In Search of the New SVB and the Future of Cancer Drugs

Published Mar 17, 2023, 11:05 AM

Opinion columnist Tim Culpan joins the program to discuss the future of startups and venture capitalists who found a home in Silicon Valley Bank. Lisa Jarvis with Bloomberg Opinion digs into the Pfizer-Seagen deal, exploring the possibilities for cancer drug development. Opinion's Jonathan Bernstein also joins, weighing the future of the Republican Party should former President Trump be indicted. And columnist Allison Schrager discusses why workers feel so unhappy, despite ample lesiure time.

Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I may me Morris. This week we look at how Feiser is betting on the future of cancer drugs as it acquires Siegeon. We're also looking at the latest illegal entanglements for former President Donald Trump and what that might mean for the future of the GOP. Plus. We always hear about burnout and how you know they're working so hard, and you know, people do work hard, and they're certainly unhappy. But the surprising thing is is that people never had more leisure time. We're all burned out, Americans are working less and they're still not happy. Alison Schrager joins us to discuss that story. Let's get started. We begin with the fallout from Silicon Valley Bank and turmoil we've seen across institutions here and in Europe. It's raised questions of a FED pivot and what the FOMC might decide this upcoming week. Charles Schwab, chief investment strategist Liz Anne Saunders says, with inflation running hot, it'll be one of the most consequential meetings yet. What we don't know yet is the counterparty risk, and I think that's clearly what's hitting the market. I'll tell you who I do not want to be in the next week is Trump Powell. You know, the feed is at a very massive pickle. Silicon Valley banks collapse has implications not only for the financial system, but also for tech and venture capital. Let's find out what happens next. Bloomberg opinion columnist Tim Kupan covers technology and he joins us. Now, Tim tell us what sort of impact there might be on startups and those who rely on SVB. Well, what's interesting is that now that it's essentially been saved, bailed out, not with taxpayers money, we're told the funds will survive. But one thing to remember about SVB is that it did pioneer a lot of areas of finance that the big banks jumps weren't interested in doing. For example, if you've ever tried to start a company, and some of our listeners will have tried to do that, if you go to one of the big banks and try and get you know, payment services up and running, it can take weeks, maybe months. SBB was known for basically switching on almost immediately, So if you're a startup and you need payments coming in, you need to do payroll things like that. It was just the easiest place to go. The other thing that SBB did, which was quite unique, which they got involved in actually funding the startups. So startup founders, the standard model is you raise money from vcs, vcs get some equity, and of course the founders have their equity diluted. But SBB got involved by actually leaning money. Now, normally a bank loans money against a mortgage or against a car, or maybe it's a credit card kind of loan, but you don't tend to loan money against a very speculative startup. Well, SBB would do that and as a result, startups could get cash coming in, but they didn't actually have to worry about diluting their equity because it was just a debt. And so of course you founders love that because you know they get money for with out having to worry about diluting their equity. Now, of course the rates on those loans were quite high, but if you're in a fast moving, fast growth kind of company, you don't really mind that much. And beyond that, they were doing a lot of other stuff that were quite interesting and quite unique, and even on their website at least earlier this week. It may not have been may have been taken down. I don't know, but they were promoting the fact that they would even help our founders finance a private jet. That's the kind of stuff that SVB was doing. A lot of that may go away. Well, they're definitely going to be hearings, investigations, tightening of rules, things like that. But as you mentioned at the top of this interview, the deposits were safe, the depositors were made whole. So is that going to make a difference in what people who do business with SVB might be feeling. Come you know, in the next few months. If we look back to the financial crisis, everyone was a little bit scared. Oh my god, we should be careful. But you know, after a few years, people will forget. That's just the reality. People will forget what happened in sv that. I think they're safe again. The depositive of whome whole, and it ironically was not collapsed because of credit risk like the financial crisis. In fact, they did, in a way what a very responsible company would do. They put all that extra ridiculous amounts of deposits. They had more than one hundred and twenty billion heading towards two hundred billions of deposits. They didn't put it in say risky mortgages to someone who couldn't afford to buy our house, or to lots of funding of private jets. They actually put a lot of that cash in essentially what we're equivalent to US treasuries, you know, agency backed long dated bonds, and so from a credit point of view, it was actually a smart move, was a wise safe move. But the other risk that you have is is duration risk and maturity risk. And when rates rose, the value of those agency backed dead foul. And that was really the undoing of SVB. It wasn't a credit problem, it was an interest rate and duration risk problem. In the future, banks who are in this space, who are taking in large amounts of deposits from you know, say Silicon Valley types, are going to have to think very very carefully about how they use those funds. You know, they might still put it in in shorter day to treasury so they don't have to interest rate and duration risk, but then they're still going to have to be thinking very very carefully, are we going to fund the private jet of a startup founder? Are we going to put directly into debt, directly into startups and be the banker to startups are From a dead point of view, I don't think that we're going to see say a GP Morgan or an HSBC being pretty keen to do that kind of stuff. That's why SBB stood out, and whoever replaces them in that market is probably going to be more cautious. That's exactly what I wanted to get into with you. If this may be just the beginning and this is bound to affect change and the way these startups are funded, I think that the basic VC funded business model will stay as it is. Most funding is still basically via vcs, and vcs are essentially pulls of money from very rich people, but also pension funds and so on and so forth. You know, probably anyone listening to this conversation don't realize that they have money in a VC. They don't realize they've got a very small percentage of some startup that's just picking over right now in Silicon Valley, and that will still continue. What will change, possibly is the relationship that the vcs and the startups have with the financial services industry, that is, the banks and the financial institutions that service them from a banking point of view, from a private wealth and wealth management point of view, that relationship will change, and that will mean that startups and vcs and the companies will have to find different ways to work with banks. And I think it's going to be interesting how that plays out. I don't know how to play out, but for sure there is going to be Sarai entrepreneurs and financial industry people looking for the next age and the next way to make money from Silicon Valley. We talked earlier this week with liz Anne Saunders of Charles Schwab, and she had told Bloomberg Radio that it's not the banking sector that has a systemic problem. I specifically asked if there's an issue there that's got to be fixed, and she said, it's not the banking sector. It's what you said, it's the venture capital sector. It's how these tech startups are funded. It's how that ecosystem has been working for years now. So I'm guessing she has a point there, But then what would the answer be, Well, I mean, the systemic risk is really you put money into risky startups and you know, any every VC, those you know, for twenty investments they make nineteen, they're going to go balley up. They won't go anywhere. It's the one big one that pays for it. Now, this has been the model for frankly sixty years. You know, Silicon Valley started literally the name is is right there, Silicon and started to fund hardware and ship companies all those years ago. And we know this is the model that when you put your money into a VC, and when a VC invests in a startup, they know that a lot of those companies will go nowhere. But then they ask themselves, what if it does succeed? Right? You imagine all those years ago, you're someone like Benchmark and someone knocks on your door and say, hey, I've got this idea that I'm going to get people who own a car and I'm going to get strangers to jump in their car and go for a ride. Now, if you're a VC back then you're going to go that's a crazy idea. It's going to go nowhere. But what if it works? And now we have Uber, right, Airbnb, someone model all of the companies that we look at today, you know Google which is now called Alphabet, Facebook, all these companies that we look at had VC involvement, and that was because there was some VC out there. He said, this is a crazy idea, but it just might work. And if it does, this by guts have money to be made. And I actually don't think that's a systemic risk. I think that's the model that is the beautiful American dream of capitalism and entrepreneurship that rewards that risk, but also says, you know what, if it fails, you're also going to have to wear it that as well. Okay, So then what will you be watching for in the next few days, in the next few weeks, what's going to happen next? Well, I think in the next few weeks, I'm really curious to see where the deposits go. Now. Obviously we now know that they're kind of guaranteed, so people had their money in SVP are safe. So I wonder if all of those people who pull money out will put it back. Probably not. But I also wonder which of the banks out there is going to pick up the money. Is it going to be say a JP Morgan, or is it going to be a city or is it going to be you know, one of those big banks, And what are they going to do about it. Are you going to have JP Morgan suddenly hire a lot of people saying all right, we're going to have a Silicon Valley startup business that we're going to push bigger into Now. A lot of these companies do already have have startups and vcs along their client list, but I don't think they've really put the attention and focus on them in the way that SVB did. But it's a great opportunity for these companies, for these financial institutions to pick up that business and then decide they're actually going to do something with it. So I think over the next day three to six months, we will hear I hope we will hear from people like say Jamie Diamond of JP Morgan to say, hey, you know, I think that crypto is rubbish, and he said that publicly. But I know there's an opportunity for us in the industry to service Silicon Valley, and I'd love to hear from people like Jamie Diamond what they think about it, what they'll do about it. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Tim Culben covers technology in Asia. Coming up, we'll look at biotech, specifically the future of cancer drugs and how generic drug makers are struggling to keep up. Bloomberg's Lisa Jarvis joins us, that's just ahead. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Cgen finally being acquired by Fiser. The forty three billion dollar proposed deal could put Fiser into a leadership position in oncology. Visor chairman and CEO, doctor Albert Burla, spoke with Bloomberg this week about what that acquisition means for cancer drug development. I think what Sidzen is giving us it is a unique technology. It's called ADC and this technology can become one of the biggest answers to many concert tumors that right now we have somebodup on a solution. But for doctor Albert Burla and Visor, the company still has a lot of work to do when it comes to convincing investors that it's huge. Bet on Siegen is sound. Let's talk about it with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis. She covers biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry. How significant is this deal, Well, it would be a very big deal for Fiser. They are desperately trying to fill a seventeen billion dollar hole in their revenues that's looming between twenty twenty five and twenty thirty as they lose patent protection on some key products. They've making a number of small acquisitions that will inch them towards that seventeen billion dollars goal, but they really needed something bigger. Investors have been asking for something bigger, and this is what they landed on cigen, which will completely transform their cancer portfolio. So one of the things that well, they have to convince investors that this is not a bad deal, that this is that they've got a plan here. What do they have to do next to do that? Basically, their first stop was the obviously investor call that happened when the deal was announced, So Fiser really needs to convince investors. At the first step was the call that they had after announcing the deal on Monday. In that call, they were really trying to show that not only do the two cancer portfolios fit together, but that Fiser can really maximize the potential of cigen strugs. They have a lot of overlap between the types of cancer that they're working on, breast cancer, urological cancers, blood cancers. So Fiser's trying to basically argue that they can essentially maximize the sales of both portfolios by having them all in one and and save some money by not having to make some investments in order to sell those drugs. And then they were trying to talk up essentially the durability of this portfolio. You know, essentially, these are very complicated drugs. TGen makes antibody drug conjugates, these are not These are drugs that essentially you take chemo onto an antibody and deliberate straight to tumor cells. That's going to be very hard to replicate. And so I think Fiser is trying to say, look, you all are thinking about the next five years, this is a portfolio that is going to have a lot of legs because it's not going to have geneer a competition for the same time frame of normal drugs that I'm so glad you mentioned that Fiser believes that Siege in sales in twenty thirty will be well over and list estimates. And as I'm reading that in your column, I said, twenty thirty, that's you know that that seems like a long time off. They are playing the long game with this, right. I think, you know, there's a great appreciation that this kind of drug is going to be very hard to mimic, and so there's the potential that you know, you just kind of don't have copycats in the way that you do for regular small molecule cancer drugs or even antibodies, where biosimilars have have you know, not made very big inroads into that market. And so I think what they're saying is these sales are durable. You know, they're not going to go away in the same way with patent competition. The other thing that fires are hinted at on their call to investors, which I think was perhaps underappreciated, was that when the Inflation Reduction Act passed, it included a lot of new provisions around drug price negotiations, and one of those provisions essentially creates a cap for what out of pocket spending for people who are on Medicare, and that cap maybe will allow more people to access expensive drugs like the type that cgent cells. And so I think it's trying to argue, you know, this asset, can we can maximize the potential of this asset. These products have legs, and you know it's possible we're going to be able to sell more even though it looks like with drug negotiations, you know, maybe the industry will face more pressure, but this might be a good asset in that context. You know, the way you describe it, it sounds life changing for people, particularly who may have to face such a diagnosis and who may need that kind of medication. And I know we want to stick with the business side, but did they talk at all about the consumer side of this? Yeah, I mean they didn't focus a ton on that on this call, but I will say that I've written a lot about it. I followed this class of drugs for probably twenty years now. These the idea can set. The concept here makes a lot of sense, right. You know, you can have really powerful chemotherapy that you can't give on its own because it would be too toxic, it would kill too many of your healthy cells. So if you tack it onto an antibody that can really take it directly to your tumor cells and then it's released, you know, you have this way of killing cancer and a that's very powerful, and we know chemo works, right, It's just always the problem is it's too toxic. And we've seen a lot of data in the last two years to suggest that this class of drugs could have a wider range of could attack a wider range of cancers than we thought in the past, and so I think that's part of it too. We're starting to understand better how these drugs work and so it could really be transformative. If we saw some data last year in breast cancer that really was impressive. So I think that's part of the growing appreciation for cgens value. What is the downside? Is there one or do we know yet? Well, certainly no one's super happy about the price of the deal, and I think that's part of it. You know, I think that's part of the convincing that Fiser has to do, is that it really did kick the tires. And I'll mention Fisor has worked on antibody drug conjugates over the years, it just hasn't had success. And so you know, you you have to hope that they had some people internally that could understand, you know, the technology and really you know, saw what could where it could go. But you know, they still they're going to have some things to prove and then I think everyone The other concern that Eroon has is just the FTC and I you know, I would say that over the summer merk had been a contender for Siege and it sounded like they were potentially pursuing a deal there, but the concern there was that the FTC would not allow that to go through, and I think analysts think that Fiser has a much better chance. So those are the two big things, would be the regulatory concerns and then and then the price. In your column briefly before I let you go in your column on the Bloomberg terminal, great column, by the way, highly recommend everybody read it. You say one word came up over and over again, and that word was durability. Is that something Visor is expecting from cgen. What's the context of that? Yeah, I think that goes back to this idea that these assets potentially could have a long life, that you're not going to face the same kind of competition you do. Visors own oncology portfolio is really reliant on small molecule drugs, which are much easier for generic competitors to come in and you know, sort of or quickly erode sales once they go off patent, and so I think what they're looking for is something that you know, has a longer has longer legs, and you know, I do think cgen that's been an under appreciated aspect of CGEN is that it could provide that. Is there anything you're going to be watching for in the coming weeks on this well, I think you know, Cgen's going to have some and cancer data towards the end of the year, and that's going to probably be an important component for investors to watch and see if Fiser really did make a good bet. Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg opinion columnist. She covers biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry. And don't forget We are available as a podcast Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us. Coming up, we get the latest on the legal entanglements for former President Donald Trump and what that might mean for the future of the GOP. If you support an indicted candidate, you are going to wind up supporting a convicted candidate. You're going to wind up supporting a candidate who, you know, all kinds of things may ugly things may come up in an actual trial that may be going on during the Republican primaries. So it's really a decision point where you know, if you're willing to put up with this, you're really willing to put up with anything. Jonathan Bernstein will join us for that discussion. This is Bloomberg Opinion. This is Bloomberg Opinion. I may mean Morris. It looks increasingly likely that former President Donald Trump will be indicted by Manhattan prosecutors over alleged hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. No, it's not clear what an indictment might mean for the former president's political future, nor what it might mean for the GOP. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Jonathan Bernstein covers politics and policy, and he joins us. Now, the strategy until now for Republicans has been to not speak up on this issue. But you have said that they're probably going to have to take sides once there's an indictment. Why yeah, I mean, you know, there are Republicans who flat out support Donald Trump's attempt to regain the White House, and then there's been some who have endorsed Rod the Santas or otherwise are opposed to him. But the both of them have said have sort of taken a wait and see, keep quiet approach, and an indictment would really change that because that's the point where you know, if you support an indicted candidate, you are going to wind up supporting a convicted candidate. You're going to wind up supporting a candidate who you know, all kinds of things may ugly things may come up in an actual trial that may be going on during the Republican primaries. So it's really a decision point where you know, if you're willing to put up with this, you're really willing to put up with anything. Is does this have the possibility or do the potential of splitting the GOP? What will happen to the Republican Party if some do decide to publicly break with Trump because some won't, Yeah, exactly, So we don't know where at all winds up. We don't know which way they would decide, but it really will be a very revealing woman. You know, a lot of politicians and other you know, prominent party actors, they're you know, they don't like to take sides when there's when the party is split. So waiting is always a good option, and you know, you can see that um. You know, in the in the twenty sixteen campaign or for the Democrats last time, most people didn't decide and endorse anybody until after the primaries were already taking place. Well, you know, the problem is that as the campaign goes on, you learn information about the candidates. But this time, what more will there be to learn about Donald Trump? You know, they've they've been through presidency with him. Up to this point, they've been able to pretend, well, maybe the legal problems aren't serious. If there is an indictment, they can't do that anymore, and some of them may decide to do it. The party may very well split. He has He has given no indication that he'd back off of his campaign from his campaign if he's indicted, and we know that a lot of at least some Republicans are going to support him down the line whatever happens. We've heard for years of Republicans who will say privately, behind the scenes how disappointed they may or may not be with the former president, but they really don't do it publicly. A public break would be something different, wouldn't it. Well, we haven't happened. What probably matters is the bulk of it. You know, We've had individual Republicans say things over the years, and some of them have wound up getting drummed out of the party. So yeah, then the party remains united. If a large bulk of people say, look, we're this guy, you know, don't forget. This isn't the only investigation to him. He may very well get indicted. You know. The signs seemed to be that if he's going to get indicted in the New York courts, but he also is very close probably to getting indicted in the Georgia courts for interfering with the election there, And he has a federal prosecutor looking into at least two separate possibilities, and we could have a whole series of indictment. So you know, the question is where are Republican voters it comes to primaries and poxizen And there's just no way of knowing at this point. We know, you know, when it comes to primaries, generally all party voters like party candidates, you know, party politicians, because if you're a Republican, you tend to like the Santas, you tend to like Trump, you tend to like Nicky Hilly, etc. Etc. Because they're all Republicans. But then I actually decided to choose one over the other. We just don't know how loyal they're going to turn out to be to Trump. You know. That leads me into the next question. I love it when a guest anticipates my question. I wonder if this is an anticipation of the Republican Party becoming two parties, the far right Trump supporters versus the traditional Republicans. We've been seeing that for years. But would this do it. I don't think that it takes a whole lot to split a party. We haven't had it happen long term in the United States since the nineteenth century. Could it happen in one election? You know, that's sort of up to circumstances. And then Trump himself. The problem for Republicans is that there are very two Republicans who think that Trump is interested in the future of the party. They think he's interested in himself. They think that he's very willing to, for example, try to run a third party candidacye even if it would think their party, and that makes them hesitant to act against him. Whereas you know, most party candidates have a basic loyalty to the party. You know, Joe Biden or you know, Kamala Harris are not going to think the Democrats and let the Republicans be elected if they don't get a nomination, because they've been Democrats for their whole life and they care about the kinds of things that Democrats care about. Nobody thinks that about Trump. The former president has faced legal entanglements before. What makes this one different? Were just closer to the point where there seems to be indictments coming. Um, you know, when we when we have a special prosecutor, um, you know Muller investigation. There was never any sense that, oh, indictments are imminent. There was just a sense of, well, at some point he's going to issue a report which may or may not include indictments. But the um, you know, the indications we're getting in New York is that a indictment is very likely. Um, you know, the court watchers seem to think that that's going on, and we don't know what's going to happen with the special prosecutor, the federal special prosecutor looking into January sixth, issues of overturning the election and issues um related to the documents that Trump took from the White House. UM, but there's a general sense that boy, these are serious charges that there are um, you know, there's plenty of evidence, there's an easy case to make, And of course there's also the difference that he's no longer president. When he was president there he was somewhat protected by the doctrine that presidents can't be invited, which is a doctrine, not a law, but there's no such doctrine about former president. Now. Voters are in Trench, do you know this. They're either devoted to Donald Trump or they're never Trumpers. There's not a whole lot of swing voters when it comes to the Trump candidacy. Would an indictment move that needle, Well, we don't know how in Trench they are. There certainly seemed to be about a third of the Republican primary electorate that are strongly pro Trump. Even then those are probably again people who like other Republican candidates that we don't know. When push comes to shove, would they would they follow him out of the party for example, if he tried to do that. But there's another sort of two thirds of the party, most of which like him. They think that he was good on Republican policies, when he was president. But they also are intrigued by other candidates, so there is a lot of room for movement. Where exactly it comes down, it's very very hard to tell. In his aunt, I know you're watching out for any possible indictments, but what else are you watching for on this topic? You know, as the candidates were allowed, there's a couple of things. We want to see how many candidates who are currently out there campaigning actually do declare. We've only had one other, one other than Trump, Nikki Haley has made a formal declaration. There's you know, you get a sense by the number of candidates who are out there running without hitting the declaration stage that not nobody's too afraid of Trump. But we'll see whether they take that next step. And then the question is, well, where are party actors going to land? And the Trump already has way more endorsements than he had in twenty sixteen, but way fewer than he had when he was running for reelection in twenty twenty. So where are those Trump endorsers from twenty twenty going to go this time around? And you know they are they going to all go to the same alternative? Are they going to stick with Trump. Are they going to keep waiting for something better to come along that they're not really sure about? All right, We're going to keep watching it with you, Jonathan, Thank you so much. Thank you. You probably already know that there's a worker shortage. Even before the pandemic, Americans were already putting in fewer hours. But people are burned out. Here's the thing, though, as more Americans are downshifting, they're becoming even more unhappy. Here to help us sort all of this out, Bloomberg opinion columnist Alison Schrager. Alison, if you could just set us straight, people are working less but they're still not happy. Why. Yeah, Well it's sort of remarkable. I mean we always hear about burnout and how you know they're working so hard, and you know, people do work hard, and they're certainly unhappy. But the surprising thing is is that people never had more leisure time. If you look at men in particular, you'll notice that they're working fewer hours than they did in the nineteen sixties. And not only that, we used to spend a lot of time doing like stuff around the house, like mowing lawns, doing dishes, things like that. So technology has given us more essentially free time. But the weird thing is, is any who we have more leisure, we feel like we've never worked harder. Is it a matter then of work life balance. You talked about chores around the house versus chores at work. Is there a balance that's not being struck? Well, no, because they said people are also working fewer hours. I mean, to some extent, work creeps into your home life more now obviously because you know your boss, can you know, contact you at all times a day very well night. But it just says like we can't deny that people do have more free time than they ever have before. Let's dig a little bit deeper here. When we talk about unhappiness, depression, burnout, is that more about leisure time work hours? Or could this somehow be a result of the pandemic shut down, like a sort of residual psychological response to what everybody went through in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one. It could be, although honestly, I mean people always complained about work, but I think a lot of these complaints for you're hearing even predate the pandemic. I think the pandemic accelerated it. So I mean, I think it accelerated a lot of these things that are making us feel so burnt out and unhappy. As I said, like sort of the isolation. I got went to the gym the other day and absolutely everyone had their air buds in and we're working out with a bot as opposed to before. Jim's used to be somewhat social places. So I think to some degree the pandemic accelerated would already happening, that we are becoming more and more isolated, more and more tie technology, and that might contribute to us feeling unhappy all the time. Could there be a solution at the work Bigger paychecks, flexible work hours, four day work weeks, Would that help? I doubt it, because I said, we're already working significantly less than we ever have before. I think, as I said, we might want to rethink how we're spending our leisure time, maybe trying to unplug more. We do see big downtrends and how many hours people are working, so that would only continue, and that doesn't seem to be making us happier. You know, let me ask you this, Let's try this on for size. Perhaps it's not so much a matter of work life balance. And it's not so much a matter of you know, how much is in your paycheck or how much flexible hours you have, because like you said, we're already working less. It's a matter of having control over the time that is supposed to be yours. I think, yeah, I think so, although you know, everyone likes to get paid more, so you know you don't want to minimize them. But yeah, I think even still, you know, we've never been paid so much and work so little yet been more unhappy. So I think, really how we're spending our leisure time might be the problem. So Alison, where's this going? What are you watching for? Well? I mean, I definitely am going to curious how much of these trends. I mean, one thing that I've picked up on was that you know is did was the study from the UK that said four hours was fine. I don't think that's true for all companies, but was close in the study apparently. And we're seeing a lot more people working part time by choice, and the sort of people allegedly quiet quitting and all these things. So I'm curious as the economy weekend, which you probably will at some point and we have a recession, if that rejiggers our relationship with work again, a really tight competitive labor market where people are having to sort of again we think how they work. All right, Alison, thank you so much for taking the time with us anytime. Thank you. Alison Trigger is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. That does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We're produced by Eric Mullow. Don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apples, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us. Today's up stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.

Bloomberg Opinion

Deeper conversations on the week's most significant developments. Tune in and join in!
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 102 clip(s)