This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
This is Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston, bringing you stories of capitalism this week, reconciliation, what's needed to make the tough decisions surrounding the national debt, and a look at one of Wall Street's passion assets. We talk with collectors, advisors, and auctioneers about the big business of fine art, but we start with a story about demand, specifically the demand
for artificial intelligence. We know it will be big, and that means we're going to need massive computing power from data centers, and lots of them.
When you see the world's leading technology companies who are as close to this as anybody, making the scale of investments that they are, to me, that's an extraordinary sign of the potential that they see in the future.
Eric Schwartz is CEO of cyrus I, one of the largest data center owners and operators in the world. Schwartz is at the forefront of a modern gold rush as big tech companies scramble for the resources to turn electricity into computing power. We wanted to see for ourselves what the building blocks of the AI boom looked like. And so we traveled to Texas, a state with one of the highest numbers of data centers in the United States. In a suburb north of Dallas, we met with Schwartz
at one of his firm's new facilities. It spans nearly a million square feet. We toured the massive, high ceiling building filled with row upon row of black cabinets shielding racks of computers from prying eyes, all of which are built a meter or so above ground level to permit an elaborate system to pump cool air up into the computer ax That explains the high ceilings, which let the warm air rise to be recycled through the cooling system.
Schwartz says the race to build data centers like his in Texas is only getting started, with Cyrus one in the process of adding additional buildings and capacity next to its current facilities.
The risk to us as a developer for those customers is to ensure that we can keep up with their demand and that we're delivering both capacity and service at the levels they require. They're all operating mission critical infrastructure, and their expectations are intensely high. We do our best and are constantly investing to ensure that we can keep
up with those expectations. But our real challenge is to make sure that we're keeping up with their requirements because they're counting on this infrastructure to support the growth investments that they're making.
Keeping up with those requirements is not going to be easy. But the good news for the United States is that it has a strong head start. There are more than seven thousand data centers worldwide, with nearly two thousand in America alone. US data center capacity grew almost a quarter in the last year alone, with another seventy percent set to come online from centers already under construction.
Today, the United States is a substantially larger data center market than the other regions around the world, and that's driven in part by the adoption of the Internet, by the presence of the large technology companies who are based here, but also by the fact that investment and progress against artificial intelligence here in the United States is further advanced than it is in other regions, and so right now you'll see much stronger demanding growth in the United States.
Other countries around the world are very focused on the implications of artificial intelligence and are concerned about making sure that they have the infrastructure in their economies to keep up. And so we're seeing and will continue to see efforts by other countries around the world to support that type of infrastructure in their countries to support their economies and their growth.
Valtimore Slayzak is kkir's global head of Digital Infrastructure. His firm is making big investments in data centers, including when it teams with Global Infrastructure partners to buy Eric Schwartz's Cyrus one for fifteen billion dollars back in twenty twenty two. Like Schwartz, he sees big opportunities coming in Europe and in Asia.
US is definitely, at least from our perspective, well ahead in terms of the deployment of AI, and I think it is a strategic element of I think the growth going forward. If you just think about a couple of maybe examples cloud companies, US cloud companies have about seventy five percent global market share in terms of AI funding. Eighty percent of it is coming in the United States. So US is definitely leading the charge, so to speak,
in terms of deployment. But I think we see the similar playbook being applied in Europe and in Asia Pacific. But just to try to quantify the scale of it. US data center market is about a fifteen gigabott market
growing to forty gigawatts. European market is about six gigabotte market, likely going to triple or quadruple over the next four or five years to twenty gigabotts, and then Asia Pacific x China is on a similar trajectory, so the scale is really different between US and those other markets.
Meeting that growing demand for data centers will not be easy. There are a host of potential hurdles that people like Christine Wood, headed the data center practice at Burns McDonald, are finding ways to overcome.
We're looking at water availability, connectivity, location, demand, latency, and then we secondarily look at the regulations, whether or not they have zoning appropriate, zoning requirements, tax incentives, and really if it makes a business business sense to be in
that specific location. And then once you go into more of the design and construction, what we're starting to see and what we have been doing, especially with our construction arm, is that we really want to get ahead of some of the labor and craft labor shortages that we see out on site, and so we are designing data centers that are more modular, have skid are able to work within the craft shops of these different self performed contractors, so that we can deploy these data centers more rapidly
and on a scalable basis.
But as big as those obstacles may be, the biggest by far is finding the electricity of the centers require, with Goldman Sachs estimating that they already consume one to two percent of all the power supplied worldwide and that that number could double by the end of the decade.
Power is becoming the long pole in the tent to be able to find a data center site, and so it really starts with that is the power puzzle that we're seeing associated with the data center sites. And so when we're walking through looking for great sites and supporting our clients on the site due diligence is we're looking for. Power is the number one item.
For data centers and their clients. Having enough power is necessary, but not sufficient. The power also has to be there without fail and without interruption of any kind.
No excuses. The infrastructure that it's operating here needs to be available twenty four hours a day, three hundred and
sixty five days a year. Without interruption. So where it starts is that for all of the equipment that we have deployed here, whether it's the battery banks, whether it's the cooling units, all of that, there is always a backup for that equipment in the event that something were to fail, and things always fail and you need to have a backup to ensure that you don't have an interruption.
That backup at cyrus One's new Texas facility means layer after layer of redundancy. The facility gets power straight from the grid, but if that fails, batteries located behind the data center kick in. Those batteries are kept fully charged by a series of generators which are constantly running, and if all else fails, behind the batteries are a role
of equally large diesel powered locomotive engines. If a power outage lasts beyond the life of the batteries, the engines take over to ensure there's nothing to stop the center's operation, including its elaborate cooling system, no matter what the problem. Eric Schwartz says this unprecedented need for a liable power goes beyond just finding out where to get it and
how to make sure it's uninterrupted. It also demands an upgrade if the entire way we generate and distribute power in the United States and elsewhere.
So data centers are effectively technology factories, and like any factory, we draw power to operate to operate the factory. And so the challenge and the work that we do is to work very closely with the utilities and the grid operators to identify the right locations where we can connect to that power and ultimately deliver it to our customers. And this requires work and require there's a lot of collaboration.
But the United States in particular, then other countries as well are investing in growing their power infrastructure, not only for scale but for sustainability, and we're very focused on making sure that we're locating in the right places.
Ultimately, what we think is will require a comprehensive solution. So the technology companies themselves are large consumers of of course this infrastructure, but that's not the only demand driver. It's also unsharing, it's electrification. So there's other what I would say are great signs of economic progress and growth in the United States, and we should be really proud of that, but it requires a new investment in generation and in transmission right, it's something that we really haven't
seen over the last twenty years. So if you look at the US grid over the last twenty years, effectively stagnated in terms of the demand growth at about forty one hundred TARO wide hours. What's really interesting that there's
been an interesting energy transition during that time. We've decommissioned a lot of call plants that's dropped by a sixty five percent, We've increased generation from natural gas by at one hundred and seventy percent, and increased generation from renewables, and so the grid itself has really gone a very positive transformation. And so what do we think with this
level of growth. The expectation is that the men side of energy will have to go up at a two to three percent, which is really different than what the industry had seen over the last twenty years. And so it require new generation to be developed and likely increase investments in the transmission infrastructure to help enable this. And I think from our perspective, we believe that again this partnership could really create a power powerful solution.
The source of the energy used to power data centers has become a key part of the equation At a time when the world is trying to wean itself off of fossil fuels, it raises the question of whether meeting the demand will come at the cost of warming the planet even further, something that those commissioning new data centers have very much in mind.
We continue to see our clients have a lot of sustainability goals around renewable and green energy, which is really really great to see, and so with that, you also want to think about where that capacity is coming from. With renewables, solar and wind come on and off the grid because the sun's not always shining or the wind's not always blowing, and so a lot of times, some of the other power generation plants, especially nuclear, they can't ramp up and down on the grid like solar and
wind can. And so you actually have some capacity available at some of these nuclear power plants in order to serve some of these data center customers. And then data centers also are a really good marriage for that nuclear plant because they have a constant load.
Cyrus One's customers are demanding that it find more ways to get power from sustainable sources, but the company owner KKR is seeking the same not just for Cyrus one, but for its infrastructure investments overall spike in power demand. What does that mean for the climate, Because at the same time we were trying to get away from fossil fuels. Try to say the climate, how do you put those two together.
We're obviously a huge investor in energy transition and we're big believers in that. I don't think that those are necessarily mutually exclusive. It's part of a comprehensive solution. So as I just mentioned investments in generation effectively decommissioned call plants, investments and natural gas plants, those are not only things
that help affordability, but also energy security. So we believe, as you know, through our portfolio, we've been a very large investor in renewable We have ten renewal platforms across the globe, invested over thirty four billion dollars in sustainability since twenty and ten, and we think that's an important part of this solution.
You're listening to Bloomberg Wall Straight Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg Wall Straight Week with David Weston's from Bloomberg Radio.
This is a story about reconciliation, something we may not set out to achieve, something we might even resist as long as we can, but something that most of us end up coming around to in the end, reconciling with one another today for the sake of what our children need tomorrow. There's no shortage of issues, important issues for us to disagree about, like whether our economy needs the government to tax less.
Cut taxes very substantially and create a great economy, or spend more.
First time home buyers with twenty five thousand dollars, or.
What we should do about our southern border.
Allowing these millions and millions of people to come into our country, and look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States.
Have a broken immigration system and we need to fix it.
Every year in the Mountains of Colorado, the Aspen Economic Strategy Group gathers leaders from business, government, and academia to find common ground on important issue like these, seeking to use evidence about the effects of policy to resolve policy differences and to bring us closer to that reconciliation we all need. So we went to Aspen to speak with the group's executive director, Melissa Karney, who said that today reconciliation faces a unique threat.
What's really interesting and I think challenging is our country is definitely facing a reconsideration of an economic paradigm, and from both parties, we're seeing a move towards more nationalist sentiment, more protectionist sentiment, things that really move away from the market based economic framework that's driven growth and dynamism for so long. And so the agenda for this year is really based on all, right, let's take this as given
to you. Political concerns, national security concerns, domestic discontent are driving this reconsideration. And so we're pulling together people who have studied these issues, who have worked on these issues, who have been in government and grappled with these issues for a very long time, to try and say, what
kind of trade policy should the US pursue. How can we pursue industrial policy in a way that preserves and promotes economic dynamism and economic growth while addressing the very real national security and economic domestic challenges that are driving this reconsideration.
One of the biggest issues in Aspen this year the federal debt and what can be done about it. Since the early two thousands, the United States has faced an annual budget deficit as the government began spending more than it collected through taxes. That deficit was made worse, first by the Great Financial Crisis and then by the COVID
nineteen pandemic. In both instances, the US government stepped in to rescue the economy, sending the federal debt surging from nine point four trillion dollars before the Great Financial Crisis to a whopping thirty five trillion dollars to day. And the debt just keeps on coming, with the Congressional Budget Office expecting it to go by an additional two trillion
dollars this year alone. But if there's any good news about the deficit, it could be that its alarming size might force America's leaders to do something about it, even if it means coming together from very different places. First rule of holes is to stop digging, and you have to the people who are in those positions of consequence responsibility have to understand that they have to govern with
a recognition of limits. Tim Geitner served as Treasury Secretary and President Obama's decidedly democratic administration, but when it comes to the federal deficit, he's not far away from former Republican House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy.
You got to do something with the debt. You can't maintain because what we did when COVID had and you look in just hindsight, we didn't know what was going to happen, so we up the spending knowing what was coming out, but Congress never pulls it back. You've got some entitlements that are so critical, but you want to sustain those and be able to So you've got to deal with it now, but you've got to do it in a bipartisan manner. Otherwise one party attacks the other.
Like McCarthy, Tim Geidner sees, bipartisanship is the only way to address a problem that's only becoming more complicated with each passing year.
In some ways, it's a much harder challenge because we're going to have to spend more in defense, and because we have an aging population, it's going to be more expensive to give them healthcare over time, and so we're starting from a very bad place. They're going to have to make some trade offs, and of course these are things you know you can't do in a partisan basis.
You know, one of the great strengths of what Hank is built here is you know, you do get people from different parts of the polical spectrum who disagree on fundamental things to come together and sit there and listen to people deep expertise, to debate hard things, and to try to recreate a place where you can have hard, pragmatic conversations about those tough trade offs ahead.
That Hank is talking about is his predecessor as Treasure Secretary, Hank Paulson, who served under President George W. Bush. Paulson agrees with both Geitner and McCarthy that the debt is a big problem, but he also sees a silver lining.
I would say, so I get asked all the time about the economy, and I say, listen, don't ask me about when the Fed's going to kind of interest rates or what have you. Because we're in a great spot here. But the one thing we know, the big cloud on the horizon is our federal debt. It's unsustainable and if not checked, it's altimately going to destroy our prosperity, which can undermine our security, which is rooted in our economic strength.
And so the way I think about it, if you want to look at the dark cloud right on the negative side, that so many of us who have talked about the deficit for so long it looks like we're crying wolf, right, and so politicians and both parties sort of are ignoring it. Right. But the longer we wait, the more expensive it's going to be and the more dangerous it's going to be to clean up this mess before it strangles us. And so again, but that's the bad news. Now what's the good news. The good news
is we're a rich country. Right there's a lot we can do if we start working on it right away. We're gonna need both revenues. We're gonna need taxes and we're gonna need spending cuts. And people on each side don't like to hear that, but there's plenty of ways we can raise revenues and not impede growth by just closing preferences and loopholes in the tax code. And believe me,
you can't deal with us without dealing with entitlements. But you can clearly deal with entitlements through means testing and other mechanisms while protecting those that need it the most. So we can do both.
If Hank Paulson says we can get there, many of us will believe him. He helped lead us out of the Great Financial Crisis after all. But even if we have a sense of where we need to go, what are the steps between here and there? Paulson says part of the answer is having a Treasury secretary who has the trust of the president and ultimately those on both sides of the isle.
The number one priority is, first and foremost, develop a relationship of trust with the presidents, because Treasury secretary sounds like it's a very important position, and it is, but all the power really comes to what's delegated by the president, and then the relationships they can build on both sides of the isle. Right, So what you have to do is you have to convince Democrats and Republicans come with
ways to bring them together. Regulators are independent, but you can have a lot to say if you build relationships. So I think a lot of it first and foremost is building that relationship of trust, right with the president, with both sides Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and with your colleagues.
Pulson's successor agree Ease, but says a Treasury secretary needs to balance working across the aisle with speaking truth to.
Power and with markets and with people around the world that want to believe that they can trust in what you say, and you'll make choices with integrity. But I think Hank's absolutely right. The most important thing is that you have to recognize you have to be in a position where you are able to say what you think is truth and what is important for the country to
do or not to do. And sometimes you have to be the break and the constraint, and sometimes you have to be the accelerator, the catalysts that try to move a system that's hard to move to better choices.
I've always said, you don't want some other's Treasury secretary who's a politician who wants some day to be president of the United States, right, because there's a tendency to say what people want to hear, right, And you need to talk about what people need to hear. But you need to have the support of your president to be able to speak that way.
But let's face it, if we're politically easy to fix our problem of rising down, we would have done it long before.
Now.
Kevin McCarthy knows a thing or two about the intersection of politics and policy.
The interesting part about government. You've got very best idea, but that doesn't mean it passes. So you have to understand policy and politics, and if you don't understand both, you're not going to be successful at either.
And when it comes to the politics of the debt, Kevin McCarthy favors taking a chapter from history from other times when Congress needed to take big action that was politically fraud.
The way to really tackle it is to look at the way we handled after the Soviet Union collapsed in the ninety right. We had all these military bases, but the member of Congress is not going to vote to shut it down, so they created what was called a brack a base realignment and closure. So if we create something like this where all parties get to appoint some they have to one package has to be able to come out of that committee, no amendments. You voted up
or voted down. So at the end of the day, that decision will be made on both parties doing it together. Don't criticize each other, but that decision now. And these big problems that are macro problems, you can't solve them by one party, and our government is not designed where one party rules. You have to have compromise.
In the end, it's not that we need to be reconciled to doing something about the national debt. It's not really about what needs to be done. It's not even about how we could go about it. It comes down to reconciling ourselves to doing something. Now, if we fail, we're going to have to reconcile ourselves to imposing the problem on the next generation.
You're listening to Bloomberg Wall Straight Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg Wall Straight Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
Ladies and gentlemen, of course, we'll welcome to our twentieth century and contemporary evening seal.
This is a story about investing in our passions. For many, art is a passion, but it's also a big business, one that generated over sixty five billion dollars in sales last year. And at the core of that business are people who buy the art, people like Peter Krauss.
Remember these pieces of work, are these these assets, if you want to call them that. They don't produce an income. They don't have a coupon associated with them. The only income that you get is the appreciation.
Krauss is chairman and CEO of Aperture Investors, and has spent a career in finance, including as head of Alliance Bernstein. With his wife, he has also become one of the most avid art collectors on Wall Street.
My wife and I've been collecting since we got married, which is forty four years. And the first thing we bought was really sort of a small print, and I said to the galerist, who's not alive any longer, I said, well, you know what I like, and if you have any more, give me a call. And he looked at me and he said, here's what we're going to do. If you want to collect art, he will come in every Saturday
and I will show you aren't. But if you think I'm going to call you on the phone and tell you there's something for you to come and see, that's not happening. And I took his adminission seriously and we went we my wife and I went in every Saturday, and every Saturday he showed us work, most of which we couldn't afford, but all kinds of paintings, very little sculpture,
but some. And we finally found a painting that we liked and we bought and it was six thousand dollars and we paid for it five hundred dollars a month until it was paid off.
Over the decades, Kraus and his wife Jill have added to that single work, paid for an installments, and assembled a very large collection. It's people like the Krouses who are at the center of a growing web of players, including auction houses, banks and advisors. They connect one of the kind assets to collectors of all levels, from the very experienced to those just starting out.
A lot of times clients because they're because art is such a passion for them, it's a pastime, and so they'll let their guard down, which is, you know, wonderful, But at the same time, you might you don't want to be caught off guard and have a surprise later and buy something that maybe you know was overpriced or you just weren't aware of all of the factors involved.
Forteini Zidis is head of art Finance at City, one of the major banks that have added art advisory and financing to their investment offerings. When needed, they lend against the investors' collections to provide the liquidity needed to acquire new art. Zidis works with Mary Kate O'Hare who runs City's art advisory business.
One of the most important roles of an art advisor is the ability to tell a client no, because you you know, sometimes clients will send us stuff and say, what do you think about this, and it's it's you know, I think again. We're always looking out for our client's best interest.
We are.
You want to make sure they're getting the best they can So if we don't think it's the right piece, we'll explain the reasons why. Then the client is equipped with the information, they can always make a decision say nope, I love it, but then they go into it with eyes wide open.
Doing that can be a challenge in a market that's notoriously opaque, but for buyers like Peter Krauss, variety and risk can be both a bug and feature setting art far apart from the kind of assets he's spent his life investing in.
It's not like the stock market where you want to buy a share of Tesla, and all the shares of Tesla are exactly the same. Whether it's the first share or the a share of the one million share, doesn't matter. They're all the same. That's not true for it.
While each work of art is unique. So there's a big business in bringing some clarity to the market and in bringing together the buyers and sellers. Enter Edward Dolman, well.
Basically it's a sort of perfect form of the market. It's is the ultimates of demand and supply where the two meet with an auctioneer in front of all our clients who have come along to bid for the works of art that we've offered for sale.
After a twenty seven year career at Christie's, Edward Dolman became CEO of Phillips, which specializes in contemporary art. Auction Houses like Phillips, Southeby's and Christie's provide a public forum for price discovery at events throughout the year, including big ones in the spring and the fall.
So the art business is essentially driven by this auction machine. But round it is a huge sort of ecosystem of galleries and collectors and museums and art institutions. So we're a big community. But I do think the auctions are properly at the heart of it.
And we can open up with good interests on the phones in the room and online. Good luck to you all. At sixty seventy eighty thousand, I have with advanced it already.
It's been transformed actually in the time that I've been in it advance, which is a long time, that's thirty five years. When I first started, the market was opaque, to say the least. The only people had any pricing information where the auctioneers and the dealers who attended the auctions and wrote down all the.
Prices in their catalogs.
And I think the biggest transformative event in our world has been information and access to data. So really the market we see now, what's so different about it is the access to information that everybody has who's in that room competing, whether they're in Asia or South America, or Europe or America, they have access to the same information.
Better information is one change in the auction business. Another is the size of the guarantees auction houses are called upon to give sellers and methods they've developed to help share the risk of those guarantees with would be buyers.
As the sort of scale of of the auctions have gone bigger, just in terms of monetary values, it's impossible for the auction houses to take the risk on their own balance sheets, and so you know, there has been a very sophisticated sort of development of the concept of the irrevocable bid, where an auction house will look and try and find someone who wants to take the risk from you, someone who actually loves the work of art is very interesting wants to buy it at that particular level.
A key part of the auction business now is looking for these counterparties and trying to make sure that the risk is spread and is taken off the auction house balance sheet and placed.
Elsewhere who like to open the bidding here.
The price may be public, and the seller may be protected by guarantees and arobical bids, But for the buyer the question remains whether a work of art is worth the prices being bid, and also how those prices might be financed, which is we're for teenize Itis and her colleagues at City come in at one.
Hundred seventy million for the wall is selling here to you one U seventy million dollars.
The art market can be still opaque. It has gained transparency in some ways, but in many ways it still remains not a transparent market. A novice collector might need some guidance. So some of the things we look at when evaluating art, be that for an acquisition, a sale, as collateral for an art loan for insurance purposes, we look at a range of factors. We look at an artist's market history it's a more established artist. We look
at longevity of that market and what's happening. We look at the individual artwork itself, so the sale history of that work, oftentimes or not oftentimes, but sometimes artworks might show up for sale several times at auction, and what does that tell you? Did it fail to sell? Is it unquote fresh to the market? Work for which sometimes there's a premium because that work has been off the market for a number of years, and that creates a lot of kind of excitement when it comes up for sale.
Banks like City rely on their assessment of works value in making loans to the buyers a good many loans. According to Deloitte, outstanding borrowing against art could surpass thirty six billion dollars this year, up from a projected twenty nine to thirty four billion dollars in twenty twenty three. Banks, non banks and boutique lenders have increased their lending by one hundred and nineteen percent over the past five years, but these loans are not simply secured by the value
of the art being bought. They're made to the purchasers themselves.
As a bank, we offer recourse loans, which is different than asset based lenders. So the art is definitely you know, important, and that's why the clients are able to typically live with the art on their wall, So we don't take possession of the art, so clients keep it in their homes. Typically the art can appreciate in value and they can take that capital and put it towards other investments, purchase more art, you know, various purposes, but it is primarily
based on the client's financial picture. There are asset based lenders out there for sure that are competing. However, it's a different model, I would say, because in some cases they may have to take possession of the art. Typically the rates would be higher than what a bank would offer.
As borrows money becomes a bigger piece of the puzzle. It also means that now, more than ever before, the fortunes of the art industry have become more closely tied with interest rates, which may help explain why overall art market sales were down four percent last year from the year before.
You can actually look at the growth or contractions in our market get a better understanding of the relationship of art and finance, and I think it reflects a lot of the lending that I was talking about, the sort of explosion in terms of lending against works of art. The interest rates on those loans have become a more
and more significant player in our world. So whilst the stock markets have done reasonably well over the last couple of years, you know, the art market has felt a little bit of a decline, and I think that has been driven largely by interest rates and significantly higher levels of interest rates we have now than we add for a long time between twenty forteen and sort of twenty twenty two.
Fourteen million, nine hundred thousands.
Today the art market is larger and more transparent than in the past, and it's interwoven with interest rates and financing and expert advisors. But in the end, whether you're an art investor, a collector, or something of a mix of the two, the value of your purchase depends in part and whether it will resonate through times. In the media.
More generally, we follow a certain phenomena that rise up and all of a sudden, there's a great deal of interest a certain artists or a certain form of art sometimes which goes away from your experience over quite a few years in this business. Can you discern the difference between a fad and a trend?
It's a very good question. I don't think I can.
That's the truth.
I think it's impossible. I literally think it's impossible. I think that if you were to ask yourself the question, if you went back to Renaissance times and we're in Leonardo da Vinci's studio and he was painting the Mona Lisa, would you have known? Probably hard to tell.
But fortunately for a true collector like Peter Krass, it's not about predicting where the market will go.
As a collector, the key issue is trying to unlock the language that the artist is using to communicate their feelings or whatever they're putting into the art. And it's trying to figure out that language. That's the mystery of me. And where you figure out that language, then all of a sudden you see what the artist is doing. You may not like it, it may not speak to you. But if it does speak to you, if that language is something you read and it does excite you and it moves you.
That's interesting for the true art collector. As for the true artist, maybe it doesn't matter how many people are moved by a piece. One can be enough that does it. For this edition of Bloomberg Wall Street Week, I'm David Weston.
Stay with us.
Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now