Skip to main content

tv   Bloomberg Surveillance  Bloomberg  October 4, 2021 8:00am-9:00am EDT

8:00 am
♪ >> inflation isn't going down. inflation is hot at the core level. >> what the fed does is absolutely essential. >> you still have to worry about the service sector. you have to worry about all of those areas couldn't had to travel and leisure -- areas connected to travel and leisure. >> we can still grow with a relatively weak supply-side. >> we don't have these signs of a recession. it is hard to see a big down movement. >> this is "bloomberg surveillance" with tom keene, jonathan ferro, and lisa abramowicz. tom: good morning, everyone. a monday on radio, on television
8:01 am
, to reset towards a jobs report . in moments we will reset on the fixed income markets, the signals of price and yield. range bound, but for how long. jonathan: the big question into earnings season. let's quote david kostin of goldman sachs. "the risk is the supply chain normalization takes longer than expected and that unmet demand is not recouped in final quarters." tom: bruce katzman of jp morgan saying forget the gloom in the pacific rim. jonathan: bruce acknowledging the wide range of outcomes into next year. that is the number two issue for this market. if you can get through earnings season, ok, can you establish with the rest of next year looks like? i don't think we can. payrolls this friday, the range is from 200,000 750,000 -- from
8:02 am
200,000 to 750,000. lisa: there's the obvious debt ceiling debate which could eventually disrupt the t-bill market, but you are talking about the headline numbers. what are we doing with respect to the spending? are we getting a fiscal boost or a fiscal drag, considering either the taxes or the smaller package that we end up getting? it does matter, but have you gotten a straight answer from anyone when you talk about what the risk case is in terms of headline numbers, and terms of taxes, and terms of what the spending could be? tom: the tax discussion has fallen off the radar compared to all of the other politics. an ig update. our cfos and ceos issuing papers out they's range? lisa: you are, but you are seeing -- they are, but you are seeing more hesitance.
8:03 am
you are seeing this pressure point as treasury yields rise. at what point do people start to rotate out of the full faith in corporate credit into the full faith in credit of the u.s. government? people say that is the price to perfection area, investment-grade debt. tom: out to "revealed" -- out to "real yield" on friday, what did you learn from your guests? jonathan: there's a conversation about higher-than-expected inflation and a federal reserve that might have to make a bigger move next year. you've seen the performance the last couple of months. dreadful. tom: futures -17. the vix gives me a 23 print. jonathan: softer on equities, softer on bonds. this is toxic, isn't it? isn't this what people are worried about? isn't this the key risk around decelerating growth and inflation? you get this toxic mix of bonds
8:04 am
underperforming and equities doing badly, too. that's the toxic risk for portfolio managers. tom: let us focus on what yield tells us. patrick harvie at ing, head of global rate and debt strategy, says this is a decisive week. mr. garvey, where are we going to become friday -- going to be come friday? padhraic: it has been a move that has taken us away from that former key level. i suspect we sit here until friday and take in the report. the number itself is often not the point. it is just getting through that number, making what you will of it because the supply chain complexities make it so difficult to interpret these numbers. so i think we take it from
8:05 am
there. jonathan: what kind of treasury moves do you expect in an environment where growth expectation starts to fall and inflation expectations start to to cap or persist -- start to tick up or persist at current levels? padhraic: it is difficult because what we have seen over the past number of quarters is that the treasury market hasn't reacted to two classic drivers. one is supply. it really has become irrelevant. second is inflation. if i told a typical bond investor that inflation has only got 25%, they would have been big time short bonds and would have had it all wrong. it is difficult when forward. in this difficult where there is high inflation and low growth, right now the low growth aspect dominates. this is why we have real difficulty with treasury yields pushing higher. that presents all kinds of difficulties. it makes it difficult for the
8:06 am
fed to consider hiking rates down the track. that is a real dilemma for the fed and the bond market, which is why we are sitting here at 1.5% with inflation north of 4%. lisa: as tom was talking about issuance, it has been absolutely on fire. we got a record months of bond issuance in september. you talk about these risks with, for example, bank of america strategists coming out and saying you want to be bearish on investment-grade credit because of all these risks. do you absorb some of this new issuance at these levels? padhraic: i think you do for now , but i would identify the biggest risk over the past few weeks as being interest-rate risk, some pure beta risk. we have seen a bit of credit risk. we have seen some widening, especially some outflows in the emerging market space. the big risk going forward is that credit finally capitulates wider, and if that happens, we
8:07 am
have a double whammy of higher rates and weaker credit. for now, if i talked to fund managers, there's a real reluctance to send back credit widening trades. there has certainly been a credit reduction trade, so we have seen selling on the backend , but it is not enough to drive things. something else has got to be the catalyst here towards wider spreads. tom: mr. garvey brings up the idea of what price does rather than yield. the media spends all our time on yield analysis, and adults are looking at price. wink capitulation of price with a liquidity wall that is out there. they are really pushing completely against each other, aren't they? padhraic: they absolutely are. it is a remarkably complex situation on the front end of the curve. it is the inability of the
8:08 am
treasury to come in and print bills, and consequently we have had 1.4 trillion dollars get back to the fed on the repo story. one of the reasons that we have had excess cash filtering into high yields, equities, emerging markets is because it is a liquidity story, and that liquidity story persists as long as the fed is on the buy side. this is why the buy side is dominating, and why it is really difficult to aggressively shortened duration, whether we are talking about a pure beta product or credit product. jonathan: what are you more comfortable with, interest-rate risk or credit risk? padhraic: credit risk right here forget the reason i say that is because credit is still something that gives you a little bit of alpha over the treasury curve, and guys are falling over themselves to get their hands on any kind of yield. they are willing to take that
8:09 am
risk. something else has got to happen to really upset the credit story, and interestingly enough, we had an opportunity to weeks ago when the evergrande story hit, which hurt us for a day, and that was it. lisa: but how much does this have to do with the fact that we don't have a credit cycle anymore? the idea here that the fed has provided the ultimate backstop? padhraic: the big question is do we have a cycle at all. we have been here before. we had an experiment after the great financial crisis and it took them seven years to hike rates. when they did hike rates, the market had great difficulty digesting rate hikes once they went close to 2% and above. that memory is still there. it is very difficult, and it is hard to understand where we are now in the cycle. before covid, we were at risk of a recession. but have we had a recession?
8:10 am
is that the real deal? so i agree that the business cycle is extremely opaque right now, and financial markets have got great difficulty in pricing where exactly we are in that business cycle. jonathan: we've got to leave it there. padhraic garvey there. exxon mobil announcing a stake in general motors, according to "the new york times -- engine number one announcing a stake in general motors, according to open with the new york times. -- two "the new york times." we get that headline now. tom: they are really trying to grout what to do to spur things forward. i am going to say they take a more modern approach to activism. jonathan: after winning a boardroom battle with exxon earlier this year, back in late
8:11 am
spring. lisa: i wonder how much more corporate activism you're going to end up seeing. we haven't seen as much of it this year, but i wonder if that is the road ahead to profitability if you do get this stasis, as we heard from dave wilson, the idea that you are not getting the dispersion, so you might as well create it. jonathan: small in size. it is not a big player, but it seems to make big waves. lisa: the biggest players are the vanguards, the blackrocks, and they have a certain strategy. jonathan: that has been the issue since day one. coming up, windy schiller, brown university professor of political science. equity futures down 13 on the s&p. this is bloomberg. ♪ maria: with the first word news
8:12 am
--leigh-ann: with the first word news, i am leigh-ann gerrans. progressives have opened the door to compromise. they have offered to scale back some of the more ambitious social spending by having those programs expire rather than become permanent. they rejected senator joe manchin's offer to cut the $3.5 trillion package to $1.5 trillion. the biden administration will directly engage with china in the next few days to enforce commitments in a trade deal. at the same time, it will start a new process to exclude certain products from u.s. tariffs. one u.s. officials says china may not change its trade practices, and the u.s. needs a strategy that takes that into account. opec and its allies are signaling that they are more likely to let the oil price rally round than cool it off. delegates are indicating they are in no rush to increase
8:13 am
supplies faster. tesla is inflicting more pain on short-sellers. many of them are actually giving up. shares of the electric carmaker rose after the company reported another record quarter for vehicle shipped. a measure of short interest, the percentage of stock borrowed by traders, has slumped to the lowest since 2010. j.p. morgan chase ceo jamie dimon is defending his pay yet again. dimon told axios's hbo program the compensation is part of a broader umbrella designed to retain senior management. i'm leigh-ann gerrans. this is bloomberg. ♪
8:14 am
8:15 am
8:16 am
8:17 am
sen. sanders: the $6 trillion i
8:18 am
initially proposed was probably too little. $3.5 trillion should be the minimum, but i accept that there's going to have to be give-and-take. jonathan: senator bernie sanders speaking on abc. futures down 13, -0.3%, coming off the back of the biggest weekly loss going back to february. euro-dollar, $1.1635. and the bond market, yields higher to 1.50% on tends. -- on tens. tom: this is a joy, to talk of the moment in washington and the larger picture as well. windy schiller is at brown university, director of the taubman center of american politics and policy. she also has the most readable textbook treatment on america in a democracy under threat. i can't convey to you the
8:19 am
importance of gateways to democracy as an instruction guide for so many americans. jonathan: wendy, great to catch up with you. we keep talking about these numbers, one point $5 trillion, $3.5 trillion, senator sanders looking for $6 trillion. how many people in america do you think know what is in this offering of $3.5 trillion that is on the table? wendy: close to zero people in america know what is in this bill. i think it has been political malpractice and strategically it'll devised -- strategically ill advised to keep fighting about the number and not talk about what is in it, especially since they are talking about a tax hike on what they call upper income voters, many of whom live in suburbs that voted for the democrats in 2018 and at least in some part in 2020. if you're going to go back in 202022 and say reelect us, but we are going to raise your taxes and we are spending on stuff we can't even identify in 30
8:20 am
seconds or less, that is a very bad political calculation, which is stunning given the experience you've got between pelosi, schumer, and biden. jonathan: you clearly think the approach is bad. who is at fault at the moment for that? wendy: i think the people i just named her get certainly president biden should have been talking about what is in this reconciliation package, not just the reconciliation package. certainly schumer. schumer is walking a tight line because he is up for reelection in 2022, and new york politics is changing rapidly. he looks in good shape, but you never know. i think that is a lot of pressure on him not to throw out all of the progressive initiatives. but investments on companies that make electric cars, either the reconciliation or infrastructure bill has some money for public charging stations for electric cars. where are people going to charge
8:21 am
their cars, and what are they going to pay for that electricity? nobody knows. but if you are talking about going green and talking about electric cars for gm, the government is saying we are going to provide a charging station for you. that is something americans can digest. they think, i drive to work, particularly in those districts that are in competitive suburbs, and drive an electric car and not worry about charging it. simple. why the democrats can't do that is a mystery. lisa: downing washington, d.c., is this the debate? over these details or is it the larger of physical -- or is it the larger philosophical point of the number? wendy: i think that has been lost thus far. they did a lot of good things in the covid relief package. the got a lot of people vaccinated. they did another stimulus check. the economy seemed to rebound. now the stock market and the debt ceiling gets a little complicated this time of year.
8:22 am
we expect republicans will go along with the debt ceiling or allow the democrats to raise it. it will just be brinksmanship for a while. but if you are a suburban voter in the democratic party and finding your 401(k) is going down this month, that they are fighting about numbers, and you don't know what is in it for you except for a potential tax increase, you are getting uncomfortable. this is not the right time for democrats to have people get uncomfortable with their agenda. lisa: if they are cut medic political malpractice if they are committing political malpractice, are they on the brink of political malpractice when it comes to the idea of allowing the united states to accidentally default simply because they can't get the timing right? wendy: i don't think they are going to let that happen. i think they are going to do whatever they can to make sure that happens, and i think there's enough support for republicans among wall street, among corporations, among businesses who don't like instability that the pressure will be fairly significant on
8:23 am
republicans not to get in the way. but they are just going to watch the democrats fumble until the very last minute and then come aboard. but americans don't like the idea of raising taxes and spending lots of money and having a skyrocketing debt or deficit, even if they don't quite understand the relationship. they know they don't want that to be our constant situation. tom: i want to go to your academics and dovetail to greg grandin at yale's work. i want to talk about the threat of democracy in the zeitgeist and the new jacksonian american. with former president trump or with the new republicans, what is the flavor of our new jacksonian america for our democracy? wendy: that is a great question, but there's an inherent contradiction. what andrew jackson did that was so brilliant was expand the electorate. he pushed state legislatures to allow more people to vote. he got state legislators
8:24 am
invested in the idea of state-based parties, political parties, and sending the nomination out to the nation, making it more national, because the elites in washington blocked him. so that is expanding the vote, having more people participate. the republican response, i am not sure i call it the trump response because he is out of office, but the republican response now is to try to make it harder to vote, to try to limit the number of people who can vote. that is not andrew jackson. he didn't see it that way. he said get everybody in their and then persuade them that you're the guy. i think trump will ride the coattails of what the republicans are doing to some extent, but his motto and what he did in 2016 was to bring more people who had not voted into the electorate, and that is the jackson model. jonathan: wendy, thank you. come back soon. wendy is right. we spend every day talking about the number. you and i have joked all morning about the range, 2 trillion dollars wide. wendy is right to say that we
8:25 am
don't talk enough about the substance, and blaming the party for that. that they themselves have become obsessed over the numbers. lisa: when you asked them about the plan, they say we need to pay for childcare, for workers rights, for health care, broad topics. but the nitty-gritty is where it matters. if you can understand the line items, perhaps people would be willing to pay for them. jonathan: so we have a range of $2 trillion, and we have a date now, the end of october apparently. tom: i think the date that matters is the first tuesday of november, 2022. in all of that discussion, you never mentioned the bridges, the tunnels, the rest. to me, that is where all the rest is. jonathan: the focus has got to be on the substance and the need to achieve by the midterms. it is not just about getting the bill done. it is about seeing that work begin. tom: i like what liverpool is doing.
8:26 am
they are billeting the stadium -- they are building the stadium around the presence. that is infrastructure. lisa: radio loves the hand motions. jonathan: the hand signals are great. really good. [laughter] thank you, tom. from new york city, this is bloomberg. ♪
8:27 am
baaam. internet that doesn't miss a beat. that's cute, but my internet streams to my ride. adorable, but does yours block malware? nope. -it crushes it. pshh, mine's so fast, no one can catch me.
8:28 am
big whoop! mine gives me a 4k streaming box. -for free! that's because you all have the same internet. xfinity xfi. so powerful, it keeps one-upping itself. can your internet do that? so many people are overweight now, and asking themselves, "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now there's release from golo. it naturally helps reverse insulin resistance, stops sugar cravings, and releases stubborn fat all while controlling stress and emotional eating. at last, a diet pill that actually works. go to golo.com to get yours.
8:29 am
8:30 am
♪ jonathan: live from new york city, for our audience worldwide, this is bloomberg. alongside tom keene and lisa abramowicz, i'm jonathan ferro. equity futures down 12 on the s&p. we shave about 0.3% off the benchmark in america, off the back of a sizable weekly loss. in the bond market, yields are higher by a couple of basis points to about 1.48% on tens. we reclaim a $76 handle on wti, almost. euro-dollar, $1.1637. tom: right now, we are going to dive into this. we've got a good amount of time to really have a clinic forward this week to the jobs report, but also the market response, with a gentleman from cornell on to yale. ed yardeni joins us with yardeni
8:31 am
research, the chief investment strategist. ed hyman invented the use of charts a million years ago. what is your most important chart right now? you and i have an a cup of coffee with ed hyman, and you say this is the chart that matters. which one is it? ed: i think it is definitely the consumer inflation charts. i like to look at whatever is available there, and one of my charts shows the consumer price inflation has picked up by the ppi, which does not include rent , and then of course the cpi, which comes out a little bit summer than the consumption deflator, but that is the one i like to watch. the cpi gave the market some hope that on a year-over-year basis, it may be peaking in august. but on the other hand, the consumption deflator continued to move higher, and so did the ppi numbers. i think we will be looking at that same chart because he just
8:32 am
recently said he is frustrated by the shortages, and that he now thinks because of the bottlenecks in global supply chains, that inflation may be more persistent and less transitory than he thought. so he is clearly moving away from the base effect and talking about shortages. tom: do you find the vogue of transitory to be frustrating? ed: i think i tend to be very data dependent. i just go along with the data, and the data is telling me that some of the transitory stuff was correct. we did see airline fares go up a great deal on a year-over-year basis. motels, hotels. but we are getting past the point where we can explain inflation with a base effect area may be year-over-year comparisons are relevant, but
8:33 am
here we are in august, going into september and october, and it is pretty clear that inflation is going to remain elevated, and that will be an issue for the bond market on the stock market, and an issue for the fed. lisa: and this is widespread. it is not just one asset seeing price inflation. but a huge driver has been the price of oil, with prices at the highest going back to 2018. can you give us a sense of how this factors into fed expectations, based on the fact that you strip it out as transitory, but perhaps this time is different? ed: i think that is one of the reasons that the fed, especially powell, seems to be willing to talk about it being more persistent because it is currently spreading beyond the base effect issues. it is spreading into energy, spreading into food. it is all kind of interesting that things have played out here. we had an amazing amount of fiscal and monetary stimulus in reaction to the fen bennett --
8:34 am
the pandemic, which initially revived demand for goods, and now we are seeing some improvement in services. but the demand shock, as i see it, causes supply shock. we have never shut down and economy the way we did early last year, and we have never reopened it the way we did. the result has been a pretty widespread inflation problem. we seen it in commodities and now we are seeing it in the energy area, which is particularly worrisome because it is reminiscent of the 1970's. lisa: can you talk about what you're looking for in terms of oil price, especially because there isn't the knee-jerk response to prompt more supplies? you are not necessarily see and companies pump because of the pressure to reduce fossil fuels, because of some of the activist measures taken by the likes of engine number one. how does this dovetail into a pretty high price for oil for the longer term in your view?
8:35 am
ed: one of the sectors that has been starved for capital for the past couple of years, and has to do more with the pandemic lowering the price of oil initially, but the climate change activists have been very leading us off of oil and gas. the renewables haven't increased supply as much as we needed energy, and they are not as reliable. i guess we are still waiting for batteries so all of this energy that can come from the sun and wind can work. but in terms of the price of oil itself, i think opec is going to step in at some point. it is not in their interest to have the price of oil go to $100 or higher and cause a global recession. so i think we are going to see opec increase production here, and $80 to $90 maybe the top, i hope. tom: the london school of
8:36 am
economics is centered around profitability. what do you make of the absolutely unusual profitability of our dynamic and growing tech companies? not the many tech companies, but the few, the faang's, or whatever you want to call them. what do we make of that? ed: it is a huge difference between what we saw in 1999 when the tech bubble got inflated and the earnings story was really not there. in some ways, it was phony and all sorts of accounting ways. this time around, the big tech names that have now basically absorb 26% of the market cap of the s&p 500, all-time record high, they actually have earnings. they have market share. they also have regulators breathing down on them, saying
8:37 am
this is where the money is, let's go regulate it. they've got some challenges, they have certainly grown dramatically both in earnings and in market cap share. . lisa:lisa: how important is it that they have -- that they are not subject to the same pressures that some of the big employers like walmart might be because they have to be paying more for the minimum wage? ed: that is a great point. i think it is spot on. your question is really the answer. they are small in terms of the number of people they employ. and the number of people they employ, those people are very educated, highly trained, and they were together really well. but i want to make a point here, and that is all companies are technology companies these days. if you are not using technology to increase your productivity, to augment the mental and physical productivity of your
8:38 am
workers, you're going to go out of business. i tell investors, when you look at your portfolio, are all of the stocks tech companies? they don't have to make software and hardware. they have to use it to increase productivity, and i think they are doing that. tom: very quickly, this is way important. how do you respond to the gloom crew that go -- the gloom crew, the go to cash crew? ed: i have been bullish since 2009. tom: i think you've got that right. ed: i may overstay my welcome, so beware. when people ask me, do you put money into the market now, i tell them it is not exactly early in the bull market, and valuations are stretched for sure. but i think in terms of the long run, earnings are going to grow 6% to 8% at least. he might actually be able to do better because the margins have been so strong. valuations probably are about as good as they are going to get,
8:39 am
so i think the market can still continue to go up, and i think it has very much become a stock pickers market, much more so than broad-based themes. you can probably make money on a relative basis in energy and financials because bond yields are going up and oil prices are going up. jonathan: energy has been doing it, that's for sure. ed yardeni, your denny research president and chief investment strategist. i'm smiling because tom says we have to go from one important subject to another. tom, can't wait for this one, this important subject you want to talk about. tom: you're going to explain this for our audience on radio and television. this goes back to the red sox. i remember when jim rice made a mistake and had to go from second base back to first base, and the way he ran back there was inhuman. i saw a guy from manchester city this weekend, five guys stood still while he dribbled around them in the middle of the manchester city game.
8:40 am
who is bernardo? jonathan: bernardo silva, is that who you mean? a 27-year-old portuguese player. incredibly versatile midfield player. just an absolute toy to watch him take the ball from a defender and work it forward. he did that, i think you are talking about around the 20th minute. he made this beautiful run. tom: he made the people on liverpool look stupid. jonathan: he's a fantastic player. bernardo silva, the problem, you have to be both very versatile, playing lots of positions, and also very disciplined, play a specific role at a specific time for the manager. he expect a lot from his players. tom: i was a complete ignoramus. jonathan: did you enjoy that game? tom: i make jokes about "the simpsons," halfback to the
8:41 am
fullback, fullback to the halfback, except when those teams do it, there's a reason. jonathan: there's a purpose. was there a purpose to this? i enjoyed "ted lasso," for what it's worth. i watched the whole first season. i thought danny had done it at the end of the season. not to spoil it for anyone. tom: how british was "ted lasso?" jonathan: it was pretty decent. i have one frustration from anything apple makes. the product placement is too much. it is distracting. apple this, apple that. it is everywhere. that's my frustration with this particular reduction. it is just distracting. i like it, though. tom: it is like "surveillance" because i don't understand a word you say. jonathan: that's why we are in different rooms, tom. [laughter] thanks, tom. great working with you, buddy. coming up on "the open," joanne feeney. 90 minutes away. that was the trade. will you work with tom?
8:42 am
only if i am solo an hour after. i need 60 minutes of therapy after doing three hours with tom. lisa: and tom, what was your response? tom: my response is we need a beverage. [laughter] jonathan: this is bloomberg. ♪ leigh-ann: with the first word news, i'm leigh-ann gerrans. house speaker nancy pelosi has set a revised target date of october 31 two past the stalled the three -- to pass the stalled $350 billion interceptor bill. pelosi wants to get progressives and moderates to agree on the size of president biden's larger spending package before voting on infrastructure. the u.s. is moving closer to its first-ever default. neither party in washington has signaled it is ready to back down from a partisan showdown on the federal debt limit.
8:43 am
senate democratic leader chuck schumer plans another vote as early as today on a plan to suspend the debt ceiling until december 22. republicans are promising to block the attempt for a third time. actavis investment firm engine number one reportedly will announce it has taken a stake in general motors. according to "the new york times," the move is being portrayed as a support of gm's transition to electric vehicles. meanwhile, the company will tell investors it sees a path for its ride-hailing business to reach $50 billion in revenue. global news 24 hours a day, on air and on bloomberg quicktake, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries. i'm leigh-ann gerrans. this is bloomberg. ♪
8:44 am
8:45 am
8:46 am
8:47 am
♪ >> we have to be careful in jumping to strong conclusions about strange behavior in pmi's or inflation or any of these
8:48 am
indicators. and stagflation, don't get me started. it is a silly hypothesis at this point. tom: james sweeney of credit suisse. just a wonderful conversation. he was quite forceful on stagflation as well. right now, for lisa and from of its and i -- for lisa abramowicz and i, it is a joy to bring in carol brown at bank of america. very much like tobias levkovich of citigroup, her strength is she started out in the trenches. if you are 17 years in a row the airline analyst of the world, and if you do securities analysis like candace browning did years ago, that is a research foundation. we are thrilled she could join us today. you have a new report out that is on bitcoin. i don't even know, did brian moynihan let you put the doge in your crypto report? candace: well, thank you, tom,
8:49 am
for having me on the show today. actually, what we are doing today is not so much about bitcoin. bitcoin is just a part of it. what we did today is we are the first ager bank on the sell side to launch a strategist, and his job is to be the crypto and digital asset strategist. tom: look at you. [laughter] candace:candace: and lucky him. the reason we did it is because it is such a huge growing market. if you look at it today, digital assets are about $2 trillion. bitcoin is about $900 billion of the $2 trillion, so it is big. there's a ton of investor interest in the space. it is growing, so if you look at the number of participants, last year there were about 66 million people participating in this market. today it is over 220 million people participating. if you look at the number of
8:50 am
corporates mentioning crypto on their earnings calls, that has gone from about 17 last year to about 147 in the most recent quarter, so it is really going mainstream, and people are getting interested in it, which brings us to the last reason why we decided to launch this, and that is, and this is the most important word, ecosystem. this isn't just bitcoin anymore. this is digital assets. it is creating a whole ecosystem of new companies and opportunities and applications. you can see that in the fact that venture capital, which invested about $5.5 billion into digital assets last year coming year to date has already invested $17 billion. so this is growing, and it is mainstream, and it is not just bitcoin. lisa: you have a great perspective because you deal with both retail and investment
8:51 am
clients and institutional investors. how much is the interest being driven by retail investors versus the institutional players? candace: that is a great question because there's an enormous amount of retail interest in this space. people want to learn about it in our retail system. there is a huge growing institutional interest in this space as well. so we are launching this for all of our customers, and we are launching it more about the ecosystem and more to learn about this potentially revolutionary technology. that is why we put a former tech analyst in this spot. the analyst has over 20 years of experience as a tech analyst, and i really think this is about , whether he wan -- whether we want to call it internet 2.0, it is all about this
8:52 am
revolutionary new technology and its possibilities. lisa: this is super important, the idea of digital assets not necessarily being an asset class. is this an issue of transmitting money beyond borders, basically removing some of the frictions that have traditionally been there. which do you see as the primary driver of the research and of institutional interest? candace: it is a great question, and i do think that over time, this can become its own asset class. i think its own sector, just like the internet. the point is with this new revolutionary technology, you can really address a lot of the issues that you brought up. you can bank the $1.7 billion -- the 1.7 billion people who are currently on bank -- currently unbanked. you can do that was much less
8:53 am
friction. you can create assets such as in fts that you can sell that will have royalties associated with them without lawyers. those are just examples of different kinds of things you can do with this new technology, and it can also be money. it can be. but it can be so many other things as well. that is really the point. tom: oh want to go to the bank in geneva that has pristine research on the foundations of bitcoin, the foundations of agile currency, and i want to fold it over to where your tech analyst is going to have to look at the regulation in what you call the wild west of crypto. what do you do with gary gensler and the rest when the police show up to say enough? [laughter] candace: well, you have put your finger on something that i think is one of the latest risks to crypto. you have already seen china and india outlaw bitcoin trading.
8:54 am
but on the other hand, gary gensler has also said he sees this revolutionary new technology as offering tons of wonderful opportunities. the fed is studying central digital currencies. so yes, regulation is a huge potential risk in this space, but you could also argue that once there is a regulatory roadmap in place, as will offer enormous opportunities as people conform to that. tom: we will have to leave it there. candace browning, congratulations in driving forward the discussion with bank of america and their head of global research. let's summarize a monday onto the jobs report friday. i got red and green on the futures screen. it is a churn as we await more data. lisa: but the churn is around
8:55 am
better data and higher stocks. that indicates fear about higher prices and slowing growth, not necessarily stagflation, but i knew dynamic after a moment of reflation. there were these headlines i think we should talk about, the airlines collectively are expected to lose $11.6 billion next year. not just this year, next year, according to the international. this raises the question, is this consumption that is made up , or just eliminated from gdp as we await the pandemic to finally recede? tom: ed bastian made global headlines by saying this is all going to be delayed internationally. that was the vision into 2022. lisa: although they are changing, ripping out some of the first class seats and making premium economy. tom: they are working through
8:56 am
this pandemic each and every day, as we are as well. on "balance of power" today, tiffany wilding of pimco to reset towards the jobs report. stay with us worldwide. this is bloomberg. ♪
8:57 am
it's moving day. and while her friends are doing the heavy lifting, jess is busy moving her xfinity internet and tv services. it only takes about a minute. wait, a minute? but what have you been doing for the last two hours? ...delegating? oh, good one. move your xfinity services without breaking a sweat. xfinity makes moving easy. go online to transfer your services in about a minute. get started today. baaam. internet that doesn't miss a beat.
8:58 am
that's cute, but my internet streams to my ride. adorable, but does yours block malware? nope. -it crushes it. pshh, mine's so fast, no one can catch me. big whoop! mine gives me a 4k streaming box. -for free! that's because you all have the same internet. xfinity xfi. so powerful, it keeps one-upping itself. can your internet do that?
8:59 am
jonathan: from new york city for our audience worldwide, good morning. futures -.1%. crude surgery -- crude surging.
9:00 am
yields a little bit higher. >> everything you need to get set for the start of u.s. trading. this is "bloomberg: the open" with jonathan ferro. ♪ jonathan: from new york, we begin with the big issue. supply-side fears. >> this mindset has to move decisively away from thinking that our problem is sufficient aggregate demand. >> the real question will be on the supply side. >> the vent -- the demand will be there. >> supply is falling faster than demand. >> there is no quick catch up in terms of revenue. >> there are questions about third-quarter earnings. >>

24 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on