad call. It's not a bad call.
Okay.
So if I win, I will take David weston after breakfast anyway, So.
We have some fun with it, right.
But the Wall Street Journal has this story out today. Yeah, over the past two seasons, at least seven Division one teams have been involved in unusual betting activity. So it's kind of like this other side. So it says some of the wagers involved people that are connected to that actual ongoing investing gation into that gambling ring. Remember NBA's Johntay Porter, right, he got in.
A lot of trouble for that.
So that investigators started with this look into Temple University that started last month and it's really spread into a lot of these other teams. But what it gets into is that the real problem behind it too are prop bets because it allows better storager on the individual players performance.
And so that's what sparked the reason.
In the middle of the game, you can look at somebody and bet on your three point ability.
Yep, it's yeah, it's just amazing. And so I don't know how you police it. I can't imagine even thinking about policing that kind of stuff. But that's where we are because it's right on your phone, Tom, and kids are doing it too.
I've told you the story.
I over heard a bunch of you know, high school boys talking about betting in a not just betting like at a basic level, but like serious detailed strategies for betting.
I'm like, where do they learn.
To puts pressure on the player too? Because the article is saying how the coaches are starting to hear from their players, like even like some of their family members are pressuring them like hey, maybe miss a couple shots or maybe do this.
This is frightening and yes, right, yes.
Through march Man.
Next, Okay, Tom, I have a new choice for you on your next trip to Paris. Okay, Nice Air France is launching a new first class Okay, they're trying to target those, you know, wealthy tourists because the declining business customers. Right, So these are customers who are willing to pay about twelve thousand dollars for a flight from Paris to New York trip. Okay, So it's investing big time, more than a billion dollars a year for the next five years
for these suites. They're known as La Premiere Okay, fancy champagne, caviare star chefs. It's a suite, it has more space. That's what tom six and a half feet long. Yep, Okay, you get the fancy sleep wear, the skincare produs. Absolutely, you have to flight start this spring, so now you can start book for the next trip.
Okay.
And what's interesting about this and full disclosure, folks, I do fly in France. I love them to death. But but what's interesting about this is it's not business travel. This is people out there and my father used to call it cattle car because we're not we're not taking cattle car. And people will sacrifice to go business class, which is not twelve thousand europes. I mean, it's shocked. I don't know how they do it. It's like thirty three hundred dollars round trip JFK to CDG business class
and that's a lot of money. I can I'm not downplaying it, but.
It's worth it.
But you know, especially it's a big fellow like Tomky. No, I'm not going in some economy seek you know, missus.
Kean and missus Kean and the kid's flying the back. No, I don't, at least I think thing.
Thank you for that.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday, seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal.