We'll See a Split in Market Research, Ailman Says

are going to pay for research? Where are we going to be in one year. Yeah, it's gonna be an interesting question, Tom, because a lot of people are wondering what really is the value of that research. We already pay for some independent economic research services. We pay for geo political research services because we found that the Street doesn't do a good job on that. Um. But I'm

really gonna be interested. We've been out of soft dollars, as it's called in the USA for over about six years now, UM and have really limited the use with our managers. So I'm not quite sure how the USA is going to navigate what happens in Europe. But you know, if it's really a value, then you should be willing to pay for it. This is incredibly important, folks, And if you're not part of global Wall Street, trust me. There's all this other stuff going on. The President just

tweeting about the NFL. We'll get to that in a moment. Chris Ellman, you are way out front on where the regulators want to go. If the regulators get the wish if we see research diminished, does that drive people to passive investing? Well, Tom, I don't think that. You know, people that rely on Wall Street research are really just using it as a guidebook. What I think is going

to happen in the future, you'll see a bifurcation. The real quality research analysts will go to independent services and they'll be and they'll be people will be willing to pay for that. So they're still gonna be active management because a lot of the active managers like to do

their own work anyway. Um, will it drive more people to passive Frankly, I hope so, because the amount of four O one K money in the USA alone, it needs to be impassive because otherwise active management is not beating the cost it charges and therefore there's no value.

Add Good morning from Milan Chris, do you worry about a lot of hedge funds taking big position on the markets and therefore the markets almost being distorted by all this you know, passive money, and if that changes it doesn't you know, is there a correction coming that could be quite ugly. Well, good morning for Milan, so good to see you again. I don't believe that that the

passive money is actually distorting the market. I think that it's just it's actually creating some stabilization and the numbers that we've seen, there's more money following indexes than before. But what we're seeing is a market that's actually fairly quiet because there's not a lot of people swing trading in it. And the hedge funds that have been in out of the market. Um, it's really the leveraged etf that have an impact. I don't think it's going to

cause a significant change in trading habits. If we have a bear market, it's really going to be signaled due to the economy, Um, due to some kind of a recession, some kind of a regulatory or a tax law change. We'll see if we get this same as tax law, they've been so successful so far, I guess I have to have hope for the tax change. But you know, I don't foresee that this market is really uh in

the internal dynamics. So the market look okay, it's just price to perfection, and it could stay that way for considerable period of time. And I don't think hedge fund activity is going to trigger that recession. What would trigger actually a readjustment of the market is its central bank policy. And if yet, it's do we know how the markets would function without all of this free cash out there? Well, Francine,

that's the million gazillion dollar question. I have been asking all of our economic services, what is that trigger point? Certainly it could be a federal reserve policy action. We've seen that before, like in four when the Fed moved too quickly too fast, surprises the market, triggers a trade off. We've also seen it where there's a change in federal policy that causes the economy to stumble. We've also seen it where there are international geopolitical events that cause consumers

to lose their confidence. So it could be any one of those, and I don't I can't tell you that there's a particular action to look for to gauge and the challenges this could go on for a week, but it can also go on for another two years. So you don't want to be out of this market. But I'm I'm very cautious enough not wanting to be overweight the market and bet too much. Chris Sellman, thank you so much, greatly appreciate your effort from Berlin today use

Concler's investment officer. We're gonna have an adult conversation now about oil and along the way we'll explain the jargon as we go. I think it's been something missing in the discussion. You can do that when you've got someone as smart as Michael mcgloan joining it, with Bloomberg Intelligence, with decades of uh learning the humility of trying to game where oil is gonna go. I saw Opec Resolve open for def Leopard a few years ago. They were a great band, and you're talking about the way they

got the name OPEC Resolve. There used to be Opec Resolve when a sterea came out, you know, thirties some years ago. Where's the OPEC Resolve today? Well, let's say good leading and I've definitely lost my hair trying to figure out the oil market. But um, I think the key thing from OPEC is the job bonning. They know what they have to say to get the market up, whether they're doing or not. Still have power to Yeah, well they do. I mean they're still producing over one

third of the world's oil. I mean, not much of it's exported to US anymore, but they still that's one third. Now that's their power is definitely diminishing, but they still and the differences. They all need money, we know that, but open I mean Saudi Arabia is a key factor, and they know they have to cut back and it'll get the old price up, and so far it's working. When when you look at the sort of the spread here between Brent and w t I, what does that

tell you at this point? How what happens when it's want as it is hurricane distorted typically right now it's um it's a bit of a bullish sign because it's distorted, distorted by a hurricane. I don't think we you know, we have to get US exports back online and they're coming fast. Add to that the declining dollar and it's just a pretty good bullish situation for US. W t I catching up to Brent at the moment. The key

point is right now. I look at it as a percent about twelve percent that Brent's above w T I. The last time we were this wide was right at the bottom in the underlying market in February two thousand and sixteen. So it's it can it can mark peaks and trials in the market about here. I'm just thinking of looking at it as it's an indication to w it's getting a little too cheap. You've you've written a lot about this. The role of the dollar plays here.

