Surveillance: Only So Much ECB Can Do, Rai Says

we're gonna ask Matt Kender in just a moment. Let me let me just get to the quote of the morning, shall we from a Chinese official saying the following. In the past two weeks, Top Nego shared has had serious constructive discussions and agree to remove additional tariffs in phrases as progress is made on the agreement. If China US reach a Phase one deal, both sides should roll back

existing additional tariffs. I should emphasize here any agreement on tariff rollback it's ultimately still conditional on a Phase one deal being reached. And Tom, a phase one deal still hasn't been agreed exactly, and what is so critically and I read carefully the comments again, These comments. Folks are not manager massage. They're really out of Beijing and straightforward.

The Chinese are looking sequential. They're looking at this not as a one off tariff rollback, but they've verbage a sequential rollback, and I would suggest the Americans gonna be a long way from that. No comment from the President yet, no comment from this administration here in the United States. I did mention Max Caton's name, so let's bring him in show we as species multi assets strategist. He joins us here in New York City. Good morning to Max.

Good morning. Gonna get to your underweight equity care, which I think should be the focus of this conversation in just a moment. But first of all, your interpretation of what's happening here with the negotiations between the US and China. We still have a negotiated a Phase one agreement, yet this market is behaving as if we have here we go. I mean, you just mentioned it, you say, good morning.

There's three people doing the happy talk. I'm guessing I was invited to do the sort of opposite, and I don't think you're gonna invited German strategists to hear some happy talk. Really, Um, so there we go. I'm gonna be a bit bit more dismal in the next next couple of minutes. Um, Look, the only thing really I understood from what you were reading out loud is about twenties seven subjunctives and ifs and ifs and ifs right.

So the problem for me is, I mean, there's so many things that really have to happen and that have to go seamlessly, really really smoothly until I can say, okay now that that price level where we are right now is justified. And bear in mind that means okay, that price level now is justified. That doesn't mean okay, now if I got hundred dollars in cash that means I need to put more money into equities. It just means, okay, fine, this price level is justified. It's not new news, right,

It's not. It's just confirming news. I'm not like, I'm not sort of advocating and utterly bearish stance. I think pretty much in six months time, we're probably gonna sit around this beautiful table here and and probably going to be plus minors zero in equity. It's probably pretty range band. But this is an environment where you're saying, look, either tales are probably too extreme and you have to continue to sell the rally, you have to continue buying the dip.

Your message so fast sounds like the conditions needed for a short squeeze are very different to the conditions needed for a sustainable rally. Into you went underweight equities, I believe on Monday. Yes, what's the pushback been so far? Um?

I think so far one of our clients has has agreed with me, which kind of you know it's is first pretty fun um and and second um, that's the one really where you see, oh, this is this is getting quite worrisome because you know, if if you think about twenty nineteen, if we use the sort of twenty nineteen narrative to look into effectively, twenty can be summed up in one sentence, you can say, like, fundamentally we

all want to be much more bearish. The problem is the guy left and right of me thinks the same right, So positioning is pretty light. It's if anything, if you look at equities, if you look at high eild and risk assets in general, if you look at some of our metrics, we look at beaters, it's it's an unloved relly. It's it's unloved, but it's supported by the low interest rate environment there. And if there is no trade deal,

you'll see yields go back down there. We won't that be supportive eventually, Liza, But that that is exactly the point. And that's why I'm so skeptical about the rally right now, because so there's a lot of talk now and there has been a lot of talk in the last couple of weeks. Oh, this is now rotation into value. This is rotation out of duration into cyclical sectors and equities

for example. The problem, and then much of the Hidgen hinges on the sort of narrative that you're saying, financial conditions over the last twelve months have loosen so much and have become so much easier because of this shift in monetary policy really worldwide. The problem, however, is, just like you said, if that continues, obviously yields will continue

to spike, and that means financial conditions will tightened. So so if you know what I mean, right, your initial your initial argument why you were bullish is at some point you're you're hitting a cap, right, You'll you'll inevitably we'll be heading your cap got interrupt John, why don't you lead us with a real move that we've see in Sterling? That GDP forecast out of the Bank of England is just cable rolling go over, so Sterling a little bit self to hear down two tensive one percent

at seven Max Canner of HSBC just talking about monetary policy. Easy. I believe we have Guy Johnson with us over in London because Guy, a Bank of England decision that was set to be an absolute snooze just got a little bit more interesting with two policymakers. Did they just vote for a rate cut? Yeah? I think Saunders, Michael Saunders

was was largely expected by the market. There's been a lot of chat about the fact that he has completely turned out from being a hawk to being a dove and as a result of which he has voted for a cut. The surprise, really, I think is is Haskell and I think that is where the market has been called on the hop here. So we have two members of the MPC voting for a cut this time around.

