BI Weekend: Measles Outbreak, US Clean Tech

Published Mar 21, 2025, 7:14 PM

Watch Alix and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF. 

Hosts: Paul Sweeney and Alix Steel

On this podcast: Sam Fazeli, Bloomberg Intelligence, Director of Research for Global Industries and Senior Pharmaceuticals, discusses the measles outbreak. John Tozzi, Bloomberg Health Care Reporter, discusses the Bloomberg Big Take story: “Cancer Patient's $100,000 Bill Shows Chaos Rocking Health Care.” Liam Denning, Bloomberg Opinion Columnist Covering Energy, discusses his Opinion column “How Long Will Musk Be Welcomed at the White House?" Katherine Doherty, Bloomberg Finance Reporter, discusses her Bloomberg Big Take story: “Private Rooms Draw Traders Seeking Even Darker Pools.” Derrick Flakoll, BNEF Lead US Policy Analyst, talks about how President Donald Trump’s investment rules are holding back made in U.S clean tech. Chester Dawson, Bloomberg Senior Editor for Global Business Americas, discusses the Bloomberg Big Take story: “China's Auto Industry Is Already Taking Over The World.”

Bloomberg Intelligence, the research arm of Bloomberg L.P., has more than 400 professionals who provide in-depth analysis on more than 2,000 companies and 135 industries while considering strategic, equity and credit perspectives. BI also provides interactive data from over 500 independent contributors. It is available exclusively for Bloomberg Terminal subscribers.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg Intelligence with Alex Steel and Paul Sweeney.

The real ap performance has been in US corporate high yield.

Are the companies lean enough? Have they trimmed all the fats?

The semiconductor business is a really cyclical business.

Breaking market headlines and corporate news from across the globe.

Do investors like the M and A that we've seen?

These are two big time blue chip companies.

Window between the peak and cunt changing super fast.

Bloomberg Intelligence with Alex Steele and Paul Sweeney on Bloomberg Radio.

On Today's Bloomberg Intelligence Show, we dig inside the big business series impacting Wall Street and the global markets.

Each and every week we provide in depth research and data on some of the two thousand companies and in one hundred and thirty industries our end. Let's cover worldwide.

Today we'll discuss Tesla's CEO Elon Musk relationship with President Donald Trump.

Plus we'll look at the consequence the President Trump's America First Investment policy on the US energy landscape.

But first we begin in the health and pharmaceutical space.

Less than three four months into twenty twenty five, the US measle cases of outpaced last year's total, and this comes as the worrying outbreak link to multiple desks continues to spread.

In other news, the drugmakers Roche and Zealand It teamed up in a five point three billion dollar pack in a bid to challenge Nova Nordisk and Eli Lilly in the booming market for obcit drugs.

From where we are joined by Sam Fazelli, Boomberg Intelligence, Director of Research for Global Industries and Senior Pharmaceuticals.

First asked Sam about his immune status and how concerned we should be about getting a meso vaccine booster.

It's not like it's rampant and everywhere, but the reality is it worried me enough mm hmm, being all those labels you want to give me right that, I thought, let me go and see what my immune status is.

I'm doing that, right. I have my blood tests in a couple of weeks, because like, why not, right?

Yeah? I just you know, so exactly what have you got to lose?

At least I know I know that if I am susceptible and I've got a little son, I think about being close to him or notther etcetera, etcetera.

So I did that, So I think do we need all to take it? Don't? I don't think so at the minute.

I don't think this is something everybody needs to rush out and get majority of people.

If you were vaccinated, especially post nineteen.

Sixty eight, which is all of you guys, right, you would be immune to you know, that's a very one of those vaccines that worked for a long long time. So and I think my result actually says I am immune, so I.

Shouldn't worry about it. And that's where we need to be.

The problem is we need ninety five percent immunity around us to benefit from the herd immunity effect. You remember that or in the pandemic we talked about that. Yeah, And that's the problem that in some states in the US is falling below that. In fact, I counted only twelve or thirteen states you can count that on the CDC website that are above the ninety five percent vaccination level. So those are low have a risk of outbreaks, and that's why we've been seeing that rate rising and infection rates have been rising since twenty seventeen eighteen. There's always some but we're dealing unfortunately with a pretty meaningful sized eye break in Texas.

So deals last week Roche and the Zealand getting in on a deal. What's happening with our good friends of es.

Yeah, yeah, So look, I mean we've only got two things to talk about here, infectious diseases or rubesity.

Right, and this deal, this deal was the licensing deal, not MNA.

So basically Roche went to this company and said, look, we're interested in your asset and we want to do a partnership. So Roach has taken on fifty to fifty up to fifty to fifty.

I e.

Zealand can invest in their commercialization up to a point of getting fifty percent of the profits, assuming they're putting fifty percent of the costs.

Right, So, and what is it? Is it another week go VI? Is it another zep bound? No, it's not.

It's a different mechanism, and it's supposed to work by giving you weight loss but helping preserve of some of the muscle mass, which I'm sure you've talked about this.

So we've talked about this several times.

You don't want to lose muscle and fat, You want to lose fat less muscle and that's what these amylin drugs.

Potentially give you.

And of course Rashi's no newcomer to this space, right But interestingly, what it does pose is in the future that we're going to be looking at you and I and Alex together, I'm sure we'll be looking talking about this forever.

Is how do you decide what to give to what patients? That's what the world needs to figure out. Now.

Yeah, I don't know what the answer is to that. I'm sure the companies all have their own answer.

I'm coming back to you, Alex to figure it out.

Okay, I believe you. When we take a look at the in the US and the level of NIH funding that is on the chopping block, what part of the industry do you think is most vulnerable to losing funding and then missing out on some research?

Yep.

But so Alex, if you think about and I, it's it's mostly majority of it, of course is biological right National Institute's Health. So that's where I think the cuts are coming. But it's not just about cutting people. It's still uncertain that it creates. It's been the cutting of overhead costs to universities. It is the fact that apparently there'll be no not based on what I've been looking at, but based on what I've heard, there been no patent filings by the Institute in the past few weeks, which could be stop filing patterns because it's expensive, or could be we don't want to give all our ideas away or whatever. But they are the font or found or whatever the right phrase is, sorry of future drug development, and they get lots of revenue back from it.

So it is. It is worrying, and I don't like seeing what I'm seeing.

Up to twenty percent of the stuff being cut, and we need a turn in this. We need to stop seeing this and so that we don't feel like science is under attack.

Our thanks to Sam Fizzelli, Bloomberg Intelligence, Director of Research for Global Industries and senior pharmaceuticals analysts.

This week we focus on a few Bloomberg Big Take stories, and one was titled Cancer Patients one hundred thousand dollars bill shows chaos rockinghealthcare. You can find it on Bloomberg dot Com and the Terminal.

The story focuses on the insurance industry, their rise in denials, and one woman's fight to get coverage for her cancer treatment.

For more.

We spoke to John Tazzi, Bloomberg Healthcare reporter, and we first asked John to walk us through a story in the broader healthcare insurance industry.

This is a story of a woman who is being treated for advanced breast cancer in Wisconsin and he sought prior authorization from her insurance company at United Healthcare for the treatment. She got a kind of confusing set of responses. She got two letters on the same day, one denying the authorization, another approving it. She got the treatment months later, the company to kind to pay for it. She ended up filing a lawsuit to get the treatment paid for. The company ultimately did pay for it after the lawsuit was filed after we inquired about it. But you know, what this story really exemplifies is kind of what an administrative mess the US healthcare system has become.

So, I mean, you've got a stat in here which is just blows me away. The US healthcare system spends as much on billing and claims processing as it does on treating cancer. That is just extraordinary because what you have here, as reading your story, you got two big entities locking horns all the time that the provider of this of the medical procedure, and then the insurance company that has to pay for neither of them. Are you know wallflowers? They go at it, don't they.

Yeah, So what we have is this adversarial system, right. You have on one side, you know, hospitals, medical provis labs. You know, we're in a free market economy where there's no restrictions on the prices they can charge. On the other side, we have the private insurers who are you know, trying to constrain costs for their clients and you know, make sure that the care given to their members is appropriate care. And you know, it's just this conflict and it's escalating. You know, we see data on insurance denials rising. We see a bunch of basically companies that have gotten into this system to help one side or the other, or in some cases both maximize their financial advantage in these transactions. So you have the sort of escalating conflict that patients are often caught in the middle of.

So what's our way out of here?

Good question?

I mean, I think you know, some people would argue that there is you know, opportunities for technology and AI and you know, more efficient.

Processes, standardized. Yeah, technically standardized practices or.