Commodities appeared to have been waiting for some dollar backfill. It may be commencing explained the role here of of the dollar week or strong in oil prices well right now. I think initially the quantities were a bit of a shock mode. I mean, the dollar is down eight percent in the year, and almost all industries you look at, which is one of the worst years in in forty and it's overdue for a bit of a back and field. We know that. But every day that goes by that

it's just kind of backing up a little. But the market's getting it. The dollar has likely peaked. So if you look at it simply at the end of the year, if the dollars unchanged. It's down eight percent of the year, but the commandity market is still basically unchanged, so that's got to catch up. And crude oil and I think in all commanies are doing it. Goal definitely medals number one. Okay, And now we go, folks, to clear the jargon, which

we take pride in its surveillance. Let's begin with backwardation. What is backwardation? One of my favorite terms that the key point to remember about backwardation is it's one that front futures contract is higher than the backs now November is higher than next June exactly. Or I like to look at it as one year base. It's a simplistic way to look at it is November now versus November a year from now. One year is the best way to measure cross all commodities because there's no c seasonally.

So if you look at futures a year from now and all the petroleum products, they are four percent lower, the current prices are four percent higher. That's the most extreme backwardation since it isn't fortunately because of Harvey, well not part of it is Generally, backwardation means more demand versus supply. It means there's demand. It's a more macro, bigger martial in thing, exactly exactly, and it's also the key thing to remember. It's kind of a forward looking

way of looking at the market. Now we get supplying demand data. Yeah, that's a backward measure. The curves forward looking. It's basically a positive and then critical with backwardation. Is it a bet typically that the near term is a higher price, or is it a bet that the year out price is lower. It's it's asymmetric. It's got to be an overweight to one of those, right. It's more of an indication that demand is greater now versus supply, and it's that much it's taking that carry out of

the market. So it's just an indication of greater demand now. And often sometimes it gets too much extreme it could lead the other way now getting I think we're getting close to that. Was that good enough to keep off from New Jersey happy? I think what he said is I want my oil and I want it now. Well, this is from the gentleman that drive Rummer to David, I insist you ask about contango. Oh my gosh, can we do a jargon on jargon alert? Jargon explanation of

contango and what what it is. Well, contango is the opposite as we know. It's when the front price is lower for the out prices. That's just normally pricing in the carrol that's normal. That's normal. And you think of credile's expensive to store. That's kind of faced in the it's thing and you can't store it on your finger like you can't gold. I mean, it's faltil, it's it's dangerous. So it's got to be in the price. When you take that out in backgardation, that's the sign of demand.

So you look at a year ago, it was six percent in contango all and that was a sign that we're pretty well supplied. Now it's the opposite. Demand is great. But the key idea here is contango is normal and the backwardation now is the odd thing. Final question, can nontangibles like treasury futures, etcetera. Can they do these two things. Treasuries in the futures curve are completely priced off the forward short term interest rates, so they do. But that's

not an indication of supply demand. It's like gold, it's just the exact cost of that character. If we exhausted this Taylor Riggs is taking notes on this level three did we of it? I think we just killed that. Well, we could move on No. One worldwide. Yes, Michael mcgloane has done a better discussion about gartment is down in Virginia in tears over this right now. One of my big herosscartment is in tears over that discussion of backward backwards,

backwardation and contango. David, good morning to Escarpment. And let me ask you about other commodities. We talked about the effect of the hurricane on on the oil market, What about other commodities and otherways concerned around Harvey around irma about cotton in particular in the South. Have we seen other commodities take a hit as a result of those storms. Well, the number one was cotton, lumber party in there and

orange juice. The key thing of all those threet commodities, cotton is the only one that's worthy of being a bloomer commodity list because it's the only one has decent enough trading, enough trading voluments, so much significant. It's still one of our major exports in his country. But has come back. Cotton has just well still well supplied despite the fact and get distorted by the hurricanes. In the