We've also seen the Bank John significantly downgrade it's GDP forecast one point two versus one point three this year twenty twenty one one point eight versus two point three um that there is talk of the fact that the global risks are a big path of this. Actually what they're basing this down grade on is what is happening

outside the UK. Largely some of it is inside the UK, but a lot of it is outside the UK, and they are now saying that basically they're looking at a situation where they are antisipating that it's going to get more difficult from here. Tom, Guy Johnson, what is the importance of Jonathan Haskell and Michael Sanders saying let's get going, let's cut the rates now define that significance, particularly going

to the December to election. What you think about it, Tom, Given the uncertainty that exists currently in the United Kingdom, to make this call pre the election and pre the Brexit story actually turning out to be a reality, I think is quite a big call. And as I say, I think this is largely based on what is happening externally to the UK. The UK is a small, open economy. You guys are just talking about what was happening with

the trade story with Max. The UK is being affected by this and that is why the data are are starting to slow, they believe, and that is why the forecasts have been cut. So this is this is in relation to what is happening, not with Brexit and not with the election, but what's happening with the global macro economy. Tom a guy, always great to catch up with you

to get your thoughts for anyone. Just tuning again the Bank of eng Than leaving interest rates unchanged, but two policymakers out of the nine actually voting for a rate cut. The vote seven to two. Max Kantner, your for you one that I think most people just assumed no change vote nine zero going into an election next month. Yeah. Look I if I put it into an investment contact

in two, okay, what's what's the trade here? Um? The problem is for me, obviously, if I have a sort of three to six month view and in our contact it's really about guilt, it's about UK equities. The problem is I don't want to speculate only on politics, so I'm sort of being the maximum carrot and shying away from any taking any active stance there really because you know, I might be horribly wrong or this might be a

career breaker. What's interesting to me is that every central bank saying that they're doing in action or considering because of what's happening globally. There we go, So who are you blaming that? That basically tells you central banks as are now reacting to something that they actually don't have under control. Right, So they're they're reacting to sort of

global growth, to global phenomena. If we're talking about let's say, old school stereotyped textbook monetary policy, Philip's curve and all that juwberish, right you you basically then say that we're calling the guberish. No, I mean, yeah, you can still believe in that. But there we go. The thing the thing for me is, look um, the problem there is you see a lot of central banks, including the FIT, responding to financial conditions now to something that is out

of their control. Maxicat, now I gotta leave it. They're always greater care HSBC assets trying togist. Joining us here in New York City, Tel John CIBC bank is out of Toronto. It is the old Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and very quietly over the decades they put together absolutely first rate team, including Benjamin tal who is the

number one guy on the self employed in America. He is encyclopedic on this part time, full time debate, and it's wonderful when someone from Toronto darkens the door here so we can crowbar leafs tickets out of him. Is that what he's he That's the only reason these years to hand me the leaf stick is that the basketball team ins are on. So that is very good. The Canadians would be what we're asking for. John right joining us now c IBC Capital Market CIA macro Strategist. Good

morning to Ff and good morning. Should we begin with that bank havingdom right decision? Personally, I thought this was going to be a total snooze going into the election next month. I guess we were wrong. Two people on the NPC voting for a rate cut, they didn't get it.

The vote was seven to two. Your reaction, Yeah, I mean I wasn't surprised by the two dissenters, because again, if you pay attention to what Saunders and and really you've been saying for there the less several months, it's certainly seemed like they were more more sympathetic towards Rica going forward. Do you think that kind of surprised me was the fact that they kept in the language of outlimited and gradual rate hikes going forward. I guess they didn't want to tip the boat too much during an

election campaign. I'm trying to understand where the global risks are that everyone keeps talking about. If it's not necessarily in Europe, which seems to be getting better, if it's not coming from the US, not coming from the UK with Brexit, right, where is it coming from the trade talks? I mean, it's between the US and China, and what I think is underappreciated between the US and the EU. And nobody ever talks about the U S and the EU. But we just had tariffs launched on an airbus last

a couple of weeks ago, I should say. And we've also got the big decision coming on autos. Nobody talks about that, but that's a significant macro risk, so we need to pay attention. What are your thoughts on that at the moment. I caught up with Larry Cardlog, the National Economic Council Director, last Friday, and he always points to the weakness coming out of Europe weighing on the U S economy. Do you think there's an acknowledgement from the U S side that actually going after Europe at

this point might not be a great decision. I think there is some sympathy to to, you know, potentially open the door towards talks with the EU. I mean, at the same time, you don't want to see a trade a new front opened on the trade war between the U S and the EU. And certainly, you know, taking the competence that we heard from World for US last week, it certainly seems like they they're willing to push out the deadlines for for company to do decision on tariffs.

The Chinese Ministry of Commerce speaking overnight, saying that the Chinese in the United States have agreed on tariff rollback with a massive asterisks. They've agreed on it if there's a phase one deal that they can agree to, and right now there isn't a phase one deal to agree to. I have a question for you that I think it's

going to be increasingly an important one. If we do get tariff rollback, it's the boost to economic activity from tariff's coming off proportional to the damage dumb from tariff's going gone. How should we be thinking about that at the moment right I mean, if we're talking about the real economy. I don't think so. I think there are other structural headwinds towards business investment coming online. I mean,

we are in a new trade regime. We didn't have to deal with a terra far between two largest economies UH in the past. This is a new regime the business has to have to become accustomed to. And certainly if we do see some TERRAF rollbacks, you might see some beneficiaries being you know, more so of the U

S consumer as opposed to US businesses. I think it's a new path for them to to wait through the Pippen with this with c IBC World Markets, Pippen yen is always a proxy for global Wall Street of correlation in a safe haven. Well does that math work right now and right now one O nine fifteen grinding, But it has been a weaker yen. Is that a healthy signal of all clear for the time being? I would say yes. It's probably conducive towards risk appetite being on

the rebound. And again it's it's much more of a global liquidity story and a positive sentiment story potentially from the US. But it's a well behave time series. It's grinding. I'll get that, but there's a persistency to this yen weakness. What does that signal? It signals to me that again, great divergence between the U S and Japan is pretty much minimal right now compared to we've seen in the past.

I mean we're talking about Dad. We have to talk about where the policy settings are in the United States, hichus, where they are in Japan. And again, if you do see a meaning called divergence, then that's when you get the direction directional break out. This is this is critical. What what Pippan just said, John, we were talking about this in the break policy divergence. It doesn't seem to be any They're all reacting to what I am f

flood on, which is lower GDP growth. This has been a big question though for effects markets over the last couple of years. Bipan as the whether right right differentials mats are into what degree right differentials matter for foreign exchange?

Absolutely in a world or central bankers center banks are increasing asset purchasing or balance sheets are exorbitantly large, and when they're dominant in the market, rate emergencies will at least This was John Lipsky's question to Charles Evans yesterday on the correlation of all these central bank messages that we're getting well, and there's a question the low inflation environment.

Have we underestivated how persistent and a long lasting It'll be in European Commission today cutting its hero Area growth and inflation at look despite some of the better than expected data we've gotten out of Germany out with the p m s. Do you think they're right? Yeah? I do think so, and I don't think central bankers have been held accountable for the fact they've been missing their inflation targets for the last decade. I do think there's

a there's a problem with inflation targeting. What's behind that? I mean, it might be that the policy is outdated, might be that the mandate needs to be updated to reflect a different inflation mandate, or maybe they should be

targeting something else. Central bankers have become very very good over the past couple of decades at targeting two percent inflation, almost too good to the point where inflation volatilities minimal now, right, So maybe there's something else that center bankers should be looking at it go forward. Well, when you talk about the European outlook right now, they're saying that the worst is to come. Do you agree with that too, that the worst for the European economy is to come perhaps

next year. It's a distinct possibility because we haven't seen any sort of fiscal movement towards fiscal stimulus from some of the larger economies that have the space. How that translate in markets at this point, you know, from in my space, we still see your dollar range bound, and that's predominantly because again US manufacturing it's is somewhat on the on the decline as well, and there is some risk that could percolate in with the consumer and labor sectors.

Germany on the brink of recession. Arkably, for some people already in one dax is through. How do you reconcile some of these things right now? Again, it's a liquidity story. I mean, if you have this massive amount of liquidity in the system, if you have all this cash in the system, it's got to go somewhere. For some people, even if there is a slow end of global economy, I want to put my cash into something that's yielding

something positive at least. But isn't it the X axis not only the observation of the wall of money out there, but lower for longer has a new definition right going into the new year. Am I right on that? Yeah? Absolutely, I mean there's there's very little. I mean, when you talk about monetary policy, you're effectively pushing on a string right now. I mean, there's only so much that the ECB can do. It's not a story of credit supply.

It's a story of credit demand. And right now there's no credit demand in the Herozone, and that's driven by by fiscal growth that there are fiscal stimulus. We had Max Kettner of HSPC on the program around about fifty five minutes ago, who was pushing back quite strongly against some of this enthusiasm for risk assets at the moment. Would you do the same thing at this point? Though

I'm still playing the liquidity story. I still do think that, you know, even if you have you're in a global environment where the economy is not doing so well, you've got enough liquidity out there. It seems like this lower for longer environment is gonna last. I'm not so concerned about an equity meltdown at this point. So right now we are seeing a sell off in bonds, in particular in U s ten your treasuries? Would you be a

buyer here at this point? I mean I'd have to look at the technical level, but yeah, i'd look at potentially by US months ready, one nine on a tenure gets it done? Does that bring the bond back? Were in a new regime now? I do think, I do think that the risks are skewed towards the FED potentially easing again, although that's not our house to our house view is potentially that they're going to stay on hold

for the next a little while. But again, I am watching employment numbers, I'm watching the consumer sector in the US, and again, if that manufacturing weakness does percolate into that, that's a new regime for the FED to navigator, So one nine could be the ceiling and what's the what's the floor for taking? You're going to make me call that? In the US? You call on that and not at this point. Now, now we need to be in a recession and we need to see some some some other factors.

We found the outside of recessionary conditions through the cycle life below one fifty ten years and really quite tough bit pan Yeah you agree, Yeah, I mean again, it has to be a deeper, meaning follower recession. I think to really to move below that one. But look at yields elsewhere. I mean, look at the ten ure yield in Japan, look at the ten ure yield. And in German boons, I mean where it's very expensively short to U. S. Dollar.

For a reason, I can get you a positive yield in France this morning on a ten year Just your yield now zero point zero zero five. There real move this morning, Solf. But one final question very quickly here on Canadian dollar. Is it a commodity play or is it just trading off US and US dollar? It's it's a U. S. Dollar play at this point. I mean the commodity play, I think that story is. But I mean we're barish on the Canadian dollar. We do think the Canadian dollar dollar catch you go to one forty

by the end of next year. Well, the tickets are want are only original six? You know, I'll take the St. Louis Blues, but just you know, originally not the Ranger. The Rangers are so the Rangers are so puny. I don't want to see Rangers leaves in Toronto. You yeah, thank you. What about the raptors that's oh you're killing and joining us now, folks here as we look at ahead, you're ahead. Yeah, we'll get to Uber and all that.

As a woman who writes with a still a stiletto knife dipped in ink when she writes every day, that would be sure over day. Of course, on technology, we want to get to Uber. We could get to we work with that lex art. I'm still struggling with that healing. Could we could pointy knife like a wicked point, you know, like Sarah Jessica Parker's feels and gentlemen in can you write a Maren sare over date with us? Right now? Miss Sandberg will make an appearance today in our year ahead.

There will be smiles and giggles and then not what's your number one question to the woman running Fortress Zuckerberg? Oh boy, that's a really hard question, you know. I I think, Um, there was an interview that Kato Kerrik did with Sheryl Sandberg novels, which I think was really exceptionally well done. Was it well done? Well? She didn't let Sheryl Sandberg kind of stick to her car. Yeah, put her right off, but just sort of came back

at her with repeated questions. But one of the things she asked Sandberg and I thought was a good question is basically, how does a are you sort of embarrassed to work at Facebook? Was sort of the question like, how has this impacted your um public perception and your your personal perception, which I think is an interesting question assertily a company that's under well. Another personal perception issue is for Travis Clinic and Uber and what's been going

on the shares there? Uh, you know, I'm just wondering the road forward. Yesterday another blood bath after the terrible results. Moving forward, we are seeing a little bit more stable stability today. What do people need to see? What do you need to see to feel more confident about its prospects?

