Surveillance: Equality in Hollywood With Giese

central bank to reverse course. According to The New York Times, Mr Moore defended his view that they Fed was wrong to raise interest rates in September and December. He said the FED should immediately reverse course and cut rates by half a percentage point. To discuss on the phone. Joining us now, Allen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's chief US economist, what do you make of that, Allen, the latest call from

the least FED nominee. Well, I think it echoes sentiment. Um. You know, almost widely held across the street that that I don't know about September as well, but that the FED might not have needed to hike uh in December uh. And so I don't think it's unusual to you add his voice to those saying that the FED may have made a mistake. But expecting the FED to just take a look back where they're sitting right now and say

we went fifty basis too far, let's cut. You know, that's really um it is suggests that there's an exact science to this. The FED feels pretty comfortable that we're somewhere right around neutral. I don't think you'd find anyone on the FED that agrees with with Stephen Moore's view that they should cut right now without a catalyst. Uh, by fifty basis points, what's your base elent for the year for the Federal Reserve as it goes on, So

we don't count them out for the year. I mean one thing that so we do have them hiking at the tail end of the year in December, so on hold for almost the entire year. One thing that I was really perplexed about in this latest FED meeting is that they're there. I've never seen such a convoluted mess

in in a summary of economic projections table. I mean, you've got a FED that's extraordinarily patient, that has now provided so much easing and financial conditions by moving to the sidelines and communicating it's stopping the runoff of its balance sheet that essentially we've we've done a rate cut. If you put financial conditions easing into FED funds equivalent, it's worth a rate cut. And for that, their summary of economic projections showed that growth continues to deteriorate over

the next couple of years. Where is the benefit to this patient policy. It should be showing up by lifting their forecasts, not depressing their forecast now that they've moved to the side. I think it ignores the fact that they've provided a powerful amount of of easing, which should help the economic backdrop. Ellen, good morning, wonderful to speaking this morning. Uh I look Ellen, it within the Stephen Moore th Kneeler went Tankerossly piece in the New York Times.

Mr Moore's and there's been ever changing theories for more, but he's basically going back to early Marxism, which is to found some form of financial system or monetary policy off commodity pricing, which I find, you know, my my quick take on it is almost early Marxist. Is there any modern history of using commodity prices to judge what we do with our economy and jobs and inflation? No, I just think that it's it's been well proven for many decades now that uh, that's too volatile of a measure.

I mean, if your you know, the your job as a central banker is to keep the economy on steady keel. Uh, low volatility helps the expansion last for longer. I mean tying something to commodity prices. We've learned what's the wrong way to go quite some time ago. Um, And so it's quite an antiquated, antiquated view at point. And he's

certainly an outlier. Well, but it's a nostalgia that President Trump seems extremely comfortable with to get back to something that's not only pre nine twelve but borders on you know, I don't even want to give it, you know, folks, not to turn this into an academic lecture, but it's pre leon valrus of general equilibrium theory. It's like back to Thomas Soul's take on the early classicist economists. Is that what the president and what Stephen Moore want, you know,

I don't really know. I mean, I don't know why they would propose these policies and lessons because they're comfortable with a mercantilistic thought, pre Valessian right, right, But Also, you know, you're you're being advised by people that are probably old enough to have practiced economics at that time. I think I think that that's where some of these antiquated views come. Ellen, you gotta see it. I wish

you were here and are wonderful interactive broker studios. John Pharaohs shaking his head, going what are they talking about? Magnan decide? John just wrote a beautiful book, My Book of the Summer two years ago, on the difficulties that modern economists like Zentner have on equilibrium of finding very well, I just didn't realize what's stop speaking Greek six minutes

into the shot. No, we were, but but but Ellen, this is critical and that we have a president comfortable with the neo or pseudo mercantilism that's pre the modern age, right right, But you know, in terms of the FED policy, lucky, luckily, they don't share that same sentiment. And you know, let's let's I don't believe the odds are very high that you confirmed Stephen Moore to the board. But let's say