You know, I mean, I think that would potentially go a long way. I mean, there's been a lot of research over a long time, over you know, over kind of how to do this. I think what you fundamentally get though, is like the system where incentives are are you know, are misaligned. Like you have one side that has an incentive to do more and to Bill Moore, and you have another inside that has incentives to kind of put up more restrictions or guardrails they might call it around around care. And you know, that's sort of increasing, and I'm not sure that there's there's sort of a clear pathway out of it right now.

Well, one of my questions is what does this mean for healthcare providers? It kind of I mean, and you've got a great charting here us doctors no longer work for themselves, And it's the percent of physicians employed by hospitals or corporate entities. And that number was about sixty percent back in twenty nineteen. It's over seventy five percent today. Doctors just saying I don't I just can't deal with this stuff anymore.

Yeah, And I think if you talk to physicians, you hear. You know, there's a lot of compliance and sort of like you know, investment they need to do in like over the recent years around like electronic medical records and you know, basically being a practicing physician has gotten a lot more complicated and I think in some ways a lot more expensive. In the days of just kind of hanging your shingle when you get out of med school and being a solo practitioner, those are over. The other thing is that they're you know, looking for bargaining power when they're contracting with the insurance companies. So they're joining hospital systems, they're joining big groups, they're joining private equity owned you know, practices.

I guess the logical question also then becomes if they're tweaks to like entitlement programs too, Like how does that wind up affecting this whole dynamic because of their changes to medicate and medicare. I would assume that some providers will lend lose money and then it makes it harder.

Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, we we will still have to see what comes out of Washington on that front. But you know, in general, I think providers will tell you that they have to charge higher prices in the private market because they are not compensated enough by government programs. I know there's a lot of dispute about that assertion as well from economists and and others, but you know it, you know, for patients, particularly in the commercial market where they you know, if you're on Medicare Medicaid, the government sets the price more or less. But if you're on a private plan, you know, those prices are set in the private market. And that's why when you know, if you do have a situation where something isn't properly covered, you can be exposed to a really expensive bill.

Did your did Julie Simon's the woman in your story that you ever getting into resolution with this lawsuit here?

So the claim was paid you know again after if you filed the laws, after we asked the company about it, claims were you know, so that was resolved that the lawsuit is you know, is still pendaning.

Okay, all right, Thanks to John Tozzi, Bloomberg Healthcare Reporter.

Coming up, we're gonna look at Wall Street's infamous dark pools.

You're listening to Bloomberg Intelligence on Bloomberg Radio, providing in depth research and data on two thousand companies and one hundred and thirty industries. You can access Bloomberg Intelligence via b I go on the terminal.

I'm Paul Sweeney and I'm Alex Steel, and this is Bloomberg.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on Apple, Coarclay, and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.

We turned to Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk and his relationship with the Trump administration.

Tesla stock has been suffering since it's games on election Day, and it shows that muscle relationship with President Donald Trump is hurting his portfolio.

From whre, we spoke to Liam Denning Lumberg opinion columnists for his piece titled how long will Musk be Welcomed at the White House?

We first asked Liam if he is surprised that Elon Musk has lasted this long at the White House?

You know, not really.

I mean, I know that there's this speculation that, you know, you've got these two big egos and they're bound to kind of explode in some kind of soup and over at some point, I think we do have to consider that they both still get quite a lot from this relationship. I mean, you know, Elon Musk has the era of the most powerful person in the world. He has through the doge whatever that is, he has influence over all sorts of agencies that regulate or do business with his companies. And in return, you know, President Trump gets to bask in the aura of this prominent businessman.

He gets campaign dollars.

You know, and he gets obviously you know, should we say, algorithmic alignment on a big social media platform.

So there is still quite a ridic alignment.

But we have seen, you know, I think the reason I wrote the piece is we've seen a confluence of things that point to the risks of a business person like Elon Musk tying himself this closely to you know, a pretty controversial president.

Yeah, Liam put me in the camp. I was one of those folks that said, you know, Elin will probably last, his tenure will be measured in weeks, not months or years. And that looks like, at least at this early stage, I may be proven wrong, but you know, money talks here. According to Rich go On, the Bloomberg criminal must. His next net wealth is down one hundred and eighteen point six billion dollars this year. Do you think he cares?

I think, you know, maybe on a kind of an ego level that matters.

I mean, he's still worth you know.

The last time I looked up three hundred and thirteen, so you know, he's not He's.

Obviously not going to be struggling.

But I think for me, you know, the big mover there is Tesla obviously, because that's the the biggest asset, it's the only really liquid one he has. You know, his own personal indebtedness is tied to that stock, and he used it, you know, to help buy.

Twitter.

And I think it is it is an issue because I think what's been interesting for me with what's happened with Tesla since the election. You know, obviously there was that huge Trump bump in the stock, you know, worth north of seven hundred billion dollars, which has collapsed, and in some ways I've sort of viewed that not just as a SOT price, but as an opinion poll.

You know, we saw this.

Really enthusiastic response, you know, based around honestly pretty nebulous ideas that Musk's closeness to Trump would somehow translate into say, like, you know, favorable autonomous driving legislation or something. But when you want, there wasn't really a whole lot there, mainly because you know, the big problem there is it's not government regulations. The fact that Tesla still doesn't have a commercial rogo taxi like that is the main problem. And in the meantime, we've seen the corrosive effects of that relationship. You know, clearly the Tesla brand is suffering in major markets. We've seen bad numbers out of Europe, We've seen bad numbers out of China or that may have less to.

Do with politics and more just with straight up petition.

And we've seen weakness in California, the big US EV market building through twenty twenty four, and I honestly don't expect that the past couple of months have helped with sales there either. And I think as that price comes down, it does tarnish Musk's image, it does affect him financially, and it also points to I think lasting damage if this relationship with Trump were to unravel in the same way we've seen with the businessmen previously.

So I live in parks of Brooklyn. I think Liam does too. But have you seen the teslas that are you do know? I thought you live in Brooklyn.

Right now, I mean suburbs.

Oh he changed. Okay, he was in Brooklyn at one point. But my point of this whole conversation is in yuppie Brooklyn there are teslas parked on the street and I noticed for the first time there were signs like leaflets being put on the windshield being like cell your tesla with like a picture of Elon Musk, because like that's where the protest is, like only only in Parkslow when that actually happen. Does Musk also provide a foil for Donald Trump in terms of like Musk gets the heat Trump doesn't.

Yeah, And you know, I think my read of the way Musk was brought into government in this kind of, you know, kind of slightly arms length, quasi independent role was that that gave him a lot of freedom of movement to act. It also meant he obviously avoided some of the more onerous kind of Senate hearings and that kind of thing. But I think it also gives Trump some useful distance if at some point we were to see, you know, some real blowback against I don't know, you know, cuts to entitlements or if we see you know, if we see a recession happen.

We've seen Trump, you know.

Very quickly, you know, lose patience with some of these people he's brought in before. You know, I'm thinking of people like the former excell and CEO Rex Tillison in the first term. Gary Khan from Goldman Sachs. Musk's in a different league, but he's also very close. He's not you know, this is a whole new level of embrace between a prominent business person and the White House.

All right, Thanks to Lilliam Denning, Bloomberg opinion columnist.

One Bloomberg Big Takes story we focused on this week was titled Wall Street's private rooms are making dark pools even darker. You can find it on the Bloomberg Dot and the Terminal.

The story focuses on how Wall Street's dark pools are becoming even more opaque with the introduction of private rooms.

These rooms allow firms to control who they trade with and the ability to hide big equity deals from impacting prices. For more.

We were joined by Katherine Dority, Bloomberg Finance reporter when we first asked Catherine to remind us what dark holes even are.

So the name is nefarious.

It sounds like there's something evil going on, but all it really is is trying to show is the trading that is happening off the large exchanges. That are the lit venues that you see the trading and all the activity happening in real time. The trading that happens off the New York Stock Exchange off Nasdaq in these alternative trading systems, those.

Are the proverbial dark pools.

So the trend that I've been tracking is this introduction in the last few years of private rooms, and all this is is segmented. It's the ability to choose who you're interacting with and where within these dark pools. So in many ways you can think about it as the darker version of.

The dark pool.

What percentage of volume an equity volume is in dark pools broadly defined.

So for the first time, off exchange trading in dark pools has actually surpassed fifty percent, so it's become the majority, and that was by the end of last year. So that's another significant trend. The percentage of private room trading, that's the big question mark, because these alternative trading systems don't need to break out the volumes within their private rooms. They disclose that they have private rooms, but the number of private rooms and how much volume is actually happening trading.

Within them, that is not disclosed. So it's a big question mark.

And when you're trading on an alternative trading system, you may have access to ninety percent of the liquidity within this pool because all of the trading that happens within a private room you may not have access to.

So okay, so what are the pros and cons? So clearly not having access to liquidity would be a con right or not knowing what all the liquidity is. What's the pro here?

So the users of these private rooms, the benefit that they cite is the specificity of who you're interacting with. It can provide certainty in terms of the quality of trading that you're looking for. So if I say I want to interact with Alex because I know Alex is going to give me the best execution and I'm going to get the best price for a certain order, this could be because I know that you Alex can fulfill a certain size order, or maybe it's the speed at which I need to fill this order. If I know that there's a particular either firm or number of firms, it could be multiple firms in one private room, that certainty can actually be quite comforting for a broker that's trying to fulfill on behalf of their investor client a big order that they don't want to send to a public stock exchange.

An investor order comes in, well, all right, I'm I'm the buy side client. A I want to go to a private room. Do I go through my broker dealer, whether it's Goldman, Saxomorg instantly and they get me into the private room, or do I go directly into the private room.

So, if you there are the investor, you're just sending your order and you're broker's executing. It's up to the broker, And many times it's the broker's algos that actually have these private rooms set and they in an automated process.

It might go straight to the private.

Room within the alternative trading system, or it could go to the exchange. It all depends on again, the size of the trade, the speed. Really you're what you're trying to do? What is your endgame? What is your goal?

So if I don't have access, though, am I losing out? Like if I'm just trading on the regular world and nicey like, am I losing speed or money or trade or is it just different?

So it's the big question mark.

One of the firms that I profiled in my story today is a minority owned broker dealer and they specifically are looking to interact with other minority broker dealers. So there is a room set up with only minority owned broker dealers.

So that use case is very specific.

Obviously, if you're not a minority owned broker dealer, you may not be invited into that room. And whether or not that is a big con whether or not those trades that you don't have access to are going to impact your experience. It's still a very small sliver of the market. The ATS is the firms that are running these off exchange venues that I talk to in trying to understand the actual volumes that are happening within these private rooms.

It's very small.

It's some of them are citing five percent, it's less than ten percent overall.

So when you think about the bigger picture here, it's.

Not as if you're losing out on half of the trading that is occurring off exchange by no means. The question becomes, as this trend grows and we are seeing at pick up momentum, will it then start to impact trading ex and then some of your questions that you're bringing up alex those will need to be asked and hopefully answered over time.

A big part of my job was taking the sales trader from Alliance after drinks at night.

That you can still do that.

I don't know if you're in a dark pool, I don't know who's who, I don't know what's going on. I could just walk across the street, my guide Alliance, Big Account take them out for drinks.

Booms.

The relationships and the drinks they still do matter.

So maybe you're going off for a drink with someone in your private rooms in the It's true.

That's a big part of my game back.

In the day.

No relationship. Relationships are still.

The name of the game our thanks to Catherine Dherty, Bloomberg Finance reporter.

Coming up in the program, I'll look at how China's on the verge of taking over the auto industry.

You're listening to Bloomberg Intelligence on Bloomberg Radio, providing in depth research and data on two thousand companies and one hundred and thirty industries. You can ask the Bloomberg Intelligence v B. I go on the terminal, I'll Paul Swingey.

And a Malex Steel and this is Bloomberg.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at ten a m. Eastern on Apple Corplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.

Each week we look at research from Bloomberg n EF previously known as New Energy Finance. They're the team at Bloomberg that tracks and analyzes the energy transition from commodities to power, transport, industries, buildings, and ag sectors.

This week, we looked at the consequence of President Donald Trump's America First Investment policy on the US energy landscape.

For instance, one hundred and eleven percent of planned US battery production is controlled by China linked firms, and Trump's policy makes it harder for Chinese firms to invest in the US.

As a result, efforts to scale domestic clean tech manufacturing may be hindered for more. We were joined by Derek flakel BNF Lead US Policy annolyst.

We first asked Derek to break down how President Trump's new policies on investment differ from than Biden administration.

A lot of the Biden administration's policy was an attempt to sort of catch up with that investment in technological edge that China has, or at least compete with it better. But the Trump administration has imposed a new policy that might make that a little bit more complicated. When you have firms like byd or Ghoshen in the battery space that are sort of the technological leaders in this area, you might think it might benefit the US economy to have some additional investment from those companies have some technology transfer that comes along with that. But Trump recently passed in America First Investment policy which is designed to make that more difficult due to the sort of growing bipartisan security concerns around China, and there's a bit of a trade off here. Will Trump wants reindustrialization and reinvestment in the US. At one point, he suggested that Chinese factories might set up in the US rather than Mexico. What he's actually doing in practice is making that more challenging.

So what is the solution here for investment? What are the American companies saying about their ability to meet demands within the clean tech food chain here in the US.

Well, I think classically there's always a bit of a division between who you're talking with import competing industries versus import reliant industries. But a lot of the factories in the US that are setting up in practice these are the sort of end of the food chain. We're talking assembling solar modules from imported ingots and wafers, or assembling evs from some degree of imported parts, although the EV supply chain is rather more domestic.

So depending on.

Which part of the industry you're talking about, they're going to be looking positively or negatively at this order that set. It's important to note that current rules still allow joint ventures and licensing deals. Some companies, like FORB, we're counting on using those kinds of deals to try and build up their own technological edge and compete better. So I think there is an understanding that companies want investment, they want a clean, predictable environment. To some extent. This order does try to answer those concerns by making it easier to mitigate against some of the foreign investment concerns that are regulated by say the Committee and Foreign Investment in the US Sciphius. But at the end of the day, I think this is one additional element of uncertainty in one that's increasingly defined uncertainty.

If clean tech wasn't a word, if it was just like tech, what would this be different? Or is the fact that the words clean on it changes the dynamic.

I think you've seen broader sort of concerns in the government community about Chinese investments. Certainly you hear about that and chips, anything cybersecurity related. Technically speaking, a major trade barrier is the connected cars rule of the Biden administration impost saying no cars with Chinese navigational or connectivity of software can be sold in the US market after twenty twenty six. So I think the fact that energy is a sort of critical sector and is specifically called out as such in this order makes it especially sensitive. But there's a variety of other strategic sectors where these sensitivities also apply.

And Derek, I guess the reality, though, is that the Chinese, in fact, are way ahead of the rest of the world in terms of technology, so that makes it even more difficult. What's the solution there.

Well, something the Order tries to do is compensate for that by making it easier for unspecified US allies and partners to invest in the US. This could include say Japan and Korea, which are some of the other leaders in the sector. But at the same time, that's complicated by the fact that one there's no current list of allies and partners and right now all those traditional alliances and partnerships are complicated by the trade war, and two there's not a specific set of circumstances under which those allies and partners can get a guarantee that they'll be allowed in. It specifically says that if there's partnerships with Chinese companies by these US allied and partner companies, then that could complicate their investment climate. And since places like Panasonic or asc from Japan, or Skon LG Energy Solution from Korea, they have commercial relationships in China, right maybe that's supply chain, maybe that's consumption, and it's not totally clear which of those relationships would be considered prejudicial to their getting permission to set up in the US.

Hey Derek, what areas of the clean tech area space? Is the US doing well in and investing the right kind of money and like the sectors developing right?

I think that's a great question. I think, first of all, you can sort of separate deployment and manufacturing. Deployment wise, we're seeing an absolute boom and battery installations, solar installations, things like wind are a little bit more affected by interest rates, uncertainty, things like that. On the supply chain side, there's definitely been a huge boom in battery manufacturing and related EV investments, but as we mentioned, there's a lot of sort of foreign involvement in those supply chains which could be a little bitpacted by this. Lastly, I think there are some US grown technologies, especially those related to spin offs of oil and gas drilling for of O energy and geothermal. He's a lot of those techniques for geothermal drilling. Those are doing fairly well, but they're earlier on and they're not necessarily as determinative of progress in the energy transition right now as some of these traditional legacy technologies.

Hey Derek, we're only two months into the second Trump administration. But is there any consensus in your world of policy as to whether this administration is going to be helpful or not helpful as it relates to, you know, economic policy in.

Green I think if we're talking about economic policy with respect to clean energy, I think that you have to look at the sort of broader macroeconomic uncertainties surrounding tariffs, the impacts on interest rates. I think that creates a bit of a cloud under all kinds of capital and tons of investments. At the same time, there's been no strong focus on and all of the above energy strategy trying to support the data center build out, And while the actions so far have concentrated heavily on oil and gas and related infrastructure fossil fuel power plants, there is sort of the inkling or political room for continued support of supply expansion by all means, which, based on the sort of interconnection cues