big picture, it's more um. This distortion in in creude oil I think helps spark this rally because it took it, flushed out some of those weak longs and then boom now goes right back to where it should be going. How much better are we at forecast? And we talked about weather in the role that it can have on commodities here in the US and around the world. Uh, do we see a more nimble commodities? Uh, commodities market

than we have in the past. Well, the first thing I think of the weather is the grain market, the US grain market, and this global warming situation was supposed to hurt US grains of play, it's done the opposite. Climate change has added a massive amount of Yes, it's heated up the in temperature lit but it's added moisture to the grain belt. For instance, look at this year. August was one of the coolest August in a hundred years, but it wasn't And so it's just been added the

volatility in moisture. So we've had five years of bumper crops. The questions at some point that's got to end and the grain market is an area I see very much brewing. It just needs a little bit of basically needs a dry August, and we had the opposite last this August. That's close here. By talking about gold, I know you're you're watching gold here as we approached the end of

the month. What are you looking at in particularly what will the close of gold here at the end of September tell you about the about the commodity key pivots. Bottom line with gold is it's a much better founded market than it was a year ago. It failed right after September meeting. It declined ten percent this year. It's the number one factor behind it declining dollar and if the do unless the dollar really reversus, gold has hasn't been to it. It was a September being Now gold

failed at the February four meet. Well, look at golden this tightening cycle, gold is actually outperform the SMP five and people don't really get that yet. And during the entire tyking cycle it's about about spy. We make jokes about it, folks. But what you just heard there was the clearest exposition I've ever heard of degradation in Contango. That was people seriously people flunk exams on this stuff.

What a public service. Michaelmgloan giving his perspective here from Bloomberg Intelligence on some of the pro talk and discussion that you hear in the commodity markets at Bloomberg that oftentime in the media gets thrown around like David, that was great. Absolutely, I'm not I go I can. I can fake it like anything. Mcloan is a real deal, So that really works. Terrific. Thank you very much, the commity strategistic to Bloomberg Intelligence here on Bloomberg eleven three

studios in New York. For a long time, he represented Maryland's eighth Congressional district and moved on to the Senate when Barbara mcculsky retired. He's the junior Senator from Maryland. Chris van Holland joins us now on our phone lines, and there's a lot to talk about this morning, from healthcare to tax reform and the deficit. Let's start with healthcare,

if we could. Senator. We heard from Senator Susan Collins yesterday she does not intend to support the bill known as the Graham Cassidy Bill, a a revision to uh the Affordable Care Act I wonder what kind of conversations you've had with Larry Hogan, the governor of your state of Maryland, about healthcare and about this bill in particular. Well, Larry hold and the governor of Maryland has come out

against this bill. It would be very harmful to Maryland, as it would to most states around the country, and in fact, every state would be badly heard in the in the out years when medicaid would face an absolute cliff beyond a decade from now and between now and then, it does eliminate the guarantee for protections against things like pre existing conditions and eliminates the guarantee of essential benefits.

So uh, that is why you've seen every patient protection group in the country come out against it, all the nurses, doctors, hospitals. So I'm I'm very much hoping that this is defeated once and for all and we can get back to the bipartisan discussions about how we can improve the Affordable Care Act in the healthcare system. Yes, I'm curious about the status of those bipartisan discussions. I know that Lamar Alexander has been working on a bipartisan bill with your

colleague from from Washington state. Uh, And I'm curious just to what it looks like on Capitol Hill when a piece of legislation like Graham Cassidy is being worked on and worked through. Is the door open for Democrats to join the discussion or is this something that's really happening on a parallel track, a different track from everything else. Well, once the Graham Cassity initiative really started, as the Republicans in the Senate dropped the bipartisan negotiations, they essentially ended.

At that point, you had a situation where the Trump administration and the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and then Republican Leader Mitch McConnell decided to go back to the effort to blow up the Affordable Care Act, and at that time those bipartisan talks ended, Which was why I'm hopeful that if we're able to defeat Graham Cassidy, that we will resume those negotiations, which I understand from both sides were making progress, making progress. What are the

the areas of commonality? In other words, if you get back to the negotiating table with Republicans, what are things that you think need to change where you think Democrats Republicans can can come together? Is there unanimity? Is their agreement here that parts of the Affordable Care Act need to be changed? Yes, I think everybody agrees that the

Affordable Care Act needs changes. So the main things that were on the table were making permanent the cost sharing provisions so that there would be some certainty in the marketplace that they would be there. The lack of certainty has created some wild fluctuations with respect to premium offerings. Even as we had into this fall uh, there was effort.

There was an effort at reinsurance provisions so that there would be some relief for the very high cost patients that really drive many of the costs that are face. And then there was a discussion about more flexibility in the Medicaid waiver provisions. States already have a lot of flexibility, but there had been complaints about the amount of time that they get, how amount of time it takes for

them to have their proposals reviewed and implemented. So that was a package coming together Senate out whether or not that would pass in the House is a whole different question. Senator, you have leapt into the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate. It's a hugely dynamic time. And if we could turn over to the mundane politics of the moment you're managing for the two thousand and eighteen election with the d s CC trying to get it done

against some difficult math. Are you impatient that you need to see a new Democratic party now or can it wait till left the midterm elections. Well, I'm not sure quite what you mean by a new Democratic Party. I mean, in this cycle, even a few months ago, the Democrats put forward a lot of ideas with respect to jobs

in the ecount. To me, it's understandable that that hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention because the focus has been on what's going on in the Congress right now, which is controlled, of course by Republicans in both houses, and so I think for the mid terms you're gonna see primarily a referendum on the Trump administration and the conduct of the majority in the House and Senate. That's

been the traditional pattern of mid terms. But at the same time, we will have our senators are incumbent senators in every one of their race is talking about what's best for their state, and of course our challenges will be doing the same thing. You are in the crosshairs of this debate. You're not sitting on the couch in the Oval office, but you're in the cross hears of

this debate. Do you desire in terms of a new Democratic Party the same old, same old, and let's call it a progressive party of the two coasts, or does it have to be a Democratic party that that pays homage to Michigan, to Wisconsin, into other areas rural less, sanctuary city areas well. However you define the Democratic Party, we absolutely have to do a better job of connecting

with voters in every part of the country. It's very clear from the last presidential election that many voters who had supported Democrats in the past, who had voted for Barack Obama, decided to vote for Donald Trump because uh, he somehow persuaded them that he had their best economic

interests in mind. And so, uh, the Democrats have been very clear since the end of the election that we need to refocus our efforts on what the Democratic Party has always stood for, which is the chance for everybody uh to have a good, pain decent job, in a in a good future. So to answer your question, yes, we need to do a better job of connecting with voters, and a lot of the Senate races that we've got up this time are in the is you've talked about.

And we have incoming senators who have been very successful at making it clear that they're looking out for the best interests of their states. A few weeks back, I imagine a copy of the Washington Post landed with the thud outside your office and the Heart State Office Building

and many others on Capitol Hill. John McCain, your colleague from Arizona, writing about comedy on Capitol Hill, about by partisanship, about regular order, And I wonder how you processed what he wrote in that op ed piece, and how you process what he said in his statement about why he doesn't intend to to to vote for Graham. Casting. Yes, it has to do with some aspects of the bill, but it also has to do with the way things are proceeding on Capitol Hill right now. There's there's his

encouragement to get back to regular order. What's it gonna take to get there? What's it gonna take to get back to by partisanship and the traditions of the U. S. Senate. Well, I applaud Senator McCain for calling out the Senate to get back to the regular order. You mentioned that I've been in the House and now I'm in the Senate my first term, and you know, one of the one of the whole lawks of the Senate in the past has been the idea that people can work together to

get things done across party lines. In fact, the rules are structured to encourage that kind of compromise. So I really hope we're able to do it. Uh. The healthcare debate has been very polarizing, as we've seen, which is why I'm hopeful that if we can defeat this Graham Cassidy proposal, that we can get back to those Alexander H. Murray talks that you reference. I hope we can do it in other areas. I always thought modernizing our infrastructure

would be an area where people could come together. You know, that shouldn't be a democratic or a publican or any other issue. Uh, And so that would be in a fruitful area. I think for discussion. Tax reform is an area where it's possible to have bipartisan cooperation because I think there's general agreement that you know, we've got a lot of junk in the tax code and it can

be simplified. How you do that, of course, is a whole another debate, and I guess that's when we're going to have, so I hope we can have it here. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Don't be a stranger. Would love to have you back against. We talked a bit about tax reform, if you're so inclinent. Senator Chris van Holland, the junior Senator from Maryland, joining us.

David right here with the Tom Keene Limberg eleven three studios in the yourk Librick surveillance on Limberg Radio, continuing to talk about a number of big stories days. We look at the Janet Yellen speech at twelve forty five Wall Street Time speak at the NAB conference in Cleveland. Be carrying that for you live here on Bloomberg Radio. Presidential press conference this afternoon as well, and focusing also

on what's happening legislatively on Capitol Hill. Conversation about healthcare reform continues, so does the conversation about a tax reforum as well. And in just about we're gonna be joined by Kathleen Sebelia. She's the former U S Secretary of Health and Human Services, She'll be on our phone line forgiving in our studio on Bloomberg nine one one studio in Washington, d C. Secretaries to beilias. Let me ask you, first of all here just where we go from here?

Indications seemed to be that the Republicans do not have the support they need to get this particular piece of legislation, Graham Cassidy through. Where do we go from here? There's talk of bipartisanship. We heard it from Senator at Van Hollen a few moments ago here on the show. What is what is a bipartisan approach to healthcare going forward?

Look like, well, I think if the Graham Cassidy bill is either pulled from the floor or fails to get the majority in the Senate, it's really important to act

quickly on some kind of bipartisan solution. Because eight we're about six weeks away from open enrollment under the existing law, which means that insurers have to know that the law will be followed, that actually the administration intends to enforce the I R S penalty, that they will indeed pay the um cost sharing subsidies to insurance companies as the law outlines so insurance companies can participate in the marketplace, and then the administration hopefully will change course and actually

inform people that open enrollment is approaching, have people available to help on the ground um instead of the really continuous sabotage that's underway. I think Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray are working hard. They've had hearings where governors have come in, insurance commissioners have come in, others to talk about three or four steps that need to be done very quickly to stabilize the existing market and make sure that the people who buy marketplace coverage in the individual

market have choices going forward. Sectariy belies. I look at the commentary surrounding this particular piece of legislation. There are a lot of people saying Republicans talked a lot about repealing the Affordable Care Act, but never had a solution to to put in place. As you look back on these last few years, a few months, few years, has there been anything proposed by the Republicans you had a

chance of making it through here? And when we look ahead to buy partisan solutions, what are the things they've proposed that you think have legs that need to happen that when it comes to healthcare in this country, well, both the original House and Senate bills had some kind of stabilization fund that would be applied at the state level, particularly in states where um there is not enough coverage and participation by companies. I think that's a very good idea.

The original law had risk sharing pools, had an ability to balance risk a state by state UM that was not funded intentionally by Congress. So a stabilization fund uh administered at the state level by insurance commissioners would I think make the market not only more secure, but also hopefully prompt competition. I'm a I'm a market believer that more competition actually is the best rate UM risk ricter, and what we need to do is make sure that

people have choices of a couple of different companies. So that's a that is a very good idea. I think just telling the insurance companies what the rules are. This again, is a private sector plan run by insurance companies in each state. The products licensed or not only selling marketplace products for those who qualify for Obamacare subsidies, but they also sell insurance products to farm families and mom and pop businesses and um families who are buying their own coverage.

It's really important that that market doesn't blow up, and that's really at risk right now. So what are the rules insurance companies will then sell products in those states? And the short time we got left with you, and we'd love to have you come on and spend more time with us. We learn in civics that Kansas is worth studying. You lived Kansas, your father in law, I believe, was first district Congress. There's all that crazy cibilious Robert's

relationship over the years. What's the state of Kansas right now? To borrow from an acclaimed book, I mean, after all the tax work, in the turmoil of all Republicans Kansas your Democrat, what's what's the state of your Kansas? Governor? Well, I think it's important that people actually take a really hard look at Kansas. So Senator brown Back came back, ran for governor, was successfully elected, and then put in place a tax plan that I think will look eerily

like what's being proposed at the federal level. It it sounds like all the harmarks of what the Trump tax plan may include. It has been a total economic disaster can you print money in Lawrenceville? I mean you have a printing press there. We do not have a printing press. We have to work on a balanced budget, and the tax framework has been such a disaster that a Republican legislature finally got rid of the plan and overrode the governor's veto because the state is in economic turmoil. So

we need to pay attention to that. We need to pay attention to you know what what happens when a Democrat gets elected in a Republican state and actually can get some things done. So we do have a good bye pers in history. Here's our governor. Please promise if you'll come back to a Washington studios, Mr Gura will spend an hour review or more. There's that much to talk about about Kansas as well, Kathleen sibilious of course on our politics. Stay with this coast to coast and

in Kansas. This is Bloomberg plecture to bring in now somebody who knows the history of principles of American philanthy better than anybody else. That's Joe Fleischman, Professor of Law and Public Policy a Duke University, the author of a new book putting wealth to work philanthropy for today, we're investing for tomorrow. It's great to have you with us

here in New York. I could wander a few blocks south of here at forty two Street and look at that Kevin Roach building, the Ford Foundation constructed uh full of people working hard on any number of issues, but also a monument to a certain kind of foundation. And central to your book, Joel, is attention in philanthropy today. Do you build a monument like that, an institution like that, or do you in your lifetime decide to spend off

the fortune that that you've made. How do we get to the point where we're at this turning point where where where those who have been blessed with a lot of money have to make that decision. I think we're at that port largely because a lot of people have made a lot of money when they were young, and therefore they would like to translate into a public impact the same kind of impact they had in building their companies. I think that's the reason where we're where we are

at this point. You use the word impact, and there is a trend that I can pick up in philanthropy to day to measure impact you look at a foundation like the Gates Foundation, very data dependent foundations want to see that the money that they're putting towards something is being used as best as it can be used. Is that necessarily a good thing? Can we measure everything with metrics? The answer is you can't measure everything with metrics, and most of the good foundation people know that. On the

other hand, you should measure what you can measure. Uh, And those things which lend themselves to metric metrical measurement to do it. Qualitative measurements are also very good. So the answer is it's it's it's fine to do both. Uh. What you don't want to do is to say we're not going to do anything because it can't be measured, because some of the most interesting things have in fact

been done that can't be measured. A small time foundation charity player, when d Rubinstein of Carlisle Group says, shut up and read this book. What I love about your effort, Professor, putting Wealth to work is it's hugely accessible. We have foundation itis today and you beautifully write about the reality of trusty fatigue. What is trusty fatigue, which is a

clear and present danger? Yes, what is trusting fatigue is that foundations and and many many smaller foundations have the problem of their trustees basically have gotten tired of what they're doing, basically because either there's not enough money to justify what they're doing, or or it is simply a fact that they've got they've they've gotten bored, or they maybe family. Okay, so John Tucker here has a twenty three million dollar foundation, small potatoes. He sets it up,

and his grandchildren are going to get fatigue over it. Yes, where's the money go? The money has to go to a charity, simple as that. As simple as that. Either under the terms of an internal Revenue Act, once you set up the foundation, anything that happens that money has to be charitably certified. Basically, we've seen another trench here that is record I'm not bored. A lot of these set up is five O, one C three's. We're seeing

a movement into other configurations. Has the notion of a philanthropy what it is under the tax laws and just in general change here we're seeing lcs. For instance, when it comes to to philanthropic enterprises, right, the answer is yes, and know I mean the major major events in the in the sector, such as the donor advised funds is a very good example. The assets held by all the

private foundations is somewhere around seven hundred million dollar billion dollars. UH. The the the amount of money in the donor advised funds accumulatively at the last time the figures were reported was seventy billion dollars. So you've got ten percent of

what the foundations hold in donor advised funds. That's all happened since UH And the consequence is many people use, even foundations used donor advised funds they in order to facilitate if they can't get the money out of the door as quickly as they'd like to, they've got the donor advised funds where they can simply write a check. I started off by asking you about the Ford Foundation mentioning the building down street, and let me use it here lastly, just to ask you about the moment that

we're at right now. Under Darren Walker's leadership, we've seen a rethinking of what that foundation in particular does. Are we seeing that more broadly? UH introspection in the philanthropic sector about what philanthropies can do and how best they can do it absolutely. The many foundations are doing it. They're not moving with great alacrity, I should tell you. Uh. For example, impact investing foundations have not done anywhere near They have not moved as rapidly, for example, as the

for profit businesses. JP Morgan has moved a lot faster in impact investment than any of the foundations have. But some of them are coming along. The Ford Foundations said now it is aiming towards spending putting ten percent of its assets, and that the Krasky Foundations decided to put ten percent of its assets and the impact investiting. But but it's it's a very slow process. I like how you quote the attorney and professor Leo Tolstoy. All happy

families are alike. Each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. And you discussed that and solve that in this book, right, And I try to in any event, there's not very The one thing I can say I do say in the book is that the donors who want to solve their families uh interpersonal problems by putting their getting their kids involved in philanthropy barking up on the wrong trail. It has never happened. Joe Flashman, Thank you very much. Joel Fleishman is gonna join me on

television as well. Joel Flashman, Professor of Public Policy and Law at Duke University and the author of the new book Putting Wealth to Work Philanthropy. For today, We're investing for tomorrow. This is Bloomberg Surveillance on Bloomberg Radio David Gura and Tom Keene in New York. 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 David Gura. Is that David Gura before the podcast? You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.