This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week. The global push into infrastructure, breaking the IPO logjam in text, the financial stories that shape our world, cutting inflation without losing jobs. Do we need rate cuts? And if so? How many? Investing in a time of geopolitical turmoil. Through the eyes of the most influential voices. Ten Rogueff, economist of Harvard, former FDIC had Shila bet Ge CEO, Larry Coulp, San Francisco FED President Mary Daily Bloomberg.
Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
A presidential debate, an historic commercial spacewalk, and Europe leads the way in rate cuts. This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. This week, Devre Lair of Basselina on what's gone wrong with China for Sheer Sharma of Rockefeller International on what's gone wrong with housing prices in the United States? And Michael Wolf of Activate on what the
explosion in online gambling means for the media world. We start with the upcoming election and what that means potentially for Global Wall Street and we're delighted to have with us. Blair Ephron. He is co founder of Centerview partners. Blair. Great to have you back with us on Wall Street Week. We had a debate this week which gave us some sort of a peek into the economic plans of Kamala Harris, the vice president on hand, the former president Donald Trump
or together. What did we learn from it?
So we learned a few things.
We learned who Kamala Harris was on a broad basis, those who know her well and those non business community no she is. They expected her to do what she did, which was to be presidential, authoritative, approachable, well rounded on the issues, and disciplined. And I think it played as a big contrast obviously to form prisident Trump talking about
dogs and the like. But most importantly I got an email immediately last night from a fortune we called S and P one hundred CEO who had met her but was on the fence, and.
He said, boy, this is really just positive to me. She knows how to lead explorers.
To talk about the plan specifically, I mean atmosphere is really counted election, as we know, but also it counts what these people plan to do. You are in a particular position to understand what the vice president might plan to do. An econoic policy. You work with her and her team fairly regularly, give us a sense of exactly how she would address the middle class, because that's the way she started a debate. I really care about the
middle class. What is she proposing that would actually make a difference for the middle class on anybody?
Four int one thousand or less.
We'll actually see lower taxes. Two, if you're looking for a new home, we'll get a twenty five thousand dollars credit, and state and local communities will have incentives to build more quickly, cut through a red tape and make it more affordable.
Three.
She looks at the middle class and she says it's not enough for healthcare to have and sulend go down to thirty five dollars.
You need lower health care costs more generally and.
Very importantly, David, you start thinking about what she wants to do on the innovation economy. How do you help middle class families do well? You support them in building businesses. The idea that she wants to see twenty five million new applications during four years his.
Presidency is a big deal. And she's raised the deductibility to fifty thousand dollars.
In terms of expenses. She's making it so that if you have an idea, if you have an opportunity, she wants to help you most importantly. Also as importantly, she's looking at skills based jobs, not just college based jobs, and she wants to see a lot of private public
partnership do that. And then in terms of the middle class, again, she's done nearly a trillion dollars of public private partnerships across the country, and that money is spent in communities, whether it's Chips up in Syracuseton, New York, Arizona, Ohio. Those are all creating great jobs or the middle class.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. As you go through those programs, there are price tags, substantial price tags attached to each number one of them. How is she going to pay for it? If she can get them done?
So, she is incredibly focused on fiscal discipline, but she's doing it in a way that is everybody pays their fair share, but not necessarily punitively. So the highest tax bracket goes to thirty nine point six percent. We've been there before. Cap gain is twenty eight percent. We've been there before. Ronald Reaguan's a twenty eight percent billionaire attacks. What she's telling you is she will figure out responsibly how billionaires pay their fair share.
And I say responsibly.
You have to pay attention to what she says about her plans versus what she doesn't say.
And there's a lot in.
The Biden Harris platform, like unrealized gains doesn't mean that's where the candidate is. She's going to look at everything and say, how can we raise that kind of revenue.
She looks at buybacks.
Right now stock buybacks are one percent. There has been zero difference in impact on buybacks. In fact, twenty twenty three was the largest amount of buybacks by companies ever. That goes from one percent to four percent. So she's highly focused on it. And she looks at the Trump plan and she says that's upwards between four trillion to five trillion have increased debt on top of the eight trillion of debt that was created during his first term.
So she's very focused on the paid for.
Us very So the people who would be paying more money are a lot of those people who are emailing you after the debates. They are in that top tax bracket. They're running companies will be affected. Why should Wall Street support Kamala Harris given her emphasis on the middle class and taking the money from some of the more wealthy.
Okay, so let's.
Put to bed something that people simply don't understand. The markets have done better under democratic presidencies over the past fifty years than Republican presidencies.
The third year of Divide.
Administration, which means no COVID impact versus the third year of the Trump administration, which means no COVID impact, higher GDP, more.
Jobs, better market performance.
The CEO he or she wants stability, wants a free market based economy, does not want to be sitting here with ten and twenty percent tariffs across the board, which is upwards of one percent hit.
To GDP seven hundred thousand jobs.
They want support from the public sector in a way that helps their business. If they know what the certain with certainty, what the environments will look.
Like, it helps them.
And I also do think the signally matters. When the VP talks about business, she talks about small business, which has been a big focus of hers for a long time. She talks about the entrepreneurial business, the startup community, and she talks about big business that we're all in here together, aligned to figure out how to grow the economy for broad based growth again back to the middle class.
And I think most CEOs understand that Blair take us through your business at least the way I think the business of deals. When you've been on before, you've predicted that actually this year we'd start to see those deals come back after all sort of a quass period. Are we seeing it?
So it has come back a bit, and not just deals but.
Financings as well, but it is by no means where it will be. I think in twenty five there's still been a lot of uncertainty for my world in terms of the interest rate environment, in terms of the election and what that would lead to things. Always the last quarter, the last six months before an election always people settled down and want to see what's going to happen, momentum
in the economy and rerogatory aspects. So it's it has been a market where companies are still highly focused on M and A, but I would say more highly focused David on M and A that is more tactical rather than large ten billion, twenty billion above transformational. I think what you need for that which I do believe will be coming. Is one interest rates to come down. Remember the last four cycles we've had interest rate declines after the first interest rate cut, growth has been on average
three percent GDP. The markets on average have been up twenty percent. It becomes a tailwind. It is less relevant whether rates come down over eighteen months under fifty basis points versus one hundred. It's the trend, and it encourages an investment from companies, whether it's in their own business, making ten year bets or buying a business. And they believe that they're in the right part of the curve, they are more willing to make strategic ten year bets
in their investment. So I see I think you'll see a lot of that. I think you'll also see a lot of pent up demand for financings, and I would expect that the markets both on equity and debt, but particularly on equity would.
Open up quite a bit.
That gives companies currency and that matters. Then finally, I think you see a balance between price EXTI between a buyer and a seller much more not in line now than they work perhaps in the beginning of twenty twenty four.
Take us through that interest rate analysis, more debate about where does the FED end up? How important is that in making decisions about making deals?
Great question.
I think it is so much less important than people ascribe to it.
The CEO doesn't look.
At his or her balance sheet and says, wow, if I can finance it three and a half percent versus three seventy five percent, I'll do the transaction. You're making a long term strategic decision. Therefore, what you're trying to do is say what will long term the impact of the economy, of the impact of the rate environment mean to me? And when you see the curb decline, it
increases confidence, increases optimism, And that's the difference. I'm always struck by how people are focused on what will happen over the next three months and determining how they want to make tre I understand for certain traders great, but for my world, where you're talking about businesses, talking about companies, they just don't have that mindset. They're looking at the overall economic picture generally, of which the rate environment is one part of it.
If there is a pent up demand for deals that's sort of being held off for both when the FED starts really cutting and where it's going. And for the elections, where do you see particular demand that is pent up? I mean, where are there transformationional areas? I mean, certainly we cover media a lot, for example, there's a lot in tech. Where do you see sectors that particularly might be ripe for deals?
So I think actually most sectors. There's been in most of these sectors, David, a couple of big deals already. So talk about media. You know, Paramount obviously a big deal. It's a sector that is entirely under disruption. You should assume we will see more consumer you already saw a
big deal klean over Mars. I assume that will lead other companies to think about what they want to do tech in there have Finally, I think a calibration and equalization between buyer expectations and seller expectation.
You'll see more there healthcare.
Healthcare has been busy throughout, no reason to think it won't continue to be busy. So I would actually argue it's not going to be from my perspective, just one or two sectors. I think there'll be a general lifting of the market. And to me that means a good market in our world now is five trillion or above, But a perfectly fine market is three and a half trillion to four trillion. It's hard to imagine that we don't have at least a perfectly fine market in twenty twenty five.
Has the deal area been held back a bit by private equity? Is that less of a factor for you than it was a year or five years ago.
Absolutely. I think the private equity community.
Is thirty five to forty percent of the overall market in a good year.
I'd be surprised if in twenty twenty five you.
Don't see that part of the market being very active, very.
Robust, and corporation's stepping into that to do their own deals.
Well, not so oparations are doing already.
Mostly you're seeing a lot of corporate activity already, and I don't in any way think that's going to slow down. Remember, the market ps are down two and a half points from the peak a couple of years ago, and earnings are still pretty good SMP five hundred earnings for this year and for the next quarter, we'll again eighty percent of the companies will all perform estimates. CEOs feel this kind of tailwind, and my bet is that they will invest against it.
Blair It's always great to have you on Wilsherbeg. Thank you so much. Let's Blair e Fron of Centerview Partners coming up. Football ratings are up and so is online betting on the games. Are the two related? We ask Michael Wolf of Activating. That's next on Wall Street Week on Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
This is Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. The NFL season is now underway, which means a whole new season of sports betting, at least for some fans. To take us through this explosion and what it means for the media of sports, we welcome back now Michael Wolf. He's Activated, founder and CEO. Michael, always great to have you. Let's talk about this sports betting, boy, it is everywhere.
I mean, if you look at overall in the US we have where this year we're going to have about one hundred and forty billion in legalized sports betting that we forecast that within three years this is going to be a two hundred billion.
But here's where the prize is.
There's five hundred billion of sports betting in the US that is not legal. So what we're about to see is the transition from illicit to legal, and so it's like going from your bookie to bet MGM and DraftKings, and that's what's going to explode.
Now.
The numbers for the NFL twenty three billion last year in sports betting, thirty five billion this year, but almost twenty six percent of that is one day the Super Bowl.
Wow, that's amazing. So there's a lot of upside at least for somebody, maybe not for the bookies, but upside for somebody Besides the DraftKings and the MGM sports who else benefits from this?
For example, the leagues, well, the league's the NFL has made about a billion dollars worth of deals with these with all of the sports betting companies partnerships. But at the same time, those sports betting companies are spending about the same amount, about a billion dollars on advertising across television and digital and other places. And so it's providing a big, big boost to media companies.
And part of what's going.
To change is a lot of what's driven the growth is the number of states that have legalized sports betting. So we're about thirty nine states, so far, there's only a couple that came online last year of Florida, Kentucky and other places. It's not clear that there's going to be anymore. So this is going to be about moving that five hundred billion into that core sports betting.
Talk to us about what this means in streaming, because that is the future obviously of the media companies that are all trying to get there, trying to be profitable even more than get there. How essential is sports to a streaming strategy.
If we look at the top the top shows overall on television, they're pretty much all sports and depending on the time of the year, pretty much all NFL with a couple of things like wrestling in the meantime.
But if you look going forward.
You can get the NFL on practically over the top outside of television on streaming services only a very small percentage of the games you're only going to be on television.
So what does that mean again for the leagues, because it's good news for them if they have more bidders, and every time I turn around there's an Amazon bidding or an Apple bidding, Well we're.
About to see if you just look at the recent NBA where the NBA was able to sell their games pretty much across the board, whether it was Amazon or Disney.
We're going to see more of that.
These rights become extraordinarily valuable in a world where this is what's getting people to go into these streaming services and getting them to watch television.
So what does this mean for a company like Paramount. We now know since we last talked, we know for sure what you predicted, which is that mister Ellison actually is going to run the place.
Well, it's fascinating.
Mister Ellison is going to run it, but he's bringing in Jeff Schell, who ran NBC, really understands people don't realize. He understands both the studio side of the business and the network side, including the sports and the streaming business through Peacock. So I would expect bringing in the new management team would make a huge difference. To a large extent, this company has really suffered from a lack of investment and a lack of creative leadership.
Are they going to keep it all together? Would you expect? Or are we going to have sort of if you will, good company, bad company, the streaming and the studio on the one hand, good company maybe some of the traditional linear media not so good.
Well, here's the challenge. Most of these media companies still make most of their money on linear, and the studios and the streaming services for the moment aren't going to make really make a lot of money. But each of these networks, and the TV stations and the broadcast networks, they have to learn to manage in a world where there are fifty million cable subscribers. Just a few years ago, we were at one hundred million homes in the US. Practically every home in the US had some sort of
cable or satellite. Now our firm is forecasting that we're going to go from seventy million homes around now to within three years fifty million homes.
They're all going to learn how to manage against that.
But still there's a lot of upside through these assets.
Well, a lot fewer cable basic cable husholds, a lot more streaming husholes. I saw a report on Bloomberg actually that said that actually, the good news is streaming now makes money. The bad news is Netflix makes more than one hundred percent of the money because the other guys are losing, but Netflix is making up for all the other losses.
You know, if you look back in the history of media, all of the cable networks lost money for their first five or six years, and then they all started to make money. We're just seeing a lot of competition. And as much as they say they're going to reduce the amount that they're spending on programming, it's a little deceptive because they'll put that programming on their balance sheets.
They all have to keep spending.
They all have to spend to keep up with Netflix, and they a of have to spend to keep up with Amazon Prime. Prime video is also taking a lot of people's viewing time, especially as they start to ad sports.
Thank you so much, Michael. Always a treat to have you here. That is Michael Wolf of Activate Come Back Now. Rushir Sharma. He is the chairman of Rockefeller International and author most recently What Went Wrong with Capitalism? Roushure. Always great to have you on the program.
I say you have a columna in.
The Financial Times this week about affordable housing, which has become a center point in this presidential campaign, with both sides trying to address sort of the real plight of people trying to buy house.
What's the problem, Well, I think that if you look at what went wrong with capitalism, the single biggest issue for me is the fact that the average American can't afford to buy a home, and so you have this flight today where more than half of the twenty year olds in our country are living in with their parents because it's too hard for them to go out and buy their own home. We've had this incredible appreciation in
home prices that's happened over the last few decades. In fact, home prices in real terms in America are up more than any other developed country that I really know off of significance. And it's the home prices have tripled while this century, while incomes have only doubled.
So you have a real.
Sort of affordability issue out here.
Why has this happened?
And this is what the.
Column tries to address, that we have people sort of offering all these solutions about rent controls, price controls. The real problem with the housing market is the fact that there's a massive supply shortage. By some measures, the number of new homes being created in America today is the same as it was in the nineteen fifties. That's like such a big discond of the population in nearly doubles since then, but we're still creating the same number of homes.
And after two thousand and eight financial crisis, it's been even more acute.
How much of it was the two thousand and eight financial crisis, because it strikes me there's probably a hangover from that to some extent. It damaged the housing work. It's so much a lot of people really didn't want to invest in building houses.
Yeah, I think that there's a bit of that, but this has been this even predates that. So the supply is where the rail issue is, which that they said that if you look at the supply curve, we just haven't been link enough homes for a very long period of time for a whole bunch of reasons. A lot of this has to do with the government regulatory state, which is that it's very difficult to build here today, get the permits, deal with all the zoning laws, the
coding laws. So the problem with America today is that the zoning laws we have are go back to a vision of American back in the nineteen fifties or so. We're on large laws who had single family homes, whereas that's changed today. But the laws having changed, And then of course you have some cultural issues too. The whole issue of nimbism, which has become so popular.
Here in my backyard.
Yeah, not in my own backyard, is the thing that you don't want anybody else. So you say, yeah, yeah, it's an issue like we need to address, but not in our own backyard. We don't want more homes out there. So I think that this is a very serious issue. And in fact, i'm I know you mentioned just now that it's become a bigger issue in the campaign, and
I'm surprised it's not an even bigger issue. But still in the debate this week between Kamala Harris and Trump, at least Kamala Harris led with that, which was impressive. But the real irony here it is that Trump is the builder, and given the fact that he's a builder, I thought he would make a much bigger issue with this or do something about it, because he both campaigns on being the deregulator as the King of deregulation, and
he should understand the housing markets. So I'm just a bit mystified why it's not an even bigger issue with the Trump campaign.
So focusing on the regulation, because presumably these regulations, including particularly zoning, are not evenly distributed across the country. Does that mean that the unaffordability is not evenly distributed across the country.
Yeah, so, I'd say that the big cities in America in particular have much more zoning coding laws, And of course you have places like New York and San Francisco dealing with the rent controls, which further distort the market. So these markets have been suffering from an affordability issue for a long period of time. But the dramatic change that's happened is this decade. Now pretty much all of America, many cities across America, not just the large ones, housing
has become unaffordable. If you look at it from a very basic measure that economists would say that if you spend more than thirty percent of your income on housing,
that means that you're stretched. Now practically everyone is being forced to spend more than thirty percent of their income on housing if they want to buy a new home, because it's just so difficult to afford a home given the massive escalation we've seen in prices, and also, of course it doesn't help that interest rates are on the higher side but I'd say the bigger issue is the massive price appreciation that's taking place in America because of a big shortage on the supply side over the last
few decades, which has.
Led to inflation. We're all focused on inflation and therefore real wages, a real income. What's the relationship between the growth and real income over time and the cost of housing?
As I said that if you look at it that over the last few decades, this same jury, in fact, the cost of housing has been increasing at a far greater rate than either inflation or rail wages, so therefore made the affordability become very difficult in this country. So I think that this is a broader statement here, David about the regulatory state that we have in America, which is that we have created so many new regulations in our as that O line goes that the road to
hell is paved with good intentions. So the government thinks it's doing the right thing, but in terms of it's trying to create more and more protection, it thinks, but in doing so, it's created this regulatory state which is stifling business. So the other related topic here, which also I've written about in the past, is that small and mid size businesses, their confidence today is very low.
It's almost back.
To where it was near the two thousand and eight global financial crisis. Whereas the large conglomerates and the large businesses, which can deal with the regular state in a more efficient way, their confidence is far higher. So we're seeing this across the state, and the housing market is obviously what it impacts the average consumer the most.
For sure. Thank you so much. It's always great having Weshir Sharma with us from Rockefeller International. Coming up, China is struggling to attract foreign investment. We talk with Deborah Lair of Baselina about why that's next on Wall Street Week on Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
This is Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. China continues to fight an uphill battle to attract foreign investment, with the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China this week issue a paper that says that the risks are really starting to outweigh the rewards of investment in China. For an update on the state of the Chinese economy and where it is headed, we welcome back now Debra Lair. She's head of the Baselina. Thanks so much, Betva for being back with us, so give us your take. You
know China so well, what is going on? Great?
Delighted to be back, David, so good to see you.
And yes, for it was only in twenty twenty one that China actually was number one in the world when it came to direct foreign investment, and now we are seeing a decline. And this is around a number of factors, foremost being confidence in Hi Jinping and his administration's economic
and financial policies. There's tremendous concern about the ongoing drags on the economy around the reduction in consumption, the inability to stimulate growth through further government investment given local debt levels, the inability to stimulate the economy through massive exports, given that many countries now are watching very carefully what China is doing with its oversupply, and the real estate continues
to be a drag on the economy. And that's putting aside, of course, all the geopolitical issues that they're facing now, as well as the issues around this move that gigmping has really engaged on, preferring national security to economic policy.
Yeah, and particularly making a drive here against some of the people who've been most successful and wealthiest, which is interjected I think a degree of uncertainty for those people who want to really be the Jack Maas of this world. It's not such a happy place to be necessarily.
That's very true.
I mean you can see it from the statistics that actually have just come out about venture capital, where just in twenty eighteen there were over fifty thousand startups in China and last year it was a little over one thousand, and they expect that number to even drop this year. There's a concern about investing and the access to capital, but also it's just the overall drag on the economy and these concerns about the continued insertion of party values into innovation in the private sector.
Is there any indication the presidence she might back off of that that's really been very central in recent years to his policy. Is there any chance they might actually tack a little bit away from that direction.
Well, that's really the billion dollar question, isn't it. In terms of where we see China's economic future. We have not seen shebacking away from this emphasis on national security. There are all kinds of examples that we can cite related to that.
What we have seen is they've been on.
A real term campaign with international business. They've been sending delegations over here. They've been meeting with a number of Western companies to encourage them to continue to grow. They've been engaging in some market opening and reform to welcome the foreign firms and make it easier for them to
do business. But the overall atmosphere continues to be one of concern, first, of course, because of where the economy is going, but to these concerns that American companies and European companies have about the focus on national security.
There's a host of factors of peers going into this. But how important are the trade issues both of the European Union and the United States, because there are real issues here. And by the way, going back to what you were saying about national security, to a large degree, the Bide adminstration has made it sort of a national security issue.
Absolutely.
I mean, we saw this begin under President Trump and definitely be continued with President Biden, and whoever wins in November, I'm sure will continue this trend where trade is no longer looked at as a way of opening markets and promoting reform. But in many ways it's a tool to influence policy, and so we see it as a negative
tool to influence policy. And as China can continues to grow and try and grow in areas where the United States or the Europeans might have concern, whether it's in climate technologies or if it's in artificial intelligence, we in the West have been much more sophisticated in how we've used our trade tools to close our markets and attempt
to slow China's growth in those areas. So I see this definitely as an ongoing issue, and it not only affects it substantively, but obviously it affects the whole atmosphere for companies willing to do business in China. There are many, many sectors and many many opportunities. Still you'll hear the Secretary of Commerce talk about the fact that the overwhelming majority of our trade with China is benign and we
should continue to still engage with China. But the willingness of many of these companies who hear what's happening in the market are concerned about the future of the overall relationship and at what it means for them to be able to do business in China has become a real way on their willingness to start to export or invest in China.
Here in the United States right now, we're all fashioned on the presidential election, and as part of that coverage, we spend a lot of time talking without the team around a Vice President Harris, if she were elected to the team around Donald Trump, what's the team around President She when it comes to economic policy.
Yeah, that is actually a really good question. President She has brought many of his longtime loyal allies with him into the most senior positions, and many of them come from great expertise in provincial background, but are not as strong as previous administrations have been on international experience. If we even look at in the financial sector, the two people who lead the financial sector and the financial regulatory body, the Premier League Chung and the Vice Premier Khalifung, have
no financial experience, certainly not internationally. And the top regulator, the head of the People's Bank, is actually not even on the financial regulatory body. And we've seen sort of a systematic sweep against moving out many of those experts in the financial sector who were educated in the West, who actually have been part of China's integration into the international financial community. Being moved out and provincial financial leaders
being moved up and into office. Maybe that's a reflection of where China seeds it's concerned. Obviously with all this local debt, it continues to be a big concern for the government and a drag on the economy.
But it is a bigger concern as.
We look internationally in China's continuing important role in the international financial community.
And that's in the public sector. There are reports in Bloomberg this week that there have been actions taken by the government against some leading investment bankers actually over in China, where they're being detained or their passport's being taken whatever. What is the chilling effect here on the professional bankers as it were in China?
And China's engaged in several anti corruption campaigns and several waves of anti corruption campaigns, both in the financial sector and others, and it has been a concern. We see it in the financial sector in current terms of even for Western companies executives who are willing to relocate to China, you're not getting necessarily the best and brightest. In the past, it was often a path to promotion. Now it's being viewed as China for China, and China is an island that's unto itself.
In the financial infrastructure.
Of many of these investment banks, it's been a chilling effect on the venture capital I already cited some of the statistics, but we see many of these vcs moving offshore or looking for investment overseas. So it does have a significant effect. And particularly if they're going and they're going to arrest or detain local entrepreneurs, it just further adds to that concern of the willingness to go into the private sector and start your own companies.
Okay, Dere, it's always such a pleasure having with us. Thank you so much. That's Devrelaiir of the Besselina Group. This one is about Wall Street Week itself. It's a program that goes back over fifty years to the days of Lewis Rockeiser on PBS.
Good Evening. I'm Lewis Rucheiser. This is a Wall Street Week welcome back.
This was the week when the stock market stage what it euphemistically calls a correction a country's trade balance, which have been delivering its own brand of bad news for many a month. Some assaulted in February and recorded the biggest one month surplus in American history.
As of next week, we enter a new generation. We'll get out of the studio and travel around the world to bring you stories of capitalism, from Chinese funded industrial parks in Mexico to the halls of academia in the United States and the United Kingdom. Starting with Gillian Tett in her new role as head of King's College, Cambridge.
Public money is drying.
Up, the story of higher education, challenged on both sides of the Atlantic by a business model that can get in the way of teaching the workforce of the future.
Teaching kids is not just a business in the sense of having a profit and lost balance sheet.
It's above all else, it's a mission.
The hardest business to change is one that's succeeded for a long time.
Welcome to the New Wall Street Week, telling the investors' stories. Stories from business, markets, economics, tech and climate, like how a derelict building became a symbol for restoring pride.
The train station felt like the right kind of challenger project for four to be part of, so that we could be part of the revitalization of destroyed and this felt like the kind of project that would be emblematic of our recovery as a company.
We'll bring you the story of how one lender used prudent investing along with its position in between the megabanks and the community banks, to help build a law local, family owned company into a billion dollar, world class business. How long have you been banking with PNC.
Since the beginning? Our first meeting with PNC he occurred in my parents' basement when we were just starting our company. And you know, it was over a couple of foldout tables, and the relationships started there and it's done nothing but grow immensely.
Over the years.
Food is inclusive.
Food doesn't really discriminate.
Melibelle Wilson helps us tell the story of the New York restaurant business. It takes good food, good people, good economics, and like any recipe, it only works when it all comes together, using.
Food as a conduit to bring people together, but also to show people that come from the Harlems of the world that we can invest in our community and we can be the change that we want to see.
And what could be the story of the century Artificial intelligence. Wall Street Week takes you behind the scenes of a data center in Texas to tell the tale of an insatiable demand and how it can be met.
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.
Our pets are a story in themselves, but the companionship we crave from them turned into the story of a healthcare industry amounting to tens of billions of dollars a year and innovating fast. What if there's a twenty percent production in your take home income? Would you change what you spend for your pet when it's sick?
And they wouldn't change it a dime.
It's a member of your family.
In coming episodes of The New Wall Street Week, we'll go to Silicon Savannah in Nairobi, where the United States and China are waging a war over the future of AI, and to Mexico, where near shoring is supposed to be
cooling the appetite for Chinese goods. We'll tell the story of San Francisco and what it's struggle with crime means for business We'll check you in out a World Bank development project to see what effect those extra special drawing rights have had, and go behind the scenes of the art world, the passion asset for many on Global Wall Street. All that and more on the next generation of Wall Street Week. More than what you need to know, it's what you need to think about.