he is confirmed to the board. Well, you could try to, you know, put lipstick on a pig, so to speak, and say, well, look, he's going to be another UM source of diversity. Diversity of views is important UM, and he can drive in a of his own to try to talk through these UH measures and changes at the head. And certainly jare Pal has shown that he is completely open to discussing everything about how they implement monetary policy

and so leave it open for debate. But it's not something that they're all going to come to consensus on. And I don't I believe that the people have also taken this too far to assume that because Stephen Moore has said the FED should cut by fifty basis points that if he gets onto the board UH, that he would that they would immediately cut rates. Cutting rates is not out of the realm of possibility. When you're at neutrals, there should be an equal probability your next move is

up or down. But it won't be because Steven Moore joined the board and said we should cut. It will be because economic conditions warrant it. And next next I think it's next week, we have book John Stewart Mill will join us on the cornal. Is that right, Yes, it's that right. We're gonna go way back. Thank you, Chief US economist Homma meant to come back from that. I'm trying not to insert my opinion of this, but I think we're talking early Marxist. Is that you trying,

I'm trying. No one to Ellen's point, Stephen Moore may or may not not get nominated to the Fed. If he gets nominated the Fed, he's going to have a very difficult time getting the rest of the committee to come round to his view. Yeah. I think we understand that, at least the way he explains his ultimate objective. I actually think the committee may well come round to the idea that they might need to cut rates pretty quickly.

The market's coming round to that idea, Tom. The bond market has had a massive move over the last couple of weeks, and it's stunning to see the front end of the yield curve and yields grind lower once again today just Wednesday. Wednesday's always a critical day for Johann Ferroll. Is the real yield Where John is to decide, of the hours of planning that have on the early week, do they stay with it or does he blow up the show? And John Tucker and I can see in

the Bloomberg Interactive Broker's studios. The tension here on the blowing up the show and it's like the gey Go commercial when you know the whole Wednesday thing, hump day, easy, easy, Okay. There's so much to talk about, but we brought in a guest who can help you drive for your decision making, some structuring. Sometimes sometimes she graces us with her pressures on Real Yo two and often on Bloomberg Surveillance pre a miserat TV Security's head of global race strategy. Good

morning to your Prayer. Looking at your latest comments, the rates market is too pessimistic. Thank you, thank you, thank you, which which show really in shure. I mean, I think we need more people who do talk about fixed incomes. I'm glad you do that. Thanks Prayer. I appreciate that. Good continue that. I'm going to continue. I just wanted to look at your face for a little bit. The rights market is too pessimistic about the outlook. That's your tape.

Prier Y. You know we're pricing in now more than one uh TWI base points ease this year, so we're pricing in a little over thirty based points of cuts. Um. I think you know the FED was extremely do wished last week. I actually think that's changing the narrative a little bit. Here we're going away from We're moving away from the market pricing in this you know, dovish Fed goldilocks, Uh, you know carry trades equity should do well. So now I think the fair is What does the FED know

that we don't know is the cycle? Has the cycle ended? Are we heading into a recession? I think over the last week, if you look at price action and fixed income, I would even look at drisk assets, and it doesn't look like goldilocks is getting priced in again. I think now we're talking about you know, it is a recession around the corner, and I think the market the reason I think the market is still too pessimistic is you

look at the fundamentals of you as growth. Now we do have a lot of payroll later we're gonna get the first look at March data in the next couple of weeks. I don't think we're falling off a cliff here, and so to price and eases, I think the threshold is high. Growth needs to be closer to zero. We're forecasting above two percent GDP for this year, slower than last year, but you know, I think there's a stock of recession and eases. I think it's the market reading

from the devilsh fed. I just don't think we've had data that suggests that the US is slowing that materially. Prayer. There are so many conflicting signals in the global bond market right now, and I'm struggling to understand whether this is just a massive monster reach for yield or whether it is a market that shifted aggressively towards risk aversion.

Because if you look at what's handing the credit market, with spread still tight and with treasuries rallying, buns rallying, but bond markets outside of core government bond markets doing pretty terrifically as well, kind of makes me think that this is just a global reach for yield at the same time as the rates market is pricing in a rate cut um. It's difficult to reconcile some of these things Prayer right now. I think you raise a good point.

I think the rates market has made that leap now from just to reach field, and I do think that was part of the move. I think we've had a lot of convexity hedging flows. But again, the you know, to your point, pricing in eases is not really an extension of the cycle. So I would think that the risk asset complexes is only now starting to price in that if we are heading into recession extremely most low in credit. Let's unpack the jargon convexity hedging. What is

that fair point? It is? You know this technical term that we use in the bond market. So essentially, if you are a mortgage investor and you hold a bunch of mortgages, interest rates when they fall too much, your mortgage duration shortens. Now, if you want to keep a certain a certain duration of your portfolio, you have to go and buy treasuries. And I think that has been a part of the move. Okay, last, so we've had to move, and we've had some of these pro dynamic,

excellent pro choices which are priced up yield lower. But are you suggesting that than the bigger picture clicks in and we have even more price up and yield lower. Right, So I think convexity typically does not trigger a move. So the move was triggered I would say by the Dovish Fed, this wish fed, and the sphere of a recession. I think that took creates two below their lows for the year. Then that brings in convexity. The convexity so I would say, it's it's a technical flow, it's it's

reach yield. In a short period of time, people hedge. Then it goes back to fundamentals. I we have a lot of feed speak. I don't hear any of them saying that they're about to ease. So I think fundamentals will ultimately matter once we get this convexity flow behind us. So I would say there's two basic phases here, tom. So we've had the first phase, which essentially as a monster reach for yield. Treasury yields got lower, Bundy yields got lower, credit spreads tighten up, even the likes of

BTPs rally Italian bond yields come in as well. And then we face the prospect of the market looking at the likelihood of a right cut. And this is where two things become very hard to reconcile. If you believe a rate cut is around the corner, that is not an environment where the risk assets perform well. You can't have an environment where the FED needs to cut where also simultaneously the credit spreads are going to be tied. So you need to reconcile those two things. Which one

breaks so you go into phase two. Phase two essentially, as credit spread starts are wide and or you start to price out the right cut one or the other, something has to give. The question is which, which one do you think gives. I'm more in the camp that interest rates have become a little bit you know, do pessimistic.

So I think if if the data suggests that actually the economy is growing at you know, one in three quarters two, it takes all the reason for the FED to hike, but it also does not provide a reason for the FED to ease. So I do think the interest rates have some room to rise. Now if the data all falls apart, then you know, I would agree. I think then the rate market may be pricing this in fine, but then risk as look a lot more vulnerable. On January of this year was a one two year yield. Roughly,

you know, just a quick look at the chart. When we're getting back there rapidly, we're taking out some of the right hikes from the fat has been away from full faith in credit. How does the full faith in credit German tenure the US two year How does it readound over the corporate bond space. I think you know, particularly when you look at US front end yiels, they're actually pretty attractive on a real rate basis in terms of how much return you get for the riscue taking.

So I actually think when full faith and credit risk free rates rise, and they have in the US and the front end, that actually provides a pretty viable hiding place for credit investors. So if I'm a credit investent, I'm worried about a recession, maybe I should not be in a five year credit piece of paper. I should be in three month treasury bills, which is actually giving

me higher yield than the tenure treasury. So I think you do you see these interesting fund flows um fiction come investors when they start looking at risk reward doesn't look that attractive to take that much risk. So what economic data changes that difference in yield the curve of the treasury bill to the treasury no three months of the tenure. What kind of economic data changes your world? Right?

I think it's forward looking indicators of of you as growth, So I non manufacturing, I think that will matter if it's if you're not heading into a recession, I sm is still at let's say, then you know you should start pricing out some of these cuts and so the front and can still stay very anchored, but the long instart selling off, so you get a little bit of curve steepening. Priam, thank you so much, TV Securities greatly, thanks to I understood about it. Thank you for the

support primus. You know you want to bring into our esteem guests absolutely, um, you know, obviously we are are here at the Bloomberg Equality Summer Broadcasting Life from the link at our world headquarters here in Lectionton Avenue, fifty ninth Street, and we think about Hollywood. It's been said that Hollywood is one of the least welcoming industries for women. And I love this point that I think our guests made. Even the coal industry does a better job deally being

accepting in supportive of women than this Hollywood. So it helps us kind of dig through this issue. We welcome our our guest, Maria Geiss. She has a writer and director. Maria's thanks so much for joining us here at Bloomberg. How did it ever get so bad for women in Hollywood? What's the history there? Well, let's see, let's start with

what Hollywood does today. I mean, Hollywood pays out seven billion dollars in wages every year, It creates eight percent of the media content that's distributed globally, and it helps form our cultural narrative through the stories that are told there. This is an incredibly powerful industry and it's run by

a very small group of mostly white liberal men. UM the history of of Hollywood, as told so beautifully in the film by Tom Donahue called This Changes Everything Screen here Last Night, UM shows that in the pioneer days of of Hollywood, which began in eighteen ninety six with the invention of the movie camera, the cinematograph um invited women in and there were lots and lots of women directors, writers,

and producers up until the big money came in. And as soon as the big Wall Street money came in, women got pushed out. So we really saw almost no women in the industry as storytellers from about nineteen thirty until nineteen seventy nine. After the civil rights movement of the nineteen sixties and the women's lib movement of the nineteen seventies, and then we began to see some shift. So really one can look at this as an economic issue, a battle for resources. It's a patriarch have has the

so to what extent has the meat too? This is just recent history. To what extent has the meat too movement? Do you think going going to impact Hollywood going forward? Because it seems to be of the Me too movement? UM came in based on the work of the A C l U and the e O c SO. On October six, the e O C the Equal Rights um Commission of the United States Department of Justice started an

investigation for women directors in Hollywood and UH. Two years later, almost the day, on October five, the New York Times finally had the Kahan s to publish the expose s on Harvey Weinstein. Incidentally that they had been holding onto since two thousand and four for thirteen years. So when Hillary Clinton was in the Clintons were no longer in power, and Trump was now in power. UH, the major media was emboldened to publish these stories. It was a watershed moment,

there's no question about it. But I believe, you know, also a diversion because Hollywood has been able to use me too and the stories of sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace and actresses to um control the narrative. And that's what they're doing because when you talk about equal employment Opportunity law and the enforcement of Title Federal enforcement Title seven in Hollywood, you're talking about fundamentally a

redistribution of jobs from men to women. And that is something that Hollywood doesn't want you very quickly here just because of time. You came out of U c l A. There's other combines of screenwriting and directing around the world. Out of Tish came out and Bowden and Ryan Fleck and they're doing Captain Marvel in that do women have to advance and succeed going from small movies and working up the food time like you did, Frankly, or can

they jump in now at a higher level. Uh? Basically, the way it stands right now, women directed, women were directing of episodic TV shows four percent of studio features and through Amazon and Netflix. Know that fundamentally, what is happening here is that women can work if they work for free. Women are doing the lower end of it's it's the exception. Lawrence said four years ago, she's sick of being adorable. I mean that's simple. Yeah, that women

need to demand their rights under our laws. You see that changing over the grill at the Beverly Hills Hilton or at the Sunset Tourro Hotel. Is the dynamic changing? Um? I think that there is a great deal of pressure right now on the industry. I think the federal investigation and the work of the a C L you rock to the industry to its core, and they're worried about lawsuits and so um they're going to move those numbers up through inside efforts, but those will have not historically

proven to be enduring. Is Disney Fox good for women? Is James Wurdock and the rest of them out there with Mr Igoran Disney Fox in the new combination? Nobody is good for women. Nobody is good for women. All all of these the organizations that make up Hollywood, including the unions, the talent agencies at studios, and the network streaming giants, they all need to be challenged by by by a legal action. Is that coming? Is that forthcoming?

Do you think? I? My belief is because the a E O C has been um conducting this investigation and perhaps has been in settlement talks for three years and four months six months almost and we UM, don't know what is going on with that, because uh, they function in total confidentiality. However, we have been a small group of us have been working very very hard to move this into the court system, and I do believe that that is the necessary thing. This needs to end up

in the Supreme Court. Right. It sounds like it sounds like pressure is building. It sounds like the me too movement might might accelerate that. So very interesting, married guys, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you Maria as a writer and directors who joins us here talking about this equality issue in Hollywood, which again very very difficult place historically for women to do well, even harder than the coal industry. Believe it or not, but hopefully

change is coming to Hollywood. What an interesting time. I should point out we haven't mentioned it much of West Texas. Back to sixty dollars six zero dollars a barrel with Brent crude on the edge of seventy. This gets my attention. Sixty dollars a barrel and Brent crude with a style.

Paul Sankey of Missouri and ons incredibly important, your folks, is to realize that a decade or more ago the world stop when Sankey and company at Deutsche Bank would put out a spreadsheet of supply and demand dynamics, and they were so influential you'd go over every number of it. Mr Sanky is causing great advantage to Missouri America's where he is there oil and guest analyst and a legend in his own time. Paul, wonderful to have you with us. X on mobile is returned five percent a year for

the last ten years. Why should I own a big oil blue chip? Thanks for the intro, Tom, you always made me smile. Um, yes, So why should you own a big blue ship? Well? Why why you shouldn't as the market's worried about technology? Uh, In fact, market wants to own technology rightly for the future, and technology, of course, in theory, will lower oil demand and raise the oil supply.

So face value. The answer is you shouldn't. But in reality, as I was saying to you earlier on television with Bloomberg, the fact is that oil demand is exceeding expect aans and efficiency is not learning demand in the way anticipated. So if the oil companies can get their act together and return cash to shareholders and pay the pay out at the end of the oil age, which I think

they will. I'm not sure about Exxon. We're neutral on the store, but certainly in the case of Chevron, we can see a ten percent plus cash return to shareholders on a sustained basis as achievable by Chevron these kind of prices. So if we're in the seventy range, assuming that the industry has learned a new year of capital discipline, I think returns will be very good and that becomes

the reason for owning these names. So, Paul, you know, one of the things you know, Tom mentioned you know your legendary supply and demand models, and I know that you and uh, you know, all energy analysts. You can rely heavily on those types of models to give you a sense of where pricing is going. But one of the things that's always, you know, challenged me is just kind of where does OPEC want oil to be? Uh, that's the question, and kind of where do you think

they are right now? Well, there's an interesting dynamic here. Firstly, Saudi for the first time is actually talking about a price range which is seventy to eighty dollar brent. And as you say, we're knocking on the door of seventy today heading into driving seasons, so I think they'll achieve that number. The risk for US is that they actually lose control of the market on the upside, particularly if

we get Iranian sanctions in late April. But one interesting dynamic is, firstly, Saudi is what matters the most, but we don't have this new member of OPEC called Russia, and they actually the companies that don't want such higher prices. The tax regime there dist incentivizes them from wanting super high prices because it tends to appreciate the ruble and increase their costs, while they don't benefit from the higher

price because of a tax system. But what really matters ultimately is Saudi, and Saudi is staying seventy two eighty. So what when I think about the U s shell, I mean the whole market just over the last few years to this, you know, lay person myself kind of looking at the energy space, it's really just totally changed with the advent of US shale production. So there's a sense that this growing commitment in the US to the development of the US shale oil output. Does that suggest

oils lower for longer? It suggests that there's far far more supply than would have been argued in the two thousand's. We were never peak oil advocates in any way. We always said, look, you can crush coal at a hundred and fifty dollars a barrel. You know, it's ultimately everything is oil. But this new unlocking of technology is absolutely staggering. And you've got to keep in mind that the recovery rates in the Permian at the moment around twelve percent

of the oil in place. So the supply side looks abundant to say the least. And our argument, obul argument is based on the fact that we think demand continues to outstrip more negative view of efficiency gains, and you know what we call the Tesla effect, and that the simple arithmetic of that is widely overstated of the market. That's well, that's where I wanted to go. Where is the dynamic right now? The dynamic right now for demand is it? Is it airplanes flying around in the sky?

Is it just trucks and cars? I mean, where's that at the margin? Where is that demand dynamic? Well, it's distillate and so that that it's plans. Jet fuels is diesel and jet fuel essentially Hunter million people a year. According to Boeing take a plane for the first time every year, so that continues to grow. Well, um, just at the time we got left Wall, Well, I'm sure all of our listeners want to know this from Paul Sanki. At the time we've got left, somebody's also precious if

they got money, they're driving at Tesla Pulse Reny. What are they driving if they don't have money? Uh, maybeuver whatever, But then they're taking their plane to London or they're plane to Washington and their plane to all hair what what How does a pro like you respond to a guy saving being green in an electric car when they're

jutting around the world. Well, it's simple, simple arithmetic. I mean, the fact of the matter is, with a sixteen year life cycle of an American car and the current makeup of cars and trucks being sold, there's almost no effect from electric vehicles for the next fifteen years. It's it's really marginal. As you say, Tesla is very much a luxury vehicle. Everyone else is basically built buying gasoline fired somewhat more efficient cars and less efficient trucks, but trucks

for the far more. But every time I get on the shuttle to Washington, is it a gas guzzler? Am I burning up tons of oil? Well in a car or plan, of course. I mean there's no real potential for an electric plane at the moment they are testing them, but it's pretty early day. And you know, the main thing is is trucks and an economic activity are all distillate diesel fired. And as long as that keeps coming. The other thing is Tom sheer weight of global population

is still estimated Chinese. Well, we gotta lead it there. Paul Sanka Bazoo on Cyclopedic Love to have a model. We'll do this again soon. Paul Sanky on oil Now a four hour interview with IDEALU of City Private Bank as well. We could start with Asia fashion and Vivia tam and I was taken over the world. We could go to your work in mergers in acquisitions years ago, and I remember the Warner Lambert transaction, among many others.

We could move from this to what you're doing with City Group in the demands of high net worth, or we could actually talk about Bloomers Equality Summit and anyway, that's why we're here to Okay, so take it down to four minutes and then we'll go from there. So i'd just talk about you know, one of the things about the this Equality Summit has been, UM, gender lens investing. Give us a sense of what that is for investors

in your clients, absolutely, Paul. So what we've seen is a increased focus on feeling good investments, investments that are going to make a strong social impact, and one of those aspects is gender lens investing. Today, it's estimated that gender lens investing is roughly four and a half billion in private and public investment, and that has doubled in the last year, so we're on an upward trajectory, but it's still a very very small amount. However, there is

a huge interest in it. Um. You see that you can do great investments without giving up any of these That's where I wanted to go. I mean Wellesley College. I'm sure you're studying with a great Carl Case and you would have the facts. Chip Case would have said, it's all a great touchy feely wonder wonder. But I know you have done the sensitivity chart. I don't mean equality sensitivity, I mean a sensitivity analysis of wonder. This lens of investing doesn't sacrifice profit, does it. It absolutely

does not. In fact, it generate more alpha. It has been proven time and well. You can pick up which it shows that in public companies, women CEOs generate more r o I than not. You see companies that have women on the boards generating much greater returns over time. You see women in the technology sectors that get much less funding. Three percent of venture capital funding goes to women, and yet they outperform and returns of their male counterparts.

By These are just some of the facts, but no matter what, it goes to show that the diversity of the gender lens, diversity, having diverse teams definitely outperforms. So it's an alpha and a feel good investment. So how about when you sit down with your high net worth clients at City, are they open to this type of investment or do you really have to prove it to

them with numbers. So, Paul, it's interesting because a lot of our investors are coming to us and asking about e s G investments, impact investment, environmental sustainable sustainability governance UM. And in addition to that, a lot of our clients, particularly are female clients, are very interested in gender lens investing, So we do that in a very customized format for our female clients. We look at the public and the

private side. On the public side, we look at companies that have great representation of women on boards and management teams, diversity initiatives within the company. On the private side, we look at investing into female startups, into micro finance loans for small businesses, et cetera. It's okay, so there's a I don't know if the chip case tell you there's an index that has five hundred stocks in it, how many of five of the stocks of the standard impos

kindex are are are IDEALU approved? I mean, I mean seriously, out of five stocks, how many pass the e s G test? You know at the moment it's less than no, no, no, it's about a third that passed the e s G test. And by the way, there are plenty of other portfolio management companies indexes that have been launched since that. Yeah, many of them that focused particularly on now, particularly an institutional basic city group. What are the two thirds that are not e s G approved? Are they in a

panic to become e s G approved? Tom, I would think that everyone is focused on being E s G focused because, as I mentioned earlier, it drives returns. It's good, it's a good thing to do. It drives returns, and uh, I don't see why they wouldn't be more focused on

doing that well. And it's interesting. On the Bloomberg terminal, one of the most highly hit function is F a financial analysis where it does income statement balance sheet analysis and one of the tabs is the E s G tab for every company and that just we have a lot of statistics there that just helps investors. Were got a company from an E s G perspective because it is becoming a bigger part. You mentioned Silicon Valley UM and that three percent numbers just staggering. And I mean,

and I've heard that before. I've heard that, you know, as tough as Wall Street maybe for women, Silicon Valley is even tougher. Are there any any efforts underway to try to change that at all? You know, I don't know about efforts per se. But we've had the huge ME two movement. We've seen all of the efforts around a lot of companies like City who are putting out gender equality based information. We were very proud to be part of the Bloomberg Gender Equality Index for the fourth

year in a row. We we have a many things that we're working on in terms of disclosure representation of fifty of our basis women, So we are doing the right things as a public company in the financial services sector. I've seen that happen a lot in the financial services sector. On the VC private equity side, they're they're coming along, right. I think they're coming along a little slower than we than we would like. But my world stops when Mary Meeker puts out her eighty six page power point in

every year, whatever it is, I go over. Folks are stupid about this. I go over every page of it with a pencil as well. What is a Mary Meeker with all of reclaim in Silicon Valley? Think about the impatience to move this forward. I'm sure that Mary and I can't speak for Mary, but I'm sure that Mary can be frustrated about about the movement. But that's why we have people like Mary and other women launching their own initiative looking at ways to invest in to help

move forward the gender based um. Folks, you see them define benefit and define contribution, pension plans or real desire for this and where does the marginal move on your four trillion dollars. Where does that marginal move go in the next five years. I certainly hope it goes very quickly, Tom, because that for four four and a half billion that we have today, and you know, hopefully we want it to to increase exponentially, and the only way that we're

going to do that is by further engagement. Well not only engagement, but the alpha pickup is tangible. I mean, that's what it is. More and more is I'd mentioned that, you know, the more and more the research that comes out from academia to other places about the diversity, about E. S G. About that it does have significant return implications for investors. It can't be ignored anymore. I guess it's

the point. And Paul, you know, if if we did have gender quality today, that would add twenty eight trillion to global GDP over the next five years. Twenty eight trillion, it's global gender. Can we get quality? Sure? Craft highs on your list to be To be honest with you, I I didn't look at Craft times and all those guys and the up and they're building up the good. She's like, how can I get away from no, No, no, no,

no no, but there's a whole macho guy. But you know what, Tom, Also, that's a very different approach than what we do for our clients. So we aren't single stock pickers at all for our clients. Okay, so we are strategic asset allocators, were active managers of our clients assets, and we never pick single stocks. In other words, we will put together a group that makes sense. We get a little punch when they let us out of the studio. Thank you so much for City Private Bank here at

the Bloomberg Equality Summit. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.