I think more of the same. You're right. I was surprised yesterday and that there was this big lock up that lifted that basically hundreds of millions of shares were available to sell, and I thought it was just going to be an utter stock splat the whole day, and it wasn't as bad as I thought. But going forward, the issue is this company has set a target for itself of you know, pretty significant for around in kind of adjusted wildly adjusted profits and I'm not sure how

they get there in two years. Yeah, you know, talking about Travis Clinic and reputational risk. I thought it was really interesting in the Wall Street Journal this morning, Saudi Arabia Sovereign Wealth Fund invested four million dollars into a new company called Cloud Kitchens, founded by Travis Clanic. And I'm wondering whether the failures at uber that are being reflected in markets are not being reflected in sentiment of

sort of startup investors, venture capitalists. No, it's interesting. I mean, the the rehabilitation of Travis Kalenik is an interesting story to see that he got pushed out of uber Um in this very public way. He kind of quietly left, as you said, started his own company, and by all accounts, has had a very easy time raising money for what's It's basically a ghost kitchen concept. It's sort of restaurant delivery without the restaurants um and it's an idea that

many other investors are pursuing. And apparently his backers believe that he has enough magic to kind of build another company first. This is this is an important point because I wonder if the narrative of investors demanding profit at this point more than the growth they once prioritize. If that narrative has gone too far and it's not really accurately reflecting the mood adventure capitalists firms, at least not

by their actions, it's a good question. I don't know enough about what's happening at the very early stages of company building and investing in those young companies. Look, the fact is that if you're getting a company off the ground, it's probably not going to be profitable. And I think that's the model of venture capital from you know, day

one of that industry. So the question for all of those companies, though, is is there kind of a an eventually sustainable business not will build it and see how it goes. You've been brilliant not only linking all the soft, touchy feely stuff, but into the financials as well. You mentioned earlier the hope and prayer of Uber out two years maybe two and a half years, which in today's age is somewhat foolish. But here's the vector the mindset

of all these tech these nonprofitable technology companies. Is it really a five year plan that they won't admit to. I mean, I've just been surprised by the change and attitude just in I don't know, six months basically since the springs, probably since Lift and then Uber went public, that these companies now know or now believe that it's no longer enough to say our our market opportunity is huge. All we need to do is capture you know, two

percent of this capture profits. Look, and I grabbed dot com. I mean the illusion of profits at the operating income EBIT dline. So these companies are uper Lift both have said that in two years, two years they're going to have adjusted EBIT of community. I mean, are you cynical? Now? I literally this morning was look at that you have, Katie Curret to me, I was actually looking this morning before I came on set at Uber's nine pages of

adjustments to their gap earnings. And you know, I'm not new to this, and I couldn't exactly figure out what was actually happening in some of their segments, and that worries me. I sort of feel like maybe they should just disclose cash in cash out well, because that would be simpler. Okay, there's the accounting issue, there's the opportunity and how big is it. There's also this idea of winner takes all that in the dot com era there

were the companies that survived and those that didn't. It wasn't tier one, and then Tier two, which is valued a little bit below that top tier. So that's a question here, you know, is there going to be a winner take all or say Lift? If they win, they will go on and survive and Uber will die. I definitely think that in some of these categories there can't be a thousand winners um. Now, whether that means two

or three or ten, I'm not sure. My issue about the category that Uber and Lift occupy, and particularly this kind of transport on demand transportation, is I just wonder about is the eventual both size and economics of that market as good as the optimists thing. I sort of wonder that it's gonna look not that dissimilar from the taxi business. Um when all is said and done, Sure, over they thank you so much, greatly appreciate that. When

Lisa alludes to their folks. As a classic research of Michael Mabusi and years ago at Credit sweez on the winner takes All, the concept translated everyone wants to be Amazon. Ye Bloomberg every year trots out a year ahead view, and it always has interesting conversation from people. It's all, you know, very ted and very thoughtful, except PAULS Wheney. This year, there's a certain tension to the morning keynote. There is Cheryl Sandbury, the chief operating officer from Facebook,

sat down earlier this morning with Bloomberg's Caroline Hyde. Uh. Let's listen in your work on Capital Hill, the ongoing dialogue that is happening between not only you and political ads, but those that are buying the political ads and politicians themselves. The scrutiny upon you in terms of antitrust, in terms of competition. How do you feel you've thus far been able to relate your story, being able to be fully transparent and and offer up answers as quickly as politicians

would like them. We're deaftly working on offering up those answers. And I think you're right that the anti competite if narrative and the competitive narrative is one people are really focused on. And that's because there's real concern about the size and power of tech companies of Us, of Google, of the others, of Apple, of Amazon. There's real concern there antitrust, legal policy has been really important in the history of America to protect consumers from price gouging, from

