Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern on applecar Player, Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We drown updated. Usually we're with Jeffrey Rosenberg of Black Rock. When we're breathless, the Feds cut rates, blah blah blah. Today we pause and we have a quiet or mer serene Jeff Rosenberg he comes in Cardigan, He's like casual, you know, it's like not fed day or jobstay or CPI day. An intelligent conversation. How hard is it to be at Blackrock and be trying to figure out coupon or total return?
Is it a fun business now or is it brutal every day day to make the right decision.
Well, there's just a lot of cross currents.
And although it seems kind of quiet, it's it's about an hour and ten minutes till you know, we start the morning in fixed income and then it's ECB day. Actually, so there's it never it never stops.
Is the stuff you learned at Temper at Carnegie Melon valid now is the textbooks help you in this fixed income market?
You know, it's a great it's a great question.
And I talk a lot to new graduates, and you know, I look back on you know, I was the third program at the Carnegie Mellon Computational Finance program, and you know what was important is is that you learned how to learn. You learned how to keep your skills relevant because like, for example, when I was there, like the credit derivatives market hadn't yet even been invented, but the underlying kind of intellectual foundations of that was interest rate derivatives.
And so I had the interest rate derivative background, and then when credit derivatives became kind of invented, it was all based on the same kind of academic I.
Want to get this in quickly. Paul wants to jump in.
We've got Jeff Rosenberger Blackrock with us for this entire Two blocks into forty five after the hour, I was in the Saint Regions Hotel in Beijing and Jillian Tet did an article on something I'd never heard of, cdo squaredes a.
Million years ago?
Are we back to that now with derivative cuteness? Are we doing in six seven reducts.
So you know, it's it's a it's a it's equip somewhat attributed to to Mark Twain. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes, and I think that's the way to think about, you know, cycles and financial cycles and innovation, you know, particularly around around credit. You know, we've had credit cycles from time immemorial.
This one is.
Particularly interesting, right because it's in the post GFC environment where we've seen something we've never seen before, this massive expansion of liquidity from a step function change in the role of central banks and the amount of liquidity in the market. And liquidity is the essential ingredient in extending a credit cycle, right, my favorite, probably greatest quip of all time. You know, hats off to the source of this one, which is coming to a movie, you know,
on Christmas Day with Timothy Shallow. A rolling loan gathers no loss, and you know what allows you to roll over those loans extends a credit cycle, and that's liquidity. So this has been a fifteen year long credit cycle. And so you do a lot of things when there are a lot of liquidity in the markets and you extend and you know, things build up and you know, we'll see it's not history repeating. We're not doing CDO squares,
we're not leveraging up subprime mortgages. Right, That's why we don't repeat those things because we look at those mistakes and we fix the past mistakes. But looking forward, you always find new ways to find new sources.
And Jeffrey thil but the best performance year to date in fixed income has been US corporate high yield US leverage loans of eight nine percent. I mean, do I take that risk going into twenty twenty five? Do I take that credit risk going into twenty twenty five?
So we're at you know, almost through depends on which you know, metric you you look back in terms of history, but we're at or close to the tight levels of spreads observed in those markets. So you can take that risk, but you've got to understand what your distribution of outcomes looks like. It's a carry trade, it's an income trade. Now, why are the spreads so tight because corporate balance sheets,
corporate profits. You know, despite all the back and forth about what is GDP doing and what's inflation doing, corporate profits have powered through. So with the inflation story, what has happened is pricing power, and so corporate profits really are what are driving you know, corporate risk premiums. And there's one other thing that's really interesting happening in this
market about Tom Scurlier. A question in terms of innovation is kind of what you're measuring in the public markets is changing because we're redistributing the balance of credit risk between bank underwrited credit that stays on bank balance sheets, public credit markets that we measure in those indices, and then the types of credits that are being you know, increasingly found underwrited in the.
Private credit market.
And that distributional change makes some of those historical comparisons a bit different. But the bottom line is spreads are very tight. Could they go tighter maybe, But you should expect that your carry is going to be the best case scenario and that if there's any kind of surprise to the downside, you're going to be looking at some price erosion from spread widening.
In the twenty twenty five outlook, what.
Does your federal Reserve do on December eighteenth?
Oh wow, I think if we pull up the Bloomberg function WRP in Cincinnati, you will it's radio that was that was a radio joke hopefully.
Addition, just like you know, see.
You, Tom, So, I think it's one hundred percent or ninety nine percent expected. So the FED has kind of backed itself into the corner and doesn't want to disappoint market expectations. But you look at that inflation print yesterday, you look at the ease of financial conditions, Tom, You've seen me say this on every FMC, every payroll meeting. That the disconnect here, and it's been a disconnect for a long time, is the disconnect between the Fed's view of how tight policy is and how easy policy.
Is when you measure it by financial conditions and.
The ambiguity of our economics. Jeffrey Rosenberg with US with black Rock this morning. Rates go down, it's ambiguous. Does a goose GDP or is it a question of a slower demand?
You go down, you get.
China deflation or massive disinflation. When you see rate cuts like we see, which of it is it an attempt to goose GDP or a desperation towards deflation.
So I think for the impact on the US, the FED wants to normalize and they think that they're tight. I wrote about this at the beginning of this year, and it showed up when the FED finally cut rates by fifty bases points in September, and I called it the new conundrum. Right, So you guys will remember the old green span conundrum. Right, he was raising rates, but long term rates weren't going up. They were going down because back then China was rebalancing, not rebouncing, reinvesting all
of his trade surpluses back into treasuries. And we couldn't understand why the Fed couldn't.
Control long term interest rates.
So I've talked about the possibility that we could see the new conundrum. What's the new conundrum is here we're cutting interest rates in the short end, but the law end isn't responding. That's exactly what happened in August, right, we cut interest rates fifty basis points, the long end went up. And I think when you look into twenty twenty five, right, we've taken down the amount of cuts that the.
Fed is expected, but they're still expected to cut.
Rates and if they do, and this is what yesterday's inflation print is kind of worrisome, is we're kind of getting into the consensus around this sticky inflation. Okay, so why are they cutting next month not next month, next week? Because they want to support the job market and the concerned about the tightening, So they're showing their hand that there's a little bit of preference for the labor market
over the inflation view. Okay, well that's a problem for the rate cutting cycle because you can cut the front end, but the back end may be more worried about that sticky inflation and worried about some of those longer term issues around debt and deficits in the fiscal policy side. So the rate piece could get very interesting next year, where the directionality on the Fed doesn't necessarily create the
directionality for the bond market. And remember, most of the bond market returns are going to come from the longer end if you're holding say an AG or a typical kind of index portfolio. So kind of thinking that your returns are going to follow what the Fed is going to do in twenty twenty five kind of like what we saw in October, you know, maybe a tricky and problematic.
Way of investing in fixed income.
Next year coming in January, we got a new administration coming in, we have a new Congress that canna be seen. Did that change the way you guys think about opportunities, risk reward.
Yeah, I mean, I think we're all kind of going through it's that time of year, twenty twenty five outlooks and.
Oh no, don't tell me you did an outlook.
No, I spare myself the December out of but.
Come January we write a here's what we think for this week, so you know, you know, and it's basically, you know, this tremendous amount of policy uncertainty, and which policy uncertainty gets unwound or realized.
First, right, and so the problem is the stuff that can be done quickly.
Trade immigration is the stuff that has a little bit more worrisome uncertainty for the economic impact, and the tax pieces and the deregulation takes a little bit longer to play out. So you have a timing aspect for how this kind of policy uncertainty unwinds in the first part of the year, and right now no one really knows where that's going to shake out, and it's creating this
kind of policy overhang of uncertainty. But you know, what we've seen obviously in financial markets is kind of the post election reduction in the pre election uncertainty that's leading to kind of reduction in volatility, kind of what you might.
Call the everything rally. So what am I doing on credit? I mean, you know, I could sit here in a two year at four point two percent?
Do I take credit risk here?
So you can take some credit risk, And as I was saying in the kind of the earlier segment that the credit risk, you want to preserve some flexibility.
You want to preserve some.
Ability to change your portfolio because you really don't have a lot of upside in terms of price appreciation. You don't have a lot of downside when it comes to kind of the base scenario for.
Twenty twenty five.
The economy's doing well, corporate profits are doing well, but you have a lot of that reflected in the price right, So you just don't have a lot of good asymmetry on your side. So you want to kind of start the year with a little bit of flexibility. You can own credit here, but I wouldn't be max overweight into my credit position at the beginning.
There's a belief out there, i'd say, in the zeitgeist that the big companies that are riding and high right now won't issue credit until rates come down. I don't buy it. That's a consensus view. Is a big surprise. Next year they're all going to start issuing.
So you've got to separate kind of discretionary issuance, which is what I think you're talking about, Like where do corporations have the ability to show some flexibility to remember, like the average maturity of investment grade debt is like seven years, right, so you've got twenty fifteen percent of that debt coming do every year. So there's just this kind of recycling effect where you're getting issuance because it's just part of the natural.
But then we'll get an overlay on top of that.
Yeah, and then the overlay on top of that. You know, you will get some of that because the credit spreads are very tight, so there's very good kind of pricing power, you know, never mind the rate aspect. The rate aspect is a little bit tough for one to time. So it's really when you see kind of issuers pull back and ad is are they getting really attractive issuance on the spread side, and right now they're going to get very attractive issues.
Meg seven sends around all the houses their Christmas gift thing, you know, the holiday.
You should see the fruitcake CROs backrock. It's just the unbelievable.
The fruitcake first calling me, all right, so what's your Where's the best value in the fixing the space today as you think about twenty twenty five.
Yeah, So I think there's value, and there's and there's kind of opportunity, and so I think the value is in the front end of the curve because that's the part where I think if you're gonna see some kind of reaction from the fed's policies in twenty twenty five, that's where you're going to see it, and you're not as exposed to what I was highlighting earlier before, this kind of conundrum risk where fedce cutting rates, but back end rates are really reflecting more long term inflation or
debt and deficit issues. Value is tough across fixed income because of the tightness of spreads, So it's really about relative value and relative kind of risk exposure. Front end investment grade there's not a lot of spread, but there's not a lot of risk, so it's kind of.
An okay place to be. There's no real kind of.
Jump up and down and back up the truck. As I said, before. It's more about.
A little bit starting the year, a little bit more flexibility, a little bit more liquidity, a little bit more defensive on how tight spreads are, and then use that to take opportunities.
If you know there's some surprises.
Which is what we're going to get right, you just can't predict them by definition.
That gives you an opportunity to take advantage.
Then what are systemic strategies?
It's systematic.
Systematic is what's the difference? Tell me what do you guys do?
Yeah, so basically the key of what we do is to exploit opportunities in the cross section, right and and and look at alpha opportunities.
Uh and and.
What we do is take out you know, so much of what we talk about in the markets is the direction right, our rates going up, our rates going down. Look, the reality is getting the direction right is pretty hard. So if your alpha source, if your outperformance source, is betting on direction, it's it's you know, you get maybe four times.
A year to make that correctly.
If you look inside of financial markets.
Inside the what we call the cross section, there's a lot more opportunities to take advantage of the key driver of alpha, which is which is dispersion, and that's kind of like the centerpiece of our systematic strategy and over markets.
Folks, what you just heard from mister Rosenberg is gospel. I can't say enough how wrong the financial media is on this, focusing on vectors out six months they changed like an aircraft carrier turning around in the Mediterranean. And the grind is day by day looking for that differential in price, which if.
You're a black rock, you gotta use Greek letters.
I mean, you know you went to Cardie email three hundred billion doing this.
He named his third kid Epsilon. I mean, what's that about, Jeffrey Rosenberg?
Hey works thy, wonderful to have your studio, particularly this was great. It's not like what did the FED do? What about paragraph three? I mean, you know, it's it's just a it's a different Jeffrey Rosenberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from seven to ten am. Easter Listen on Apple car Play and Android Auto with a Bloomberg Business happ or watch us live on YouTube.
There are people that said rates are going up and inflation's not going back to a John Williams two percent too quickly. Jim Bianco out front, Doctor o'larian's done a great job. The City Group, Combine Hollenhorst and that crew, great job and other people that you know, the small brain. I have it without the sake of going. But Lindsay pieg is the one the day after day after day just said shut up, Inflation's not coming down. She's my economist of the year with Stifel. Doctor Piegs that joins
us this morning. Lindsay, the global rate cut, the race to the bottom. Is it about trying to goose output or is it a modest panic about is David Rosenberg says too much economic capacity, that there's not enough demand out there.
Rates got to come down now.
Finally, well, I.
Think we're seeing very diverging economic conditions, which warrants different policy for the ECB, the Bank of England versus what we're seeing from the FED. We're seeing faltering growth overseas at a much more precipitous decline and inflation here in the US. Growth is averaging your three percent over the past six months, and inflation is not showing further improvement but rather momentum to the sideways and in some cases
an acceleration in some of these key components. So this divergence is very much to be expected given that differential in economic and underlying conditions that we're seeing abroad versus in the domestic economy.
Up But Harvard Jason Furman does a great job.
He calls it his ecumenical inflation as he combines.
All sorts of series.
What is your ecumenical treatment of yesterday's inflation report? Can you see a disinflation vector?
Well, I think at this point there was not enough momentum to the upside to dissuade the FED from that December rate cut. I do think the committee is going to push through a third round cut next week, given
that the increase was in line with expectations. Remember, FED officials have reset the bar for December, saying, as long as the numbers are within our expectations, within our forecast, that's not enough to derail our progress towards further relief for the economy, as long as the economy is still strong and solid but not overheating. So the threshold has
been adjusted higher for December. But going forward, if we continue to see inflation at these elevated levels, this lack of progress as we've seen in the core now for the past several months. I think the Fed is on the verse. They're going to be backed into a corner to take that policy pause sooner than later in the new calendar year of twenty twenty five.
Lindsay, we're going to have a new administration coming in next month, on new Congress to be seated. Are you concerned about some of the We haven't heard much about the economic policies of the new administration, but I guess tariffs are certainly part of it.
Tax cuts are part of it.
Does that raise materially your inflation concerns in this economy, Well.
It certainly raises the risk scenario. We don't necessarily know how these policies are going to impact the economy, how these policies are going to impact from an inflation standpoint, because we can't look at them in and of themselves. Large sizeable tax cuts could be inflationary, but we've heard from the incoming Trump administration they're likely to be offset with large sizeable reductions in government spending elsewhere, And so it depends on how this net plays out from an
inflation standpoint. Just like tariffs in and of themselves not inflationary, but if we see the economy engage in a tit for tat retaliatory cycle of consistent increases in tariffs, that then could lead to inflationary pressures. So there's still a lot of question marks, but I think it does raise the upside risk, which in part is why the Committee wants to force through as much policy relief as they can now before they face that potential downside limitation due to fiscal policy restraints.
Lindsay r economy's seventy percent services here, how's the consumer doing from your perspective.
Well, the consumer is proving surprisingly resilient. We continue to to see consumers out in the marketplace spending on goods and services.
Which is wait, wait, wait a minute, Lindsey, you nailed this. Go back six months. How did you guess that the consumer would be resilient? What was the pixie dust where you said the gloom cruse wrong?
Well, I think the majority of the analysis was looking at the primary support for the consumer during the pandemic and the immediate aftermath stemming from fiscal stimulus. We pumped trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars into the marketplace, and with that stimulus largely concluding the notion was the consumer has to fall off a cliff. We haven't seen it yet, but the consumer has to be marching towards
that endpoint. And I thought not so fast, because there's a number of variables that are continuing to support the consumer. During the pandemic, we weren't just buying pelotons. We were also paying down credit card debt. So the consumer's starting point from this de leveraging allows the con zumer to take on a good amount of additional leverage, additional borrowing power, which will continue to supplement the consumer as we've seen.
Okay, so bring it forward. We're running out of time, but this is important. Bring it forward to Paul's good cat question. Does the pigs of consumer boom continue?
Well, the consumer continues to spend, but at this reduced level of about two and a half to three percent now certainly nothing to sneeze at, but it is a loss of momentum from a more robust pace as we've
seen over the past year plus. The consumer is still the backbone, still the bright spot of the economy, but there is a potential for a loss of momentum but that's not accounting for a potential change in policy if we do see sizeable tax cuts or other supports for the consumer from the incoming and minuses.
So give me the summary here. The Fed's going to cut rates in December.
Do they not cut again until the Red Sox win five games in a row?
Well, I can't necessarily speak to that timeline, but the Fed will likely cut rates in December and then stay on pole for at least two meetings. Excuse me, for at least some portion of the first quarter. We're looking for just one rate cut per quarter, totaling three additional rate cuts next year, taking us to three and three quarters. That's three seventy five, and that's a good neutral level for the FED to target we're talking against.
Sir Lindsay pigs Is. Thank you so much with Steve for just.
Absolutely nailing the growthiness that is surprised all this year.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday starting at seven 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.
I'm looking at Gouda Macunda and you know, I'm doing selfies with the yel School of Management. And of course down in the New York Stock Exchange right now, the President is working the floor.
It's like you're selling. He's psyched, you're selling takeout at McDonald's. He's going from Floord toy.
You know he's missing here our cash, Yes, exactly, you know, you.
Know art cash it would you know, he'd say, like, you know, mister Trump, would you like a selfie with me?
And mister Trump would be honored?
Apps so late.
Missed at the New York's docutionings the President elect ringing the bell and of course comments made a half hour ago with the Secretary Treasury Designate.
Assembled as well.
We get perspective on that event and the event forward known as the second term of President Trump. From Gata Macunda, Professor Yale's School of Management.
Is this going to script? Do you feel like this is? I mean, it's not Grover.
Cleveland, Alexander, But do you get the feeling into a second term? It's working out?
Well, it depends on what you mean by working out. It's the script, is what I think a lot of people anticipated and so far.
These comments this morning were sort of on script.
They were on script, they were normal, and there's there are certain I would say there are two scripts.
There's the public script.
I'm going to be a relatively normal, mainstream Republican script, and there's going to make some big changes. And then there's the other script, which is Pete Hegseith cash Ptel, people like that, you know, Steve Bannon and Steve Miller returning to positions of power. That's the other script, and that one also seems to be proceeding forward. Now, which of those two scripts will be dominant for the next four years is kind of the ultimate question that's going to decide a lot of things.
How do you think this US Senate is going to deal with some of the more controversial nominations for cabinet positions by President link Trump.
That's the big question. Opposition seems to have focused in on.
Pete Hegseyth, largely because every week there seems to be another new Pete Hegseth scandal, and they seem to be worried that there's more coming out.
It looked like.
He was in a lot of trouble up until a couple of days ago when Jony Ernst kind of surprisingly said, well, you know, I'm pretty open to him, clearly in response to a lot of pressure from the movement. If he's confirmed,
it's hard to see. It's hard for me to imagine who won't be because given just the number and quantity, and just the fact that you know, the Defense Department employees over two million people, Pete haggs its last managerial experience ended when he was forced out for mismanagement and being drunk in office.
Party like this is a problem.
So if the Republicans are willing to bite the bullet and confirm him, it's hard for me to see who they wouldn't confirm.
The book is picking presidents. It was important in October and into November, and maybe just as important now. I guess we have picked a president. Like all presidents, he will become overcome by events. Is Syria big enough where it's his first overcome by events?
So Siria's huge, and he is going to get, you know, however isolates you want to be. He's going to get deeply acquainted with events in Syria. And as Tom Friedman said that today, countries tend to either in the Middle East tend to either implode or explode, and Syria seems like it's in an explode phase, which will.
Certainly ripple through.
But I wonder how much he will his own tendencies towards disengagement, where we'll push in, we'll sort of say, look, if there are more refugee flows, that's not our problem.
We're sort of stable.
It would be more suspect that the thing will the thing that will draw him in is Ukraine. Ukraine is too big to be ignored, and it will just pull him in over and over and over again because pressure to make a settlement that's just not going to come easily. The two sides are so far apart on what they would demand that absent Trump essentially forcing the Ukrainians to surrender, which I cannot actually imagine him doing, just because of
the political blowback that he would feel. I'm not sure how he avoids getting tangled tangled up in that.
It's been a long time.
I can't remember when we had a president come in for a second term, not you know, sequential.
Or over Cleveland only happened, thank you very much.
Is this a lane duck presidentcy?
Yeah?
So the analytics that are That's really interesting is we're seeing a contest of two forces here and the fur the sort of control of the Republican Party. So one the reason that Matt Gates went down, the reason you saw our initial opposition to Pete Haig Seth, and I think the reason you're going to see a lot of people who are.
Looking at cash but talent going come on.
Is going to be that for the first time since Trump took the Republican nomination in twenty sixteen, Republicans don't need him anymore, right and need to find as we need to get reelected. So if he is not going to be on the ticket in twenty twenty eight, absent sort of massive changes the constitution, and so they cannot say, well, I have to live with this or I have to support this because I need him. That story just went away. The flip side is his control over the base of
the Republican Party has no precedent. He is more popular with Republicans than Eisenhower or Reagan. We have never seen anything like this, and the blowbag of Republicans stand agains him is very real.
I gotta sum this up, and we've only got one minute left or a.
Minute and a half, I got him, Professor, this is so important.
Apple went public nineteen eighty today on the Bloomberg terminal.
This is from nineteen eighty two.
I had a you know, Grandpa Sweeney bought you one hundred shares, Paul, Yeah, thirty two hundred dollars ape hundred shares thirty two dollars per share YEP split adjusted with the dividends of one hundred and ninety six thousand dollars. Your thirty two hundred is now worth two hundred and thirteen thousand dollars twenty percent per year. That's what the President elect was talking about. Maybe not that articulate Bloomberg way, but that's the experiment, professor, right.
I mean, if we could all deliver that.
One of my best friends is one of the world's best selling fantasy novelists, and he bought Apple the date when public. I asked him if he made more money off one of his books are Apple? The answer was the books. But it's a lot closer than you would think. But I mean, the basic problem here is we know that we know that labor markets are sort of as tight as they can be. We know that the feder will respond to faster economic growth by raising interest rates.
We see that inflationary pressures have not gone away completely, and on some basic level, there are surely hard limits to the US economy that mean that we could possibly
do twenty percent a year. Wonderful as that would be, I would love to say, see what will really happen and to me, where that growth dijectory will really come from is we're looking at biotech and that places in there that there's that sort of deep technological progress that has been building for a generation and you're starting to cebes carve bend right.
We're going to talk about that tomorrow, folks. Tomorrow an extended conversation with Gene Munster and Dan Ives on this technology moment that we're seeing across America. I've seen a couple of essays here in the last forty eight hours just saying this embedded you know, not AI, but is embedded technology lift that we're getting is really quite substantial. Got a mccunna, thank you so much. With Yale School of Management.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Listen live each weekday starting at seven am Eastern on applecar Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every day on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal.
I look at the front pages. It's Salisa MATEO minute. Okay, take more than a minute.
I went from an hour to a moment to a minute.
Now from New Jersey emailed in and said, you got to give her less than an hour.
Here we go.
Okay.
I want to start with Netflix because there are reports that it's walking back it's parental leave policy.
This was in the Wall Street Journal.
So about a decade ago, Netflix announced that it was offering new moms and dads, Paul, you're gonna love this unlimited time off in the child's first year. Okay, eights, But a lot of more staffers took an advantage of the benefit that they thought. So the Wall Street Journal, they spoke with workers former workers who say the companies spent the last few years kind of stepping back. They haven't taken it away per se, but they're offering vague,
conflicting guidance internally. The reason why the company's been growing, right, they now have like fourteen thousand employees, more than sixty percent jump from both before the pandemic. So so they have to start making.
It's Wall Street focus on profitability, not just growth. So I think the company is saying, we need to look at all of our costs here.
And when your first kid was issued, how many days did you take?
I had twins in my.
How many days did you take?
I was back on the road the next week.
I took him three days off. Twins cash flow, cash flow came out, he was issued, and I took three days off. And granted that's stupid. Let's yes it is.
I'm not saying stupid it was, but come.
On, Lisa, how how long should maternity leave be or paternity leave?
It's tough. I know. I myself only had three months and then I had to take vacation days.
So it's it's it's much better, much better.
And like here, I think we have a very good policy.
We have an excellent policy here. And even excuse.
Me, you want to tell us something here, because there's something we need to know.
I am way past that has sailed.
Next.
Okay, reality TV shows. I'm not sure if you guys are fans of any reality TV shows, but Netflix has one. It's called Love is Blind. The reason I bring this up is because the National Labor Relations broad has brought up this complaint and it could start allowing them to become union members. We're talking about the castmates of these shows. Okay, it gives it because they're talking about different federal legal protections opening the door to unionization because it classifies as
shows contestants as employees. That's what they're trying to fight a lot of the contestants have been fighting this. There's been lawsuits back and forth about this, but it's this particular show that's kind of starting this and opening the doors to other shows and saying, hey, wait, maybe we should start.
One of the reasons that the broadcast networks and the cable networks like reality programming is it's much lower cost. There's no script right, there's no script I mean that kind of stuff. And since there's less advertising revenue because of cord cutting, that's all you're seeing on broadcast television these days on the networks are these reality shows. It's very rare that you see a scripted show on the networks these days because they're just too expensive.
Yeah, Season seven was was really it started slow.
Of Love is Blind, I mean perfect, perfect husband.
But and you know the tables have turned.
But then I love in week two where they have dirty laundry.
Now I was just agreed. I did.
I have to be honest, I didn't know what this show was. Apparently like they date one another from separate rooms. They don't even see one another. They hear it through speakers until they agreed again and gave me eight o'clock on t J.
John Ferrell's within the term The Loves, of course, is fault. Next.
Okay, Sports Illustrated coming to a stadium in New Jersey. Okay, we're talking soccer. They're buying the naming rights to the twenty five thousand and seat soccer stadium right near Newark. It's a home of the Red Bulls. Yes, great, great stadium. I've been there for a game. Thirteen year deal reportedly
worth more than one hundred million dollars. But the only thing is that it has little to do actually with Sports Illustrated because if you know, they're they're owned Bio Authentic Brands Group, which kind of buys up companies that are under pressure, sells the licenses for the use of their names.
Do they still the magazine?
They do still make the magazine. They're just not making as much money, I guess, But that's why they did agreed to go with authentic brands because now this company gives them money because it helps sell off to the use of their name.
So similar thing.
But Playboy, by the way, just let they did that too, Okay, having covered that stock for many years, but it's also.
Owned Sports Illustrate Tickets, and I just bring that up because now that ticket company is going to be the exclusive ticketing partner of the team. So that's another speed What do you got, Okay, nice one. We have the price of groceries sky high. So what's the solution. Well, there's someone running for New York City mayor. His name is Zora Mamdani. He says that we should think of doing uh a city owned grocery stores. That's what it is.
He says it's gonna help bring down the cost of groceries because they're gonna use city lander buildings, buy food wholesale, and would also be exempt from property taxes.
On those margins.
I want the city involved in anything.
I don't. I don't get how they do it.
It's Kansas, Wisconsin are doing it. They're trying it out. Yes, Chicago, Atlanta, they're moving forward with similar proposals, So it's going to be brought up today. This all right, this Linmaker, Yeah.
The newspaper lines. Thank you so much.
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 I have every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal