A Market Immune From Illness

on Davos, Switzerland for the annual World Economic Forum. What some attendees have to say about markets, And of course we'll close out the episode with our tradition, the craziest thing I saw in markets this week? Sarah, I'm gonna just concede defeat up front. Okay, that's that's not what I was going Actually, I wear myself the winner of the crazy Usually we come right into the show, Mike says,

you know what I'm gonna say right out front. You might as will not even share your craziest thing because I'm the winner. So the holiday shortened week I think threw me off my game. I had to go reach out to Vall Donna high Rich for my crazy thing that's how bad it was, and uh she came through, but it's it's it's no winner. Hopefully hopefully you can,

uh you know, with something really crazy. I'll try my best, but uh, you know, as you said, crazy week in markets as far as the general news flow, and we've got some really good guests to break it down. Uh. First joining us from the Texas Investment Managers is their chief market strategist, David Lafferty. Dave, Welcome to the show,

Thanks for having me on. Thanks And the guy we always turned to when markets and and China collide, our very own Yee She a blogger for Markets Live and a former reporter in uh China who will will tell us a little bit about how this latest health scare compares to the stars uh scared that he actually covered in in what two oh three? Right? Yes, yeah, glad to be good. And he also found some good pictures

of the market where this all started. So I don't want to I don't want a front running your crazy thing? Was that is that your crazy thing? Okay? Good, good, we'll talk about that, no front running at all. That maybe you should steal that for your crazy thing, and you don't have to. I think it's pretty good. But Dave, let's start with you. I mean, everything I've read this

week is that, oh, it's it's just another pandemic. As crazy as that sounds, you know, we've seen this before with the Bola scared about five years ago, uh, this Star scared day. The general consensus seems to be that, you know, these things cause a little bit of very short term uh selling in the market that seems to blow over in a couple of weeks. I mean, is

it that simple uh this time? Do you think, uh, you know, I know you're no health expert, but is that a pretty base case scenario for you, that this is sort of just uh minor momentary distraction for investors. I mean, I think that the way the market usually handicaps it, and I think there's a reasonable reason for that, which is it's it's sort of assumes policy success that that government agencies, healthcare professionals will eventually be able to ring fence it. And it does make it. It tends

to make it more of a short term story. Now we have to put sort of some caveat around short term. It could be a couple of weeks. The Stars story was about a six month long story so relatively short. We never know exactly what that means for me. Uh, we always want to see when it begins to spill into the real economy, and we don't exactly know when that will be. A lot depends on how well it's contained. So I always think there's always sort of two phases.

There's the knee jerk sort of risk off markets go down one, two percent, three percent, something like that, and then there's a waiting period where we find out if it's actually a more systemic problem. By and large, in history, policy makers have gotten their arms around it. Market tends to rally back, you know. I I look back on the Stars uh episode, and you know, the market was kind of trying to find a bottom there after the

dot com bubble and oh two oh three. On the other hand, here we are at what many people believe to be this sort of euphoric top. I mean, is it scarier when something like this hits at sort of this euphoric period in the in the markets compared to when the markets are bottoming like they were in oh three. Yeah, I mean, I guess the thing that worries me is that, uh, you know, there's so much optimism priced in and people are worried about valuations. But valuation in and of itself

isn't a catalyst. So in that vacuum, people tend to look for catalysts, and may maybe some type of epidemic or pandemic becomes the excuse they've been looking for to either profit take or sell down assets that they think are expensive. So I don't think it's uh necessarily the thing that makes or breaks the market, but I would agree that these valuations, with the way the market has has run, it does make for kind of a convenient excuse to take a little bit of profit here here.

So as it relates to the coronavirus, we did see airlines stocks a little bit, we saw casino operators hit just a tad uh. But looking at research that tried to really compare what we might see from the current events to different epidemics or pandemics of the past, I constantly kept coming across research or investors saying that it's really hard to isolate the ongoings and markets at that time and separate it from other events that were already

going on. So, yeah, I'm really curious when you've been looking at epidemics past pandemics pass and trying to figure out what this current Wuhan virus could mean for markets. What have you really found? Dude? Is absolutely right in term impact on the US market is probably quite limited or short lived, but there's a apparent impact on the

local market, particularly Asia. If you look at it, if you use the template of sauce into sound three, the Asian market on the performed when the sauce become really intensive by in February two sound three and the mark it down, the performed actually stopped and the market's bottom on the exact day when the number of the cases infection peaked, that was in late April two sound and three.

So apparently is there's some localized impact, particularly on Asia, especially considered China now is mostly service and consumption driven. If MAXI they're like, OHI eleven million people lockdown, people cannot go out shopping, going to theaters, it's going to affect that economy at least in Q one, GDP is

going to be hit. That's amazing to me. Eleven million people in Muhana, I mean it's bigger than New York, you know, and it's it's a city we've heard of, but you never think of it on on that sort of scale. But we're talking before the show e about sort of comparing and contrasting the Stars. How the China government handled the Stars episode in UH two thousand to two thousand and three, and how they're handling it now.

Much more aggressive response this time, you know, but when you try to quarantine a whole city like that, as you said, I feel like this aggressive response almost threatens to do more damage to the economy than the than the Stars epidemic. Is that safe to say? Yeah? Yeah? In Q one two thousand three they comed down like two percentage points for eleven percent to nine percent, but economy quickly rebonded that when the when things get under control. Um,

in q Q Q three they actually did pretty well. Um, it's that actually a question for you. Can you guess which year did the MSCI China performed did the best ever? Hurning the tables? I actually know because I've been following your report. I thought that maybe maybe data has to guess that probably close to them in two thou three. So that tells you these type of events tend to have very short, short term impact instead of the long

lasting impact. So you mentioned how the Chinese economy now is more so services based, more so than it was back in two thousand and three, UH during the stars epidemic. But there was also a great rundown from Mark Cudmore, one of our macro strategist here at Bloomberg, and he alluded to a research note put out by Rabble Bank, and what they basically say is the fact that back in two thousand and three, China share of GDP was

only four point three. Now it's closer to So if this were to go on longer, Dave, does that kind of show you that should we see more of an economic effect, more of an ecomic downturn on China, that we could see a larger feed through to the global economy. There's certainly a possibility. Obviously, with China being so much larger in the global economy, the bleed through of f

effects obviously could be more significant. But again, as he said, they tend to be more temporary, because what's really going on here is it sort of inhibits behavior, you know, sort of demand gets pent up, but then after the scare passes, people usually go out and spend again. So more often than not, you have a pretty good rebound.

So the question really becomes, how much of this is about these these type of pandemics or epidemics are about volatility, a bad quarter, a bad month, maybe even a bad two quarters, And how much is about real long term damage to the economy. I suspect that there's very little long term damage to the economy, but in the short run that loss of activity hits, but you get a

lot of it back later. And if I was reading one of your recent notes, uh, great title, Confessions of a Reluctant Bull, and uh, the first sort of subtitle you you give is a party like it's I keep hearing that over and over again. I think Paul twitter Jones was out saying it it feels like this year. I think Cameron christ on our own Markets Live blog made a similar comparison. What about the current environment. I know we talked about the high value valuations and sort

of this never ending grind higher? Is that basically it is? Is there anything else that really makes you start to bring out that comparison? So it's it's interesting, it's not really it's partially about the valuations. But I wasn't really making a historical comparison. I really just wanted a pully year that was sort of the end of a raging

bull market. That was the only sort of historical thing, because what I was really posing was sort of this hypothetical question, which is, if you had the chance to get into the market at the beginning of knowing it was a good year, but you gave up all of those gains within the next eighteen months knowing what you know today, is that still a good time to invest? And I was trying to get at the idea that there are different types of investors out there. Some investors

want to ride it to the end. Other investors, and this is probably closer to my way of thinking, would rather get off the train a little bit. I you know, a lot of people I think are kind of they want to Fellman Louise this thing right off the edge, and and I'm a little bit more, uh, you know, maybe I'm more risk averse than others. So, yes, valuation has similarity to the tech the idea that it's tech driven and it's mega cab driven. But I wasn't really

making a historical comparison. I was really just saying, think back to a time when you got great returns close to the end. How does that make you feel if you and by the way, we're not barrish, I'm not saying we're at the end, but as the possibility rises and the damage could be worse because you're at higher valuations, how does that make you feel as an investor? That was sort of the behavioral issue I was trying to get at. It's kind of that, you know, are we

picking up dimes in front of the steam roller? That'll cliche at at this point, and yeah, we are we picking up dimes that you know I mentioned in the research note, it's a little bit like chicken. When do you swerve? Is kind of the key and I was in is a great year to ask when when should you have swerved? Uh? Knowing that you never actually know when the market's going to turn down, But Sarah, I used to think I could outrun a steam roller. As

I get older on that explains. But even you were wind back from and you saw evaluations maybe start to get stretched a couple of years before, and you had five years of double digit gains in the lead up. And there's another line in that same note that really stood out to me. You say, bowls will rightly point out that the valuation is a poor timing tool Confession number two, even as it died in the wool value proponent.

This is hard to argue with. History shows that in the short run up cheap stocks can always get cheaper, and expensive stocks can always get more expensive. So when you're speaking with investors at this point in time, say they have been invested, they booked great profits so far, they were in had a great run, what's the tone like, our people still worry that this just can go on for years longer, like we saw in the late nineties, and you just don't want to miss out on that. Well,

I think there's almost two mindsets here. There's sort of in the business the asset managers, financial strategists, economists. We look at the things that are driving the market, and those are things like you know, the FEDS one eight, the fact that all the other central banks, most of them are either on hold or of turned dovish. Every everybody talks about the suppression of interest rates. You know, this idea that there is no alternative, So there's a

constant bid to equities because nobody loves bonds. And then you have things like technicals like momentum, and things like that. So when you talk in the business, you can come up with all these reasons why, hey, this this party could keep going on for a while. You go out and meet with clients and it's been talked about for a while. You know, the most unlovabull market. I hear a lot more of that today. The the You know, people were worried at seventeen times earnings, They're worried a

little bit more at eighteen. They're worried a lot at nineteen times earnings. I think nobody wants to be the guy that jumps in kind of at the top. A lot of people learn that lesson and we're burned in the late nineties. So I I see, you know, two types of people out there. I see people in the business saying, hey, this can keep going for a little while. Expensive can get a little bit more expensive. This is

uncharted territory. When you take into restrates down so low and so much policy accommodation, this can last longer than we all think. The average retail investor is a little bit more reticent than that. I think they they understand things like pe ratios and being eleven years into a bowl market. At some point, does it do you think it starts to we'll start to become a talking point for the FED. You know, we'll start hearing about irrational

exuberance again. That that sort of thing I mean, And if so, is that um is that the type of thing that could sort of cause a pause in this rally? It could, But I I think you won't hear irrational exuberance again. They might have a different, different phrase. They like to be a little bit more original that. But but what I think has gone on in the last decade, largely since the financial crisis, is a subtle change at central banks, which is they now do pay explicit attention

to financial conditions. So it's not that it's an addition to their mandate, but they certainly look at it. So instead of just you know, stable employment and stable prices, there is a there is a balancing act between systemic risk. Are they pumping up and creating bubbles? And uh, we know that investors and will naturally pull back when asset prices fall. When you see four ohn ks dropping in there are r a s dropping. So there is kind of this informal mandate at the FED to at least

look at financial conditions. And so I think that more so than than in the past, and I think that naturally kind of leads them. I don't want to say that, uh, they might be less likely to talk down some of the systemic risk. I don't think they want markets going through the roof, but they kind of want to put a floor under it because financial conditions are more important in their thinking than they would have been ten or

fifteen years ago. In a spinoff of a rational exuberance, you had a pieceless week that called to a Bank of America reports saying, irrationally bullish is the stock markets new catchphrase. I might be misunderstanding this potentially, but is it the idea that you almost feel like you have to be bullish at this point in time because you

have a fed that it's extremely accommodative. Central banks around the world are extremely accommodative, and you have very low interest rate, low inflation, so it's almost as if what else are you gonna do? Yeah, exactly as Dave said earlier,

that there's a few of missing out. That's a mental especially when you don't have apparent catalyst for the market to really scared of um in all these awash of liquidity in the markets, economic data seems to be turned into better and all these tail risk trade war bresent, all these tail risk is not to fade. You don't really see adding catalysts for people to really to to move with treat of on the stomackt to to put into the cash so at the media continue to play

you have to get up and dance. Yeah, I wonder as you mentioned, during the Stars epidemic, Chinese gd GDP growth went from like eleven to nine percent um. You know, oh the horrors of nine percent GDP. But you know now we're looking at closer to six you shape two off of that, it's starting to get kind of dicey. Is there uh talk in the Chinese media and social media?

I know you you followed pretty closely. Are people thinking, well, China's gonna throw a lot of money at this problem and and that will be a stimulu of reinforcement on the markets? Is that is it two early? For that second time? I think this is a still develop developing stories. UM the strategy China helping UM taking to uh trying to slow down this kind of growth moderation, is trying

to avoid a large stimulus. They are pretty aware of all these leverage issues they had, so they have been trying into to take all these piecemeal steps instead of a large liquidity stimulus. So I think at this point is they seems to be still have a lot of the tools in their toolbox UM, fiscal spendings, UM, some of instruct projects to be probably moved ahead, but at this point it's probably too still too early to assess

the damage. So he said, leverage issues. Uh. And I think some would hold a debate about how much debt has been built up, not just overseas but also on corporate balance sheets state side as well. And it reminds me of something we did here over at the Davos conference. And this came from Scott Minord over at Googanheide and I want to share two uh different lines with you, one from him on from someone else that is also

very well known. So Scott Minord said, the market is a Ponzi scheme UM, saying that it's been built up, been up and up, and so much leverage. Central banks have provided so much liquidity, he said, the markets Ponzi scheme.

Then on the other side you have the likes of Jamie Diamond at JP Morgan into talking about the markets being in a goldilocks place, And I just want to get your take, Dave, on how you can have too very well known names in the financial financial industry and you can just have to completely different takes in a way. Maybe sure you can find a link somewhere, but clearly Ponzi skiing Goldilocks not the same. Yeah, I think you

know everybody. What makes markets is that we all approach them with different perspectives, right And I think if you're if you're of a cynical nature, you can always ask the question how did we get here? What imbalances were built up? And and frankly, there are plenty of things to point at right now. However, when you look at what central banks have done, the more the more optimistic side of that coin is to say, well, look at

why things are so solid. Central banks have suppressed interest rates, markets have can continue to rise. Uh, the cost of capital is very low, inflation is muted, not doing much in places. So when you look at sort of a fundamental background, somebody can make a very good goldilocks case. Hey, I think of it as sort of contemporaneous right now, Hey, look at it, it's goldilocks. Somebody steps back from that and says, yeah, but look what's been going on around

the goldilocks. Uh. And I think there's elements of truth to both. Again, I'm I'm sort of a bond guy by training. I leaned towards too, a little bit of the worried side. I wouldn't call it a Ponzi scheme. That's that's a little aggressive for for for for my style and the people that I report to, probably not great for business. But but to suggest that there are brewing, uh, systemic risks out there is not an outlier opinion by any stretch of the imagination. I prefer good Ponzac scheme.

You know that. I will let you all in a little secret. My nickname somehow through every stage of life has been Ponzi. I wanted to call the pod podcast the puns People, but but so boil it all down to us from sort of an allocation perspective, I mean, what what should a portfolio given high valuations both in equities and bonds right now? What? What what should it look like? To you? Yeah? Well, this this was you know why we call the note, you know, confessions of

a reluctant bull. I think the market and risk assets like a lot of people because of you know, there is no alternative central banks things like that. The momentum, I think the path of least resistance is we kind of grind higher from there. Uh he kind of hit the nail on the head. Where's the downside catalyst? And as we mentioned earlier, valuation is worrisome, but valuation isn't the catalyst. Valuation is the thing that you worry about. Well, when markets start to go down, how far can they

go down? But valuation isn't the thing that makes them go down. So what I've been spending a lot of time thinking about is just the upside versus downside trade off. And I'm rare amongst strategists that I usually think my base case is not going to come true. Uh yeah, it's uh, you know, are we all have crystal balls and they've worked, And so I always ask the question, you know, our base cases, like a lot of people,

market kind of grinds higher. Economy is okay but not great. Okay, Well, what if we're wrong and the global economy does much better than we expected? How much do equities rise? How much do credit spreads contract? Or if we're wrong and the economy is worse than what our base cases. How much do equities lose, how much do pees fall? How much to credit spreads widen? So when I look at risk assets, I don't like that trade off right now.

I don't like the fact that when I'm wrong, and I may very well be wrong and the base case rarely turns out to be true. I don't like the fact that it costs me a lot more money on the downside than I make on the upside. So again, I'm bullish, but I'm reluctantly bullish, And directly to your question, Mike, what that is me is to be a little bit

underweight risk. I think it's I think the goldilocks. As you mentioned, Sarah, there's an argument you want to be in markets, you want to participate, there's no reason it has to fall out of bed. But I think you just want to do it a little bit more cautiously. The later we get in the cycle, the higher these valuations get, and that this tradeoff doesn't seem really attractive

to me. Frankly, and I'm not saying bail out of markets, but I might use the year end rally is a good time to kind of rebalance get back to where you were. If you're a you know, if you're a sixty forty portfolio, you probably don't want to be more than sixty forty, maybe fifty five, you know, forty five, something like that. Fifty fifty. I personally am kind of mildly underweight risk. You know, it's funny, I think I wrote a blog post on this expecting some kind of

rebalancing in the new year. I mean, I obviously institutions and hedge funds rebalance monthly or quarly. You know, I kept reading notes advising retail investors to rebalance. It's at the year end, and you know, you wouldn't see any sign of it in the markets we've seen right now. So it makes me really think that those sixty portfolios

are really, you know, skewing closer to right now. I mean for a lot of people, I think the evidence is is a little mixed because what I think, what I think you do see some rebalancing, because we've we've obviously noted that divergence as the stock market has kind of gone through the roof since October November, the bond market really hasn't gone anywhere, meaning meaning something like ten year treasury yield, and so what that tells me is

is the market's going up. We always talk about this kind of relentless bid to equities, but as equities go up and people rebalance, the byproduct of that is that there's a relentless bid to bonds as well, which is basically sending both asset classes up in this sort of

wonderful Goldilocks spiral when it ends. Who knows something that makes me curious those because you talk about the risk reward and the idea that if something's gone up more well, then if they have stretched valuations on the way down, they have further to fall. And in equities, you say that you guys like financials and banks, and you like healthcare stocks because they're relatively cheaper, but you still like tech. So what is it about tech right now? Because of

course tech has had a pretty unbelievable ride. We'll hear from some of the big tech names next week when they are port earnings. But what is it about tech that you and many other investors just can't really shy away from quite yet? So for me, what what I happened? And I'm not buying the individual stocks. Those are our

money managers underneath the NA Tixus umbrella. But what I love about the tech sector is, to me, it just looks like as the world becomes more sort of need for efficiencies, innovation scale, things like that, everyone wants to be more social, more digital, more virtual, more efficient, lower cost. So what happens is and when you think about just the sector breakdown, everybody else in the other ten sectors are taking their profits and funneling them to become the

revenues of the tech sector. So so because because I mean, you've got cold companies that want to be more EFFICI and you've got automotive manufacturers want to be more efficient. Uh, you know, retail players want to be more efficient. What do we all do it? You know, asset managers, We're tapping technology, buying more software, big data, you you name it, you know, trying to build social media whatever it might be, tapping into advertising. So to me, that's that that you know,

almost never ending bid for tech. The problem is is the valuations. And that's where I've really changed on tech, which is it's still one of our favorite sectors, but it's gone from being a beta play two and a half three years ago when the SMP Tech sector was trading it nine of the SMPS multiple. Today it's trading at a hundred and of the SMP multiple. So while I still like tech, I think you have to be

far more selective. You know, I would have come in three years ago or two years ago and said we love tech sort of universally. We love tech Today, I would say we like tech for all the reasons I mentioned, but it's a much more selective. You really come down to security selection. Stocked by stock. Not my specialty, to be sure, but that's how I think about the tech sector. We like it, but it's not. I don't think it's the runaway. I think of these valuations the freight trains

gotta slow down a little bit. You've gotta be a little bit more selective, and you sort of centered around the themes. I mean, obviously it feels like the cloud. The whole story about the software cloud is kind of early innings. Five G that game hasn't even started. AI and the Internet of Things, those are all sort of pretty early innings stories right now. Yeah, I think they

can be. And I think this is where, you know, good security selection within tech is really going to start to matter because what we've what the what the Phase one trade deal and all the tariff arguments have really highlighted to me, is this fight between who's gonna win the global tech war between the Chinese and the US. The Europeans and the Japanese may play at the margin,

but we really have a bifurcated tech world. And so if I was a tech analyst, I would be thinking a lot about is my is my company within the sector position and to win this war versus China? Or is it position to to not win? Uh? So, So that's one issue. The second issue is sort of around regulation, uh privacy, anti competitive, antitrust, anti competitive. So I would be spending a lot of time thinking about, Hey, is that tech name that I love more or less exposed

to that? And I think they're very I think they're very different arguments. I worry a little bit less about the anti competitive. A lot of people are worried about these these mega tech names being broken up. It might be the case that their breakup value is as good,

if not better than the sum of the parts. The privacy issues and the data integrity issues are more problematic because a lot of what these companies are doing is basically monetizing the data, your personal data, and if there are limits on that, there are real downstream implications for the way some of these companies make money. I'm a little bit more worried about the data issues than the anti competitive issues. Alright, Sorry, you know what I'm worried about.

You're worried about losing. The craziest thing I think I was under it wasn't I undefeated because you award yourself to win every single week. That's where it worked. But you know, you should just go first to get out of the way. It's not a bad story, but it's a Vildata pointed out to me the story about Goldman Sachs chief executive officer David Solomon. I think we've talked about this before. He moonlights as a DJ spinning electronic music, and he got a gig at this big Sports Illustrated

party at the super Bowl, which it's pretty crazy. I would love to DJ at the Super Bowl. I don't think I have any qualifications to do that whatsoever, but why not. I really want to see him djaying at like a Goldman Sachs party because I feel like everyone's got to dance. You know, you'd see these like managing directors with their Hermes ties tied around their head cutting it up on the floor. So that's that's I'm waiting for that. I want to get an invite to that party.

But ye, how about you do you have a crazy story? First? Mis mom moon dang. So the SMP five hundre has being they had one percent down day since mid October. It's seventy three days and counting it's already the twenty five longest in the whole history. Um and also considering in the FX market, JP Morgan's FFX volative in the XT hit a new racer low and considering not only the rally of risk as being impressive, and the volutetive

is so low. Consider you had the trade wall, the tension in the Middle East, impeachment, now the virus do you have to one? They're like, what could cause of volatinted to wake up again? It's quiet out there? Yeah, was breaking out there for a while. We didn't even get ex that's a good, good point. Okay, you beat me, I know that. Did they tell you about our craziest thing? Yeah? A couple this week. I have a runner up. Yeah, my runner up is always sort of the insanity of

Davos and people probably seeing the story. I think there's a hundred nineteen billionaires at Davos in a you know, they're they're they're talking about income inequality, you know, after they flew in on their private jets and and and climate change. So there's that, and then you have the U. S. Treasury Secretary sort of going after Greta Tunberg and telling her she should I mean, this, this is just this doesn't seem like something that would have happened under Reagan

or Carter. We were in a different with seventeen year old girl. But the thing that really caught my eye was really around sort of the Phase one trade deal, and I've kind of lost track of what the tariffs are and how much they're on and what percent, and

we've just gone back and forth. And the Peterson Institute, uh, sort of had a great summary on this updated for the Phase one trade deal, noting that if you just go back two years, the average tariff on Chinese goods in the US used to be three percent and now it's nineteen percent, even after the Phase one deal, and the average tariff going the other way. Uh, you know, the tariff on US goods in China was eight percent

and now it's twenty percent. So my craziest thing is kind of this idea that the Phase one trade deal just kind of put you know, the trade issue in the rear view mirror, when the reality is that the tariffs are still two to three times higher than they were just two years ago. So that was kind of my craziest thing for the week. That's pretty good. That's pretty good. That is a very good one. Speaking of

that was the one headline that I caught. I think it was someone from Bridgewater said that the boom bust cycles over one d print that bit Bridgewater. Yeah, that that sounds a lot like Sarah's story about the Goldilocks, that they are kind that there are some people out there flashing the all clear sign, and I would submit that they'll be right for a while. But the but the for the while is the problem. Eventually a bust will come again. They always do one of these days.

Um So my crazy thing this week, it's actually been a pretty big well reported story. Uh but just about the hacking potentially uh into Jeff Bezos's phone from Crown Press, Mohammed been someone pretty unbelievable. So now the United Nations is saying that this needs to be looked into. Supposedly, the idea is that Mohammed Been someone had sent a message to Bezos over WhatsApp, and shortly after that he was able to infiltrate his phone and extract tons and

tons of data. Um. So, now there's so much conversation about one cybersecurity also operating systems on our phones. Is this possible if it could happen to Jeff Bezos, I mean, it can happen to any of us, right, but yeah, pretty crazy and two huge names. Uh so interesting, that's pretty crazy. And you know that, and the impeachment story. Everyone's on what's app, all these movers and shakers. I must be the last guy in the world not using what'sapp. I have it, but I don't use I only use

it if someone is overseas. Really, it's either is it encrypted? Is that that? Well? Yeah, that's the appeal of it. It's supposed to be. I don't have it, I use it, And given all the evidence, I'm waiting for the Really, I'm waiting for the story of the really good thing that happened because you were on what's app But no one ever talks about the good things, so maybe things

have happened in the past. We just never heard him, right, it would be fun to text with MSN videos and then whatever you have, have the most boring phone he can hack. All right, it's going to come your way. All right, Well, I think we're gonna just say this week, Mike comes in last. Yeah you, Dave Laberty, thanks so much for coming on the show today, Thanks for having thanks. What Goes Up will be back next week. Until then, you can find us on the Blueback Terminal website and app,

or wherever you get your podcasts. We love it if you took the time to rate interview the show on Apple podcast so more listeners can find us, and you can find us on Twitter. Follow me at at Sarah Ponzack. Mike is a bag anonymous. Our guest, Dave Lafferty is at Lafferty in a, Texas and yes she is at she Bloomberg. You can also follow Bloomberg Podcasts at podcasts. What Goes Up is produced by Tofur Foreheads and edited by Darrell Dillard. The head of Bloomberg podcast is Francesco Levi.

Thanks for listening. See you next time.