no choice. I just think it's hard if you look at our industry to argue or prove that there's anything but a very very robust choice. That was Cheryl Sandberg, Facebook chief operating officers sitting with Caroline Hyde at the Bloomberg Year Ahead conference here in New York. They're still shotting exactly. Let's bringing our good friend Max Chafkin from Bloomberg News to get a sense of this Facebook story. It's not necessarily about their profits and losses of Facebook

right now. The issue really seems to be in the discussion seems to be around the role of Facebook within our society, particularly as it relates to uh the elections. For example, are they a media company? Should they be held to the same standards. So, Max, it's a it's an issue at Facebook and their executives, and we heard from Cheryl Sandberg just now are really grappling with what do you how do you think that plays out? So I mean backing up, I mean Facebook financially doing great.

I mean it's kind of amazing how we have sort of one negative headline after the other for the last couple of years, and the company has performed UM exceedingly well. UM. That said, they've really been on the defensive on these

questions of their power. And I think you saw that in in the the answer that Cheryl Sandberg just gave where where it's a little bit fuzzy and and and the you know, uh, we're asking, you know, what, what are you gonna do about this antitrust conversation, and she's saying, never mind. UM. I think I think the UM their strategy is kind of twofold. Number One, our services free, therefore we're helping people. Number Two, we don't have a monopoly because there are these Chinese companies and we saw

this in Mark Zuckerberg's testimony the other day. There are these big Chinese companies. They are really scary and they are competitors. You don't want to regulate us because you're just going to create an opportunity for this company TikTok, which is owned by Bye Dance, which is based in Beijing, which is censoring you know, some content. So so that's the strategy. It's sort of partly you know, we're really great, Partly you know, watch that's all we get from Miss Sandberg.

I mean we just heard it there with Caroline High to Zo Max, You're out of Yale. I believe somewhere in the vicinity of year two Yale they beat into you critical thinking skills. What kind of chief operating officer manager to Miss Sandberg and Mr Zuckerberg need to selvage this linkage of fabulous financials with a cacophony of issues they've some would say created. So I don't know that you can reconcile that. I think that Facebook's um Facebook's

financials are have accrued from its power. And what what its critics are gonna say is that the reason Facebook is performing is as well as it's done, is it basically has a monopoly on um on on certain kinds of display advertising that is the sort of non search ads that you see your monopolies. No one I know uses Facebook anymore. They've all left in droves. Granted they've gone Instagram and Works and a bunch of which is

of course owned by Facebook. And and they've been you know, working very hard over there, uh in California to you know, came to the sixth more for sensitive you know, Chris don and Candles interview. So Max, I think one of the issues that they're probably gonna have to address pretty soon. It's like, right now is kind of this upcoming election. What kind of role are they gonna play? How are these political ads? It was really really a problem in

what do you think they're going to do lead this year? Well, you know, they came out and said it's a big controversy over over political ads that contain say, misinformation or misleading statements. Uh. Mark Zuckerberg gave a big speech two weeks ago saying, uh, we believe in free speech. We are not going to fact check political ads. Um. Everyone sort of seemed to kind of go along with that,

maybe except for Elizabeth Warren. Uh and then and then we but we've seen a bit of a drumbeat of criticism, first from Jack Dorsey, who kind of came out with a bit of a troll, I would say, saying, you know, we are we are rejecting all political ads. We're constitutionally legal. I mean, well, how did you, as a technology guru Bloomberg business Week, could media companies say we won't accept

political ads. So the regulatory regime is there is a there's a you know, regulatory regime for for television stations and stuff. Uh, that that does not apply to uh Facebook. Um. Now Facebook is sort of saying, well, you know, because uh, you know television radio, that they're not fact checking ads, we shouldn't have to either. Um. But but but that those rules don't exist. You know, Max hasn't watched TV

in eight years. He streams, he streams. We got just a little bit of time of how is this going to play out? Who's right? Political ads with these companies are not political ads with these companies. I think the uh, the point that that that people are uncomfortable with political ads and so the media will make is that they're fundamentally different from television ads because television ads are are sort of a mass medium and and and social media

ads are targeted specific to people. So if so, if you put out a misleading television ad, then it's very easy for the media to fact check it. If you put out a social media and only show it to a very specific Unfortunately, we have to continue this next shape and that's where this Business Week. 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 Keane Before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio