Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern on Apple car Player, Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I don't know fixed income market. I feel like I can just sit around in my two year US Government Treasury bond and get four point two percent.
I don't need to be here and take credit risk. I don't know.
I don't some people may want to take a little bit more risk. Kathy Jones maybe one of them. She's chief fixed income strategist for Charles Swabs. She jointsu here on our Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio.
So Kathy and we sit back here.
Fixed gum actually has some green on the screen and total return in twenty twenty four. You guys actually made some money this year. And fixed income I mean twenty twenty two brutal. I mean, let's be honest, what do we do in twenty twenty five, because there's a lot of unknowns out there?
Kathy, Yeah, I.
Would say when we were putting together our outlook this time around, you know, we try to model out various factors, and this is probably one of the hardest years of my career to model out because there's so many policies that are up in the air that is really hard to predict how it's going to come out. But our status is really that the rates have very little room to go much lower at this stage of the game.
We should get a couple of more fed rate cuts, but not nearly as much as we were expecting before. And long rates are kind of well priced right here. If you look at the ten year yield, it's probably pretty close to fair value. And then you have all these uncertainties, which is the word of the year, I think around trade, tariffs, immigration, taxes, all these policies. It could affect the growth and inflation outlook. That keeps us kind of cautious.
Shawn don And and Nana Wong here at Bloomberg have a great piece how kind of tapping into that uncertainty and looking at sort of how this might play out when it comes to tariffs. When it comes to trade policy, they write that the drama has started immediately, tariffs may build more gradually. What is your sense of how this rolls out? And I know, there's a lot of speculation
about how inherently inflationary. A lot of this might be, how are you thinking through a again, how the policies are rolled out, if in fact they are and be what that might mean for inflation in this country.
Yeah, I think there's the one basic question is is this a negotiating strategy or is this for real? So far it sounds like it's for real. It sounds like something the president believes in, and so some sort of tariff is likely to be imposed on somebody early on. We're assuming China will be first up. We may get some negotiations on Mexico, Canada, et cetera. But some level of tariff seems likely to us. So we're looking at
that as a one time shot on inflation. So it doesn't necessarily build inflation over time, but it definitely we will raise the price of those imported goods. At the same time, it tends to slow economic growth, so you have this kind of dueling force that comes from tariffs. But we are assuming some inflation impact at least in the early part of the year, middle part of the year.
I mean, to me, it seems like from an inflation risk situation, the actual immigration policy might be the most impactful, it seems, because I just know a couple of restaurant owners that I know in town. They're saying, for the first time in several years, they're fully employed. Their kitchen, they got everybody they need in their kitchen, their dishwashers, the bus boys and.
All that kind of thing.
And I don't know, you take that away, and that could be problematic because I would think that's a relatively big part of the nation's labor force at this point.
How does that work?
Yeah, if the proposals that have been put on the table were implemented, we'd probably lose about eight percent, up to eight percent.
Of the workforce.
A lot in an aging workforce, with people my age and older retiring out. And that's not an announcement, but that's going to happen. It is happening of the baby boomers, and you need workers to replace them. So far in recent years it's been immigrants who have replaced them. So you end up with this hole in the labor force and you can't grow as quickly. So on the one hand, wages would probably have to rise to attract people who
aren't in the labor force. On the other hand, you can't grow as fast because you don't have the workforce to produce goods and services to grow faster. So it is, I would agree. Longer term, it is a bigger issue, probably than tariffs.
We're all dealing with this uncertainty. You're doing it in your outlook, and certainly Fed church Rown Powell is doing it too, even if he's so studiously shied away from talking about it at the last FED meeting. He's got another event this week, moderated sit down on Wednesday, and then we're looking ahead to the next FED meeting after that. Does he have to address this more? The way that he and his colleagues are thinking through all of the uncertainty.
We're going to get that summary of economic projections at the next meeting, how do they factor in all that we don't know of what might happen here in the months ahead.
Well, I do think the dot plot and the rest of the Summary of Economic protection is going to be really interesting this time around, and certainly will change because if you think back to September, it was an entirely different kind of economic outlook and political outlook, policy outlook. So I think it will change I think they're probably busily trying to model out some of these things themselves
and figure out what that means. But I doubt that he will talk about that at this stage of the game. We'll find out about that later. But my assumption is they're going to be much more cautious about rate cuts than they had been before because A the economy has been more resilient than we thought in September, and B we have all these uncertainties on the horizon.
You're to date twenty twenty four the best performance in your world fixed income, US corporate high yield, and US leverage loan index. That surprises me a little bit because I know there's concerns throughout the year of maybe recession, yet the risk your parts of the market were just really performing.
Yeah, so well, we did have a more resilient economy, so that helped. And it's the power of the coupon. So if you have a coupon of six seven eight percent, and even if things sort of hold steady, you're going to perform pretty well. And I think this year, when you look at the total return of various asset classes, a lot of them are in line with the coupon the average coupon of the year, and that's kind of what we're looking at.
Can I ask you lastly just about the strength of the dollar going forward and what you're thinking about when it comes to four x and currency. And we had this kind of another announcement over the weekend from the President elect about bricks countries trying to rival a dollar. Kind of wonder where that came from. I'm sure we'll talk about that more when Davian Sasa was here in
a bit. But what's your sense of sort of what dollar strength looks like if these policies, if immigration and tariffs, if those policies are put in to effect, what does that mean for the US dollar.
It means it stays strong and goes higher. It'd be very difficult for the dollar to push the dollar down at this stage of the game. If you have those sorts of policies in place and you know the dollar is near if you look, I would use the Bloomberg Dollar Index. I prefer to the DXY myself because it's more broad based. It's nearly out of fifteen year high.
We're almost back to those spike highs in twenty twenty two, and that's driven largely by the outperformance of the economy and the wide interest rate differentials.
I doubt those.
Things will change in twenty twenty five, and actually tariffs will only give it another boost to the upside.
Kathy, thank you so much for joining us, as always appreciated Kathy Jones. She's chief fixed income strategist for Charles Schwab. The fixed income folks actually making some money at this year.
Love that.
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 androyd Otto with a Bloomberg Business app or wants Us Live on YouTube.
The appointments from President Electrump continue to come fast and furious. Cash Bettel FBI director appoint e is probably one of the latest show of the weekend. Henrietta Tres joined to She's a manager partner of Vada Partners. Henriette again kind of putting some of these appointments selections in context. What is President Electrump trying to do here with his cabinet? What is his strategy do you think at this point?
I think it's definitely signaling that he wants to hit the ground running as soon as he gets sworn.
Into office January twentieth.
The most important things to me are the nomination of Kevin Hassett and Jameson Greer. Those are the names that were floaded last week for USTR, which is going to be most critical for putting the tarifs into place. We know we have the Treasury Secretary into play. Some of these other names, whether it's Rka Junior or Matt Gates, and those guys are sort of fallen by the wayside, will be contentious as they go through, as I imagine
Cash Battel will be as well. But I would say keep our eyes on the prize, focus on USTR, and see also that they're potentially telegraphing to businesses to prepare for these tariffs in advance as opposed to waiting for January twentieth and an implementation date of additional tariffs. That's maybe the biggest thing for me right now, with the early naming of these nominees.
Let's take each of those in kind. Let's start with Kevin Hassett. He was in the first Trump administration. He came up with this thing called the Hassett principle. When it came to tariffs, sort of focusing on where those tariffs might be applied, who might be exempt from them. How does his work change if he's now a part
of this next administration. I mean, I look at just through the panoply of people that the President elect has picked to be on his economic team, and we've seen kind of the fighting or early on before they were even named, and one wonders if that's going to move over into the cabinet room as well. But sticking with Kevin Hassett, what role does he play in shaping the direction of Donald Trump's economic policy in this next term.
Important thing to me right now is that he has a relationship with lawmakers on Capitol Hill that exceeds that of Scott Bessont or Howard Lutnick. And I think when I am worried about next year is obviously the tax bill and then the tariffs that are part of that. In that Donald Trump has said the tires will pay for the four point six trillion dollar extension of the existing tax rates.
So when Bessett, excuse me, when.
Hassett is up on the hill trying to talk with staff and get this tax bill written, one of the key components that he's going to be involved in is getting them to agree to include tariffs in the tax bill. That's a very big deal. That's the only way to score it, so that tax legislation can be physically offset in the same piece of legislation by the tariffs.
So I think Hassett will pay.
Play a really important role there as well as USTR Henrietta.
What's the role of the United States Senate here in confirming some of these nominations, look at some of the more contentious ones that may become down.
You know, they're pretty much already trying to compel the Trump administration to give them names that can get through and get through quickly. We know that historically you get through you know, the Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury pretty quickly, you know, just days after the president is
sworn in. So they're trying to, you know, sort out the week from the chaff as early as possible so they can keep their eyes on the prize, get started on the president's agenda as soon as he gets sworn into office. So I think a lot of their back room discussion is trying to say, look, thank you for giving us these names. Some of these guys cannot get through. I think it's underappreciated how slim the Republican margin is
going into next year. We have a number of Senators who are going to be up for reelection or potentially retiring, or have come in as freshmen who will be willing to challenge the president on these nominations.
As we've already.
Seen, we're back playing this game of trying to keep track of all of the social media posts from the President elect, and one of them from a few weeks back had to do with recess appointments and him urging senators to allow for them to happen, presumably because that would forestall have to go through a lot of the confirmation process where perhaps some controversial material might come out and things could get gummed up. Where does that stand?
How resonant was that message from the President elect with Republican members of the US Senate.
The United States senators do not like to be told what to do. I can tell you that firsthand, have you work there. I think a lot of the enthusiasm for the recess appointment idea came from House members who are much closely tethered to President Electrump. So you saw a lot of support for the idea from House Republicans in Trump's orbit, but major pushback from the Senate. They don't go on recess specifically for this reason, that and the Pocket veto. So I do not expect the Senate
to voluntarily step aside. And I think even if the President tried to force the issue, which is allowable under obscure clauses of the Constitution, the House and Senate would collaborate to make sure that didn't occur.
Henrietta, what's the concern, if any, in Washington about some.
Of the the experience levels for some of these appointments. Some people are questioning whether they are appropriately experienced to run some of these larger institutions in Washington?
What's that? Is there a feeling of developing in DC?
You know, what I hear is a lot of adjucta from you know, the Defense departments for example, about some of these incoming appointees who have real access to GRIND and want to get rid of Navy admirals for example, or you know, get rid of major prosecutors at the FBI. That conversation, that narrative is obviously very real. I think you saw it with the President Biden's decision to pardon Hunter Biden.
You know they're taking this very very seriously.
The names that Trump is putting out there are the names of folks who have advocated mostly on Fox News for years now for really aggressive change at the admiral level in military ranks, you know, getting rid of any of these seasoned army generals who maybe we're too quote unquote woke for.
The Trump administration and the people that they're about to announce.
So there's a lot of consternation within those specific military groups. And I think that's probably the most noticeable thing I've picked up in the last couple of weeks.
You mentioned a few minutes ago Jamison Greer, who was a Bob Litthheiser acolyte. He was the chief of staff to the US Trade Representative during the first Trump term. He's now being appointed or nominated to be the next US trade representative. It makes me want to ask you about Bob Leittheiser, somebody whose name has been bandied about a lot but does not yet have an appointment or a nomination in this administration. What do you make of that? And I know he was sort of seen as somebody
who might be a Commerce secretary. Obviously, Howard Lutnik is the person who got the nod for that job. In this next term, where does he land and what does it say to you that he hasn't gotten the spot yet.
Well, I think there's a lot of conflicting factors here and a lot of this is sort of palace injury. But Bob Liteheiser was the architect of the Section three oh one tariffs against China. He is the one who delivered the Phase one trade agreement in February of twenty twenty that got the US and China to sort of temporarily pause the escalation of the trade war, have China commit to buying eighty billion dollars a year over the
next two years of additional agriculture purchases. And ultimately China
did not deliver on that. And so one of the big differences, and we're seeing it picked up in reporting right now, is that Lightheiser was going to go buy the book and use the enforcement mechanism in the Phase one trade agreement, which would have put tarriffs on in the late April May June time horizon, giving businesses a period of time to pull forward their purchases, get products over from China and get them into the US system,
and advance of these tariffs going into effect. The fact that Bob Lightheiser is not going to be there, in which I guess, is where we are right now. I'm still sort of quasi optimistic that there might be a trades our role, but the fact that he's not there suggests to me that maybe Trump thinks that between Lutnik and in Jameson Greer and Kevin Hassett, they can sort of disregard that Phase one trade agreement imporcement mechanism and
go right into tariff's. I think that's probably our main takeaway this morning that I'll be talking about with clients.
I don't know why there's.
An expectation that these tariffs aren't serious, or to the alternative narrative that the market's responding to other factors right now, but in general, I'm concerned and growing increasingly concerned that we won't have somebody who's buy the books like Leithheiser. Next year. We'll have folks who are much more eager to even get more aggressive than he was in his first term, which will put tariffs on earlier.
Henrietta, just briefly here, what's between now and inauguration day? What do we have to look forward to again coming out of this Trump administration and waiting The most.
Important thing is what's happening in the Senate and House budget committees. We're going to get a big deficit number for their authorization and the reconciliation bill that will tell us how big the tax bill is going to be next year. That number could come out as early as
the next couple weeks. The Trump administration is going to do its own thing on executive orders and immigration and tariffs and all that, But the real meat for the investment community is going to come out of the budget committees, which is lucky but true, and we should know that in the next couple weeks.
That deficit number is really all I'm waiting for.
Henrietta, Thank you so much for joining us. Always get a little bit smarter when chatting with you.
Henrietta Triz, Managing partner at Veda Partners, Getting the latest coming out of Washington, DC room.
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 play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Apparently influencers on the Internet have important impacts on what people bought. I didn't really know that it recent, Lisa. That's the thing out there, as opposed to a thirty second in on television or a billboard by the side of the road or add in your magazine.
That's not how it's done.
The future is here.
The future is here.
So that goes to the issue of what's quality information out there in the world on the web and what is disinformation. Our next guest thinks about this stuff. Lisa Kaplan, CEO of a Lithium, and she joins us here in a Bloomberg Interactive broker studio. Talk to us about Alithia. What do you guys do, who are your clients?
What's the work that you guys do.
Thanks so much for having me, Lisa Caplan, Founder and CEO of Alethia. We are a technology company that detects and mitigates instances of online risk stemming from everything from misinformation and disinformation. So thank foreign state adversaries to also looking at where are there risks of things like boycott, short seller attacks, other risks that can be developed online
that pose serious business continuity challenges. We predominantly work with the Fortune one thousand to be able to help them understand how is it that they are being talked about, where are these risks emerging, and what is it they can actually do to get out in front of these different types of challenges.
Talk a bit more about the kind of disinformation that we're seeing. We talk about it a lot in the context of the news and journalisms of what people are exposed to when it comes to current events. So here in this kind of corporate setting or with retail, who's perpetrating it, What does it look like? How widespread an issue is this for some of the companies with whom you work.
When we talk about miss and disinformation, what we're really talking about is the ability to weaponize information online, and that's always something that's conducted by an individual or a group of individuals in order to achieve their goal. Oftentimes we'll see things, especially in the retail sector, things like calls for boycotts. Obviously, December is a big month for retail.
People need to do well ahead of the holidays. And one of the things that we're seeing that's actually an interesting development, and it actually i would say started really in twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, but it's changed how it forms. Is the idea of boycotting certain companies because of perceived
political donations. We are starting to observe, and this again in twenty sixteen after President Trump was elected, individuals and activists calling to boycott or divest certain companies based on whether or not they made donations in support of one political candidate or another. We're seeing that again today, and we're seeing both influencers on the left and the right
call for boycott's based on political donations. We are seeing what I would call manipulative attacks as well, which are when different accounts or different actors are seeking to essentially gain curation algorithms trying to make it seem as though their perspective is quote unquote newsier because it looks like more people are talking about these different trends or these different companies are calling for boycott, when in reality it may just be a very small group of very vocal
individuals versus actual customers of these companies.
We've seen some pretty significant. Companies kind of walk away just in the last several months of their DEI diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that maybe they just started, even in the last two or three years. I'm surprised that companies take political stands one way or the others. Michael Jordan famously said back in the day, Republicans buy sneakers too, Why do companies even bother doing that stuff in the first place.
So, a lot of DEI programs really started in earnest as a recruiting and a retention tool, the ability to be able to make sure that you're getting the best possible talent you have a diverse customer base you want to have, or an employee and a team that actually reflects that diversity. What we're seeing now is certain activists calling into question whether or not that actually benefits the shareholder.
And so what we've observed is that there's a small group of activists who are creating a lot of content and a lot of pressure on companies to essentially get rid of their DEI programs. What we've observed is oftentimes these attacks, while they start online, what will end up happening is your executive will actually get outreach from these
individuals before they publicly go after you. We always recommend that organizations seek to understand first where are your customers, your employees, and your shareholders add on this issue, it can feel really overwhelming and really alarming when you get this type of outreach, but having that data to understand what are the equities that you're trying to preserve as a private company, both in terms of making sure that your team wants to continue to work at your organization.
If this is something that they care about, you should have that in mind and be prepared from an internal communications perspective. Second, where are your customers? On this issue, we have seen DEIBUS to target companies on everything ranging from Pride back in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty to today, and we also are seeing, for example, shareholders call into
question whether or not DEI programs are effective. Companies that have data and data ready to share are often the best position to deal with these types of risks and navigate through the new media ecosystem.
I would like to ask you just about whose job it is to police disinformation in the corporate side of things.
And I've been reading this book about Twitter's recent history by Ryan mc Andckay Conger, and something they resurfaced was that moment back in twenty twenty two, I think when somebody created a fake Eli Lilly account on Twitter now x and said insulin was going to be free, and we saw all of that, all the insanity that follow that bad day for the same bad day if you're right, yeah, but you had Twitter like really doing very little to
stop that from happening. And so I guess what I'm curious about is you're like, how this is policed, and how it's policed in a world where there aren't really on a lot of these sites the mechanisms in place to kind of sort through what's legitimate and what's not.
So our philosophy and why we exist as a company is because as a democracy, we're not comfortable with the idea that governments would police social media data. What people are saying online that's protected speech. We also understand that for social media platforms, to your point, this is a cost center, and so the necessary resource investment to protect the fortune one thousand isn't going to be happening from internal cost centers at these platforms. That's just not their model.
That means that the cost is actually on these private companies to be able to identify these risks and get out in front of them prior to them becoming a Level ten crisis. A couple examples of this is when we see not just that Eli Lelly example, which I think is a great example of what can happen when an individual pulls a stunt off. Basically it comes and goes in about twenty four hours, and the biggest driver
is actually the news cycle talking about it. What we look for is more, where is that slow drip narrative that comes data point by data point that causes people to believe something or maybe take an action or have a perception that may not be true. It's a lot easier for companies to get out in front of that if they can catch the narrative when it first starts versus wait for it to be trending on one of these mainstream platforms.
I mean, I can't imagine.
It's just with the speed of social media and the velocity that these things take off, I don't know. I mean, if you're a board memory, I don't know how you sleep and they think about some of these risks there, Lisa.
Kaplin, thank you so much for joining us.
Lisa Kaplin, she's the see of a Lithia, talking about disinformation and how it impacts many parts of our lives and including the economics of a lot of companies out there as well.
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 weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal.
All right, folks, your deadly look at the front pages around the world. Police mateo newspapers.
What do you got for us?
All right, so did either of you indulge in the Black Friday shopping?
Did you go in store? Online?
Nothing like those stores? Nothing, nothing, absolutely clear.
Okay, See I'm the loser. I woke up at.
The tradition in the morning. You know you did not, And I went.
To the Jersey Shore Outlets, Yes you did, which opened at six and I got there like six forty five parking lot was.
Almost already no kidding.
Okay, wow, But here's the thing.
This new data that's out It shows that a lot of those bargain hungry, you know, American shoppers they didn't do that. They skipped out of the instore shopping. They went online on Black Friday. This is from mash of cards. Sales brick and mortar stores grew just seven ten percent year over year, that's according to those preliminary estimates, but e commerce sales increased by fourteen.
Point six percent online. So you see the difference there.
I mean this Adobe tally also would showed that Americans spent about ten point eight billion online on Friday. That's ten percent more than a year earlier. And then today's Cyber Monday.
So see this is I have a problem with this because you're right, like Friday has now become Black Friday's become an online thing, and then we have Cyber Monday as well. I don't understand the utility of the Cyber Monday on.
The head, but there are still people like likek Smith Tato that get up and go to the stores. Now I have to ask, did you go by yourself or did anybody company?
You know, the whole family came.
No way.
And here's the thing.
Not the soldiers. He did not get out, No he did not.
Yes, my son was sleeping. But here's the thing. You go and it's like you look online and it's.
The same exact deal, like the forty percent off you go in the store, you get the forty percent online the same exact time, but you do save on the shipping if you go in stories just want one thing, you know, So if you get.
A couple, So did you get stuff?
We did, Yeah, we and they bonded up and oh my gosh, we're delirious and the rest of the day was shot. But it's exactly okay, but more people actually are doing it. But you're right, you're seeing this like blending from like Black Friday, which started like a week before, you know, because people started putting out their sales. So anyway,
which brings me to my next story is about the return. Okay, so when people start returning, if you notice there's a lot of fine print now, like a lot of the retailers are cracking down on how consumers send their items back, but a lot of shoppers are saying, you know what, we're not going to deal with it. Wall Street Journal, they say shoppers are pushing back. Some have stopped buying
from retailers that charge for those returns. It doesn't seem to be affecting months because we just heard those master card figures.
Right.
But the debate is, here's the reason.
Retailers saying they need stricter policies because returns and return fraud is starting to eat into their profit interest. So that's why they need to do that. But the shoppers are saying, you know what, the sizing is inconsistent, so I have to order three sizes to try them on and then return the other two you know afterwards.
It the return stuff though.
I mean with Amazon, it's easy.
You just kind of do it and you print out the receipt, you take it to the UPS store. You don't even have to package it, and they just send.
It off for you.
Right, that's Amazon deal.
But that's an Amazon.
But a lot of the store, let's say, like a Sex withth Avenue or like a North Sum or a Macy's, they're starting to change the way they do it.
Yeah, it's costing them money. And with the fraud.
I didn't even realize that the frauds in returns.
If you're buying all line you're particularly clothes, yeah, you're taking a risk there.
But people do it, right, People do it.
People do it, especially if you like they said the sizing. You don't know what size, so you're like, well, I'll just order a small ani medium and then I'll return whatever, just to it.
Okay, Good to know, Good to know.
Okay.
This next one is an Indian steelmaker planning to launch its own EV brand, So it's JSW. They're telling the Financial Times that they want to manufacture the EV's in India, sell them in India. But it's it's a growing market. You have EV makers in India like Tata Motors, Mahindra, Ola Electric, so there's a growing market for it. Apparently this is according to SMP Global Mobility. Electric car sales in India total only about one hundred thousand years per year.
That's about two percent of the passenger car market. But sales they're starting to take off with more affluent Indian customers. So that's how that change is starting. So they're saying they want to get in on the action.
So that's JSW. They're a steel maker.
Why do you want to get into the auto business? I have no idea.
Well, it's a huge market, right, I mean that's ther Felmaker.
I mean, I don't know, I mean I think I mean, you look at all these auto companies. I don't know how an investors don't know how to evaluate this transition from you know, internal combustion to EV. And if you're a General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen and investor, I don't think you have a clear view. That's why they're trading where they're trading, because I think the real question globally is what's the demand for.
These things and how long is that transition going to take?
Right?
I mean, there's a sense that it's going to happen really quickly, and we've seen all these European automakers now saying hold.
Up, we're not going to do it. We're not going to do it cleanly.
We're going to keep making these internal combustion engines for a while.
I'm not going to pay a premium for an EV.
So when I was searching for the Beamer, the guys that I can put you in a EV, but it's a thirty percent premium.
Like Y zero yea. I can care less about that stuff than you.
Is your Vesper electric?
No?
No, the Vespa is fifty ccs pure raw in exactly so anyway, that's it. I was cruising on the best. I'm sure all right, what else we.
Got last one.
So Lebron James, you know, famous Basketball Paper, is doing great, but his media company actually lost twenty eight million dollars in twenty twenty three.
This was in Bloomberg's screen Time newsletter. Check it out.
This is according to Yeah, so Lucashaw. They got their hands on some documents that showed that. But it shows Hollywood production companies they've grown over the past decade to serve the growing demands of streaming services.
But now you see as Paul always.
Talks about streaming services cutting back in production, looking closely at their budgets. So that's why you're starting to see this change. But apparently he lost out pretty big in twenty twenty three. I mean, he's doing quite well for himself. I don't want to put that out there too, but you see film TV businesses started by celebrities, they're struggling to start to make a profit right now because I.
Don't know why, they just don't do what they used to do.
Just go buy a restaurant if you want to throw your money away, or dealers, car dealership, card dealership. I mean, any manager that allows these athletes or film sticks to do anything but stocks and bonds, and maybe I'll give you five percent of your money to be stupid with and go buy a restaurant or go, you know, start a media company where Disney and Warner Brothers Discovery struggle to make money.
I just don't get it.
I love this line from Lucas. Producing good movies and TV shows is hard, and having a celebrity producer does not guarantee success.
Good cave exactly well, I mean here, I mean, I don't know if how much you guys pay attention to has been the credits, look at the producers and executive prowser executive producer is I'm going to give you this executive producer title. Yeah, no economics, but you can then say you're a producer, all right. That is newspapers from Lisa Matteo, always a coveted spot in the lineup here.
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