Change can be disruptive, but a Bloomberg we think bigger.
Our sell-side solutions combine trading and automation with market-leading data so you can evolve, scale, and embrace change.
This is Bloomberg for the sell-side. Visit Bloomberg.com slash sell-side.
Welcome to What Goes Up, a weekly markets podcast. I'm Valdana Hirek, a cross-asset reporter with Bloomberg.
And I'm Katie Greiffeld, also a cross-asset reporter.
Federal Reserve officials spooked markets recently when they signaled they were willing to hike interest rates a few more times to get inflation under control.
But a new data point this week showed inflation decelerating to the slowest pace in more than two years.
So what does that mean for the Fed's hiking path going forward?
We're going to get into it with the chief investment officer of fixed income at the largest asset manager.
I'm super excited for that conversation, Katie.
But first, you're filling in for Mike Regan.
I am.
Hopefully we're going to talk about bonds, we're going to talk about the Fed, we're going to talk about inflation.
We're also going to talk about exchange traded funds.
Yes, I love ETFs.
We all do.
You love ETFs more than I do, actually.
Probably.
But this is like basically people getting a view into mine in your daily conversations at our desks.
This is literally we sit around and these are the type of things we chat about all day long.
Just to put a visual in here, Valdon and I sit back to back.
We're constantly swinging around and saying, holy moly.
Holy moly.
Did you see this?
What yields are doing right now?
Have you taken a look at the Tuesday's 10th curve?
Even today this morning we were talking about real yields.
Yes, they are super high right now.
And I said, how high?
So high.
And you said so high.
LOL.
Yeah.
You know what else we should chat about?
Tell me.
Other non-market stuff?
Theoretically so.
I have a question for you.
Yeah.
Barbie.
I'm so open-heimer.
I do love that.
How do you pronounce it?
Barb andheimer?
The double feature.
People seeing both in the same day.
I think that is desirable.
Will you do that with me?
I would love to.
You have to say yes.
I know.
Maybe our guest wants to come with us too.
Let's ask him.
We can ask him.
I'm so excited to have him on.
He has so many accolades.
Like really, we were so thrilled to be having this conversation.
It's Rick Reader, BlackRock's Chief Investment Officer
of Global Fixed Income.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
I'm looking forward to this very fun.
Barbie or Oppenheimer for you?
I don't know.
The question is all going to be this hard.
Because I can't.
I know that.
That was actually the softball.
That was just softball.
That was just softball.
Yeah.
Well, Katie, the reason I was asking is because Katie sent me an article that said people
are double booking.
And so they're seeing both on the same day.
But the Barbie ticket sales have been much better.
I mean, they marketed the heck out of it.
It's crazy.
Oh, I see so many ads every single, basically, literally every single day.
Okay, Rick, just to start, like I said, you have so many accolades.
You have the Morningstar Award for investing excellence for outstanding portfolio manager in 2023.
Just your fixed income group at BlackRock manages 2.7 trillion with a T.
So maybe just to start, you can lay out your market views for us.
And in my career, I've been doing this for over 30 years.
I've never seen inflation stay so persistently high.
We've lived in a world where technology, aging population you've had,
it's been hard to keep prices high.
Just a couple of years, post COVID, post the dynamic around this immense fiscal and monetary stimulus
that we've had to deal with, you know, this increasingly high levels of inflation.
Listen, I think we're getting on the other side of it.
I think we got data on this recent CPI report.
That suggests that we're getting on the other side of this inflation trend.
I mean, there are one stat that blew me away when you actually break it down.
You know, the Fed is focused on core services X shelter for a couple of reasons.
Well, core goods and inflation has come down.
But services have been sticky and it's been sticky because wages have been high.
But core services has been high X shelter.
And part of why they look at that is shelter takes a while for that inflation to come down.
Rental prices take a while, but they are starting to adjust.
But anyway, it went along with my long preamble.
Core services X shelter three month annualized is now down to 1.7%.
Down from 9.5% a couple of years ago.
We're at 1.7%.
So, anyhow, you break down the other numbers.
It's in core CPI still at 4.
It's still not at target.
But gosh, you look at the component parts and you look at the trajectory of where we're going.
That's a really big deal.
So core thesis is...
Listen, I think we're on the back side of, you know, it's a Fed going to hike one more time.
You know, maybe they try and get too high excited.
But we're on the back side of what has been a bludgeoning of the interest rate market,
a bludgeoning of people that have held rate-related products or interest rates sensitive.
And I think that's a really big deal.
Not that I think they're going to sit there for a while.
So rates will stay stable for a period of time.
But I think this, gosh, get out of the way because rates are going higher.
I think we're on the back side of that.
Which is a big deal whether you're doing debt equity, private equity, anything.
Katie, I saw a funny tweet that said,
it's possible services inflation stays high because of Barbie, Oppenheimer.
It could. That's quite a tie-in.
We'll see if the data bears that out.
But there's about five different things I want to get to there.
But I want to start with just inflation overall because headline CPI fell to 3%,
which it feels like we haven't seen in a while.
And the story that ran on the terminal immediately after the headline I thought was pretty bold.
Inflation at 3% flags end of emergency.
And Rick, you said we're on the other side of it.
Do you think that we're out of crisis mode when it comes to inflation?
3% is a very different paradigm than when you're at 4%, 5%, 6%.
By the way, not just quantitatively.
But it's also been the case.
There's a lot of academic thought about when you're well above three
that you entrench inflationary expectations and people.
And it's hard to get out from under that.
When you get to three, you're at a place where you're close enough to target.
And it's not that scary of a data, a piece of data.
And that monetary policy doesn't have to be that concerned about it.
Listen, I think it's going to, you'll see inflation continue to come down.
I'm much more confident that inflation is going to come down than I am.
Unemployment rate is going to come up.
You know, one man's opinion.
I don't think the Fed needs to destroy the employment paradigm today.
In fact, I think it does more harm than good to try and bring that inflation down.
I think there's a natural migration lower.
And once you reach these levels to your question, I did a piece that I wrote about
patients as a virtue, just let patients just let time and a restrictive interest rate
do its work.
And I think you'll find that it'll approach target over time.
So over time, approaching target, meaning by the end of the year or early next year.
And then obviously the very big question now is, what does this mean for the Fed's future path
in terms of, you know, do we get a high-can-July and then a pause
or another high-cafter that?
What do you foresee?
Yeah, that's a great question.
We're not going to get to target.
By the way, goods inflation, we're getting to target.
But in services, we're not going to get there.
We're not going to get there this year.
You know, could you get there next year?
I don't know.
But I think you can get close and, you know, certainly within spitting distance
and certainly a place that you feel comfortable with.
You know, even with today's better data, you have to marry yourself to the idea
that the Fed's going to hike in July.
I think it would be a big credibility problem if after they paused and the reason why they're going to pause
and then everybody's, and then people in the Fed committee have suggested we're going to get two more hikes
that can't you not go in July if they were the case.
So I think you have to write that in stone that they're going to go in July.
But I think you've got to, listen, I think they're going to still try and get another hike done probably, you know, November.
But I think it's ambiguous now as to whether, you know, where you can do any more hikes.
And quite frankly, the people don't understand these rates are restrictive.
I think you talked about earlier, real rates at these levels.
Like, these are restrictive levels.
And if, you know, let them marinate through the system.
You know, you see the impact that has on the banking system.
You see the impact that has on commercial real estate.
I think we're going to move to a form which I think is right.
A form of patience versus impatience with how restrictive rates are to try and achieve target.
Well, to the idea that we should just let things marinate here.
In letting things marinate, should the conversation shift to not how many more hikes are left?
But how long it takes them to cut? How long they're on hold for?
I said, I think, you know, we went through this period where the market was anticipating particularly around the banking crisis.
That you're going to have this cliff of that. You're going to hike and then you're going to have to ease quickly.
And that when the Fed starts easing when you have a crisis, they don't move 25-based one increments. You move quickly.
Listen, unless you have a some form of crisis, which are always hard to anticipate.
And I don't see one that's out there. You know, you have to assume that this Fed stays on hold for at least the year.
And then starts to bring it down. But I think they have to bring these rates down.
And, you know, we know the issue around. It's not just the deposits at the banks. It's across the funding.
Those deposits are so painful. But it's also people don't talk about the debt burden on the country today.
When you talk about, you know, we spend time on the debt ceiling. But when you have an economy that's sitting with 30 trillion of debt,
the longer you keep that rate up, the more you impair your fiscal flexibility. And you think about debt to GDP.
You know, what happens is not only is your debt service becoming expensive, but you want to bring rate down so nominal GDP can continue to be high so that your debt to GDP is not that scary.
So I think you got to bring these rates down. I don't think you can sit here for that long because of the damage it does to the economy in multiple forms.
Is there anything that could happen that would make the Fed not hike at the end of July? Or as you say, is it more credibility issue where they would just have to go?
By the way, not as zero probability, but the markets are pricing it as a remote probability.
If you had some of the bank earnings that were so horrible, that suggested that gosh, you know, the Fed is creating its own damage.
Not just the damage of raising rates, but keeping rates too low for too long, funding, you know, having banks fund purchase assets at aggressively low yields.
And then all of a sudden shock interest rates higher. Well, it'd be pretty hard if those numbers, those bank earnings numbers were dramatically worse than anticipated.
You know, I don't mind. It's hard to see something else that would take them off a trajectory that would be, you know, I think the more likely outcome is you get the July hike in.
But you do a quote unquote, dovish hike and suggest that gosh, we're nearing the end of what has been a long and arduous period to get rates to a very restrictive level.
So we would go from a hawkish hold to a dovish hike, which would be fun. And we'll find out pretty soon, but to the idea of it being a credibility issue, if they didn't go in July, I mean, listening to you, it kind of sounds like they forced their own hand here.
And by the way, I thought one other thing, they're also reducing the size of the balance sheet, training the money supply.
And so the policy is not just restrictive on the rate. We go back to what the most popular with a popular thing to watch is, but liquidity is a really big deal.
It doesn't get enough air time relative to rate. When you bring down the money supply, you reduce the balance sheet. It has a real impact when you track the stock market over time relative to the growth or shrinkage of the money supply.
It is very sincere. So listen, I think, I think this idea of, you know, you leave it there, let it marinate, reduce the balance sheet, you know, just watch, watch the system do what it's going to do on the back side of it.
This is Lisa Brahmowitz here to tell you about another podcast we think you'll enjoy listening to Bloomberg surveillance.
Join Tom King, Jonathan Farrow and me every weekday for a unique perspective on the world's of economics, finance and investment.
Plus, insight from the names that shaped the world's markets.
Seven Solomon, the Goldman Sachs, CEO, Ian Bremmer of Eurasia Group. Please, instead, president of Red Amesta.
Subscribe to Bloomberg Surveillance today on Apple Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
I want to go back to what you're saying that policy is restrictive right now. You can see that in real rates and just the level of where we are right now.
So you have to bring rates down at some point, but where do you think neutral is after what we've been through?
Wow, it's a great question. That is a great question. So that was the softball.
Yeah, oh my God, I would say hopefully the questions are going to get easier from that.
So, you know, it's real rates and nominal rates.
And so I'm going to say from a real rate perspective, in the way you guys started this, you know, should real rates be closer to, you know, depending on where on the curve, you think about a closer to 50 base points to a hundred basis points.
I think that is, you know, we're way above that today, particularly out, you know, we think about where the 10 year point is today.
And so, you know, that I think income closer to what is the neutral long term rate. And then if you said, and I have, I have a very non-consensus view about this.
I think the Fed should leave the funds rate at somewhere between two and three percent for a long period of time.
Once you get on the other side of inflation, you know, why not two percent? I think the idea being that we're going to have, because of de-globalization, you're going to have, because of the demographic, you know, shortage of labor, you're going to have a higher inflation, structurally higher inflation.
So, should it be two and a half? I don't know, should it be two? But I think they should leave the funds right there for a long time.
I think the Fed, no, I don't have talked about it before. If you take the last 75 meetings of the Federal Reserve, 65 of them, they've kept rates excessively low or changed it.
I just don't think you need to spend that much time tweaking it. I think they should, they should leave it at a reasonable level and at the system recalibrate, because the system, US economy is the most flexible, adaptive technology oriented economy in the world.
And it will adapt.
What about their two percent inflation goal? Because I think one of the Fed officials this week was asked, like, are you willing to sacrifice the economy just to stick to that two percent goal?
Like the altar of the two percent? Is it worth sacrificing the economy just to get to that point that you have been telling people you would get?
Is it a false god? Is it? Wow, a Taylor Swift reference.
Yes.
One man's opinion. I think there is, you just had massive monetary and fiscal stimulus. You've got to give it a little bit of time.
Like this whole idea, like, there's a magic to two. Doesn't make any sense to me that you just had immense stimulus, let it plan.
By the way, 2% over the intermediate term, I get 2% over any short period of time. It doesn't make any sense particularly.
The unemployment rate is 3.6%. How much do you have interest rates? How much would you have to move them to get the unemployment rate to a level to slow wages and get it to a level that you're coming up?
It's not worth it. Why would you take millions of people out of work? Because you need to go from 2.7 to 2.
Why do it? I'm not talking about this too much, but the people that get hurt by the higher levels of inflation, but the people you're going to take out of work.
And I think there is, you know, you think about when you raise rates to these levels, you're actually creating an income benefit to people, the wealthier people, who are savers, and you're hurting the people that just look at the borrow.
And I just don't think that trade-off makes any sense. You know, this too is some magical, mystical perfection. It doesn't make any sense. It's illogical to me.
I mean, listening to you talk, and you also made the point that the Fed probably doesn't have to murder the labor market here. Just to tie a bow on that thought, do you need to get the unemployment rate above 4% to get back to 2% or can we have this sort of happy balance?
So I think the system will recalibrate itself, and I think technology, I mean, first of all, we're about to go through the most extraordinary productivity growth, I think, you know, certainly since the Internet and maybe even more so.
We really don't know how many job functions are going to be eliminated through AI. We don't know how many, how much true efficiency is going to be created.
And so this whole concept of gosh, there's a number that we need to get to in payroll, and I'm not convinced that wages is that sincere to service inflation.
I think it's an indicator, and I think it can be representative, but you think about it, we went for a long period of time where you had low levels of inflation.
And I think it is, it is an academic exercise, and only that that suggests there's a level of employment that creates this level of inflation, you know, particularly when you don't know how much efficiency you're going to get off of AI, how much seconds, how much substitution effect that you're going to see play through.
I mean, the world is changing so quickly in so many ways, but I just think those historic calculations and what was a simple economy, cyclical goods oriented economy, or just don't hold anymore.
I want to ask you about that broadly speaking, and about what we've seen so far in 2023, because everything has gone basically not in any way that anybody predicted, like the stuff that's up is stuff that nobody thought would be up this year.
What is it about this year that's been so difficult to make sense of, or is it just the reality of the post pandemic world where people are just having a more difficult time making some of these forecasts?
I mean, I'll go back to the first point on AI.
I mean, seven stocks driving the market.
I mean, if you take, you eliminate those seven stocks on the equity market, and you look at it saying, gosh, doesn't seem like, you know, market's not up that much.
It doesn't seem that, but that vibrational, and there, by the way, there are a lot of equities now that trade at three, four, five, multiple of cash flow that are pretty reasonable.
So that is, but I think the add event of AI coming in and the true explosive opportunity set on that that has certainly impacted a number of equities on the backside of I think that has been a surprising dynamic second being.
You know, nobody in this generation has ever seen inflation stay as high for as long as it had and continue to surprise to the upside.
And that has been, you know, has put the central banks that you know, we've had these false starts of inflation, particularly in places like the UK that it feels like it's coming down and then all of a sudden, it is not.
It is not, it is not. So I think, I think those have been the things that have been the most surprising. I would say one thing I've learned over the years of investing to is the markets do what hurts the most people and the technical.
So I just gave a presentation the other day about, you know, some of the things I've learned over the years and investing, which I feel like I'm still learning more than I did when I first started, but you know, one of them is the technicals are more important than the fundamentals.
Truly, you know, fundamentals win out over long periods of time, the technicals win out much more so in the short term.
And you realize what happened at the beginning of this years, people got out of equities and had reduced some of it, you know, for obviously the pressure was on it.
All of a sudden you have this, you know, people need to get in the tech stocks, they reduce a lot of it.
This year has been more than any of what I've seen has been driven by technicals in an incredible way and violent ways at times.
That's interesting because a conversation I've had with a lot of investors at this point is that you're just seeing a massive gain, game of catch up, particularly when it comes to equities because coming into the year, you know, this was the year of fixed income.
Maybe it still is Rick. I don't know, but you had a lot of people under weight. Now they've been forced to chase that rally and now we are where we are, but bringing it to fixed income.
Obviously you have a perch. You're looking across all the different asset classes within fixed income.
Where do you see the most opportunity right now?
I can say one last thing about the other thing that I think is surprising and it's just pretty profound statement.
You know, the world has talked about like the fed raise rates we got, we have to go in a recession.
I just don't know why a modern financial economy like the US goes in a recession anymore.
Other than some quantitative, can you have a negative one percent?
In 2020, nominal GDP was 12 and 21, it was seven, nominal GDP was seven.
You know, these numbers are pretty impressive and unless you have a pandemic or unless you have some exogenous financial crisis, when you have a consumer oriented service oriented economy, it's much more stable than people give credit to.
I think if we had a negative one percent recession after these massive nominal GDP numbers, I think you'd have to wake people up to tell them,
like you know we're in a recession now, I think it's a really different paradigm.
China is different because it's a debt finance, but just think recession is grossly overstated as a phenomenon today without some massive shock to the system.
So it's just so different that when I first started a business, you had a recession, you had food lines, you had gas lines.
It was like bad stuff.
We don't just break news, we build perspective.
Bloomberg publishes over 5,000 data-driven stories a day across multiple platforms so you can gain insight and act with confidence.
Ready to dive deeper? Start at Bloomberg.com slash think bigger.
We've already seen a lot of these recession calls for 2023 get pushed into 2024, but if we don't get a recession, I mean, how do you invest along that?
Are there any markets where you can see that a recession is mistakenly priced in?
Yeah, so by the way, it gets to this point about, you know, why things have been surprising and why the equity market.
I mean, people were like, get out, you know, earnings estimates, you know, we saw earnings estimates that almost were quantitatively impossible to hit unless the big tech stocks get devastated for some reason.
And I think now people are realizing that even if you had a moderate recession, even if you had one of these two quarters of negative small size, is it really going to change, you know, what your asset mix is going to be in terms of your portfolio.
And I think that's been a big adjustment. So what do you do with that?
Die the investor around it. Listen, I still think you got to own your own equities as part of a barbell in a portfolio.
One of the beautiful things today in investing, you can own front end yielding assets.
I bought some commercial paper the other day at six and a half percent, one year CP, six and a half percent.
It's like, I don't, I just want to go home at six and a half and just sit and sit and tell clients, it's just I'm going to get you six and a half and I'll be taking the rest of the year off.
But that's pretty, I mean, that's pretty attractive. But if you ran, let's say you ran a lot of carry a lot of front end yield, you know, in high quality assets invested in a great credit, maybe you go a little longer and some things like agency mortgages.
And then I'm going to own some of these equities and, you know, we assume that the equity market if companies can throw off 10, 12 percent return on equity, you could generate a nice return in a portfolio.
And then, quite frankly, more stable than you have historically because you're getting a lot of carry from your fixed income quality assets and fixing.
I mean, you have to stretch for fixing them.
I thought you were a bond guy. Here you are.
No, I can't. I move around. I want to go our global allocation.
All right, all right. Fair enough.
So we do, we do all asset classes.
You know what else he runs?
I do.
But tell me, his own ETF launched in May. We're talking about the ticker is bank.
I believe it's black rock flexible income. Did I get that right?
Right. Yeah. Yeah.
What took so long?
Listen, I think the advent of ETFs has been, you know, largely, I mean, the size of the ETF market has been in the passive space.
I mean, I use, I've been trading, managing ETFs for years in some of the big indices and the advent of, you know, running now active ETFs.
The growth of active ETFs has really accelerated.
And quite frankly, now the ability to use different tools to run an active ETF in as efficient a way as you can as a mutual fund is now there.
So all I can say, I use things like HYG or LQD or obviously SPY or so many different tools that allow me to run in a trade in a, in an open architecture transparent portfolio.
You can run it and create similar returns you run in a mutual fund.
And I feel like you've hit that inflection point today around the scale of the ETF market, they're running an active ETF.
You can do it effectively.
So anyway, I'm super excited about it.
Hey, it's been a, obviously, well, I've managed and traded gazillions of them for years and be able to manage that type of portfolio has been a lot of fun.
And it's been a lot of excitement around it, which is in great.
Well, I think the most interesting part to me is that there's a person behind the ETF.
Like you're kicking off this trend of people basically attaching their names to the exchange traded fund.
I really think you were the first and now we're seeing sort of Dan Ivason from PIMCO.
That's true.
His first ETF this year, who was it?
Ed Perks also came out with his own ETF.
So there's definitely a migration of some of these star managers such as yourself coming over to the wrapper officially, even though to your point.
You've been using them for a while in Portfolios.
Yeah, no, it's been, I don't know my other star category, but I definitely...
He's humble.
Yeah, I think it's meeting with a lot of clients, which I haven't here before, who are in the ETF that do models and what have you.
You realize the efficiency of them, the tax efficiency, the transparency, you can build models around it.
I mean, that's an innovation that's going to be continued to grow.
And so it's been a lot of fun.
I've met a lot of new people in new areas around doing it.
So I know it would be exciting, but I say the technology allows you to do it pretty efficiently today.
Rick, I have a million more questions for you, so we'll have to bring you back on.
But Rick Reader, BlackRock's Chief Investment Officer of Global Fixed Income, we're so happy you could join us.
We can't let you go yet.
Okay.
We have to play a quick round of craziest things we've all seen in markets this week.
And I think Katie promised me a really good one.
I actually came completely unprepared.
You'll have to do it on the fly.
If I had to do it on the fly, I have no idea.
I would just say real rates at a 15-year high.
That's pretty amazing.
Real rates at a 15-year high, and equities don't care at all.
I remember like two years ago, we were writing a bunch of bearish takes about the equity market that once real yield started to move significantly higher,
it was going to be lights out for risk assets, and we were completely wrong.
That was about to say, and we were so right.
Okay.
Rick, what about you?
Anything interesting you've seen in markets?
Anything crazy?
Anything crazy, weird.
So similar thing.
The volatility equity markets, the price of volatility is insane.
We did the trade yesterday, where people fall the fix index, but you can price option volatility at 9, 10 vol.
That is crazy.
People are giving you can buy equities without paying for them.
In terms of downside, in terms of downside risk, we did a one day, which I don't do a lot of, in fact, very rarely in my portfolios.
But you can do a one-day option for a 1% move in the equity market.
It was actually 10 to 1 odds.
It's all because volatility is so low in the equity market.
People don't think the market can move, but while rate volatility is really high,
it's interesting in my career, equity people and bond people work in different buildings.
And so there are times that there are aberrations between the two of them.
I still do both, but most people work in different buildings.
And this has been an amazing one.
Like equity vol.
I keep looking at those markets and things.
Why are things, why are they giving that?
Nobody's buying insurance to the downside.
Did I sell vol trades super cheap?
I saw a note that said, I forget how many days we've gone, like weeks without even a 3% draw.
Unbelievable stock market.
Yeah.
But a lot of updates.
I mean, you can buy upside.
I mean, that's the beauty of it.
You can buy upside convexity pretty cheaply today.
Okay, my craziest thing has nothing to do with any of these things.
Great, hit me.
I'm going to tie it back to this, I promise.
There's a Bloomberg story out that there's this new trend of restaurants providing
stools for people's purses.
Okay.
Have you seen this?
No, I don't go anywhere.
Me neither.
I only go to the movie theater with you basically, when I force you to come with me.
But if you go to a fancy restaurant and you have a super fancy purse, they'll bring you a little stool.
And then your purse will sit there with you and it will eat dinner with you.
What a crazy thing in markets.
What a crazy thing in markets.
That's not it.
I'm tying it back, I promise.
There actually is a handbag that sold for a crazy amount of money in recent weeks.
It is so tiny that you need a microscope to see it.
I've seen this.
It's a Louis Vuitton inspired neon green miniature purse created by an arts collective in Brooklyn.
It's smaller than a grain of salt.
Rick, have you seen this?
Have you seen this story?
No, come on.
Yes, come on.
It's cute.
It's small.
It's so tiny.
It's narrow enough to pass through the eye of a needle.
They made it using 3D printing.
And then the person who wanted to auction got a microscope for viewing it because it's so small.
Anyway, it's time to play.
I have so much trouble saying this.
The price is precise.
I'm going to have you guys guess what the auction went for.
What was the winning bid?
Okay.
$400,000.
Rick.
Come on.
I made 30,000 dollars.
Wow.
Wow.
That's quite a spread.
Delta.
Who won?
Not you.
Oh, really?
No.
What did it sell for?
Well, it was in the prices right.
You're supposed to be low anyway.
So I forget about it.
Oh, geez.
Can't go over.
Not the prices right.
We can't call it that.
We can call it the prices precisely.
Oh, I understand.
Go.
I hear you.
Okay.
The winning bid for this tiny thing that nobody can use or carry anywhere.
$63,750.
I'm really surprised.
I got it for you.
For your birthday.
Oh, my God.
Thank you.
That's welcome.
So excessive.
But thank you.
You can bring it to the movie theater when we go see Barbie.
I hope I'm not.
I don't like inhale it.
By accident.
When you ate popcorn.
Yeah.
Rick Reader.
Thank you so, so much for joining us.
Katie.
I'm so happy to have you on the podcast too.
I don't miss Mike at all.
Yeah, I don't even.
I don't even remember that man.
Who?
What's his last name?
I don't even remember.
This was great though.
Thank you, Rick.
Thanks for having me on.
It was awesome.
What goes up will be back next week.
Until then, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal,
website, and app.
Or wherever you get your podcasts.
We'd love it if you took the time to rate and review the show,
so more listeners can find us.
You can find us on Twitter.
Follow me at Valdana Hierarch.
Mike Regan is at Reganonymous.
You can also follow Bloomberg Podcasts at Podcasts.
What goes up is produced by Stacy Wong,
and our head of podcast is Sage Bowman.
Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next week.
No one just watches a movie anymore.
They play the video game, screen the soundtrack,
and binge a podcast too.
Boundaries have blurred, and ever in a scrambling,
for one thing, screen time.
Join me, Lucas Shaw, for Bloomberg Screen Time.
Our new LA event that will connect entertainment's brightest minds.
We'll be interviewing guests like Ted Sarandos of Netflix,
Donald Langley of NBC Universal, and Arya Manual,
the super agent, that endeavor.
Catch it on October 11th and 12th.
For more at BloombergLive.com, slash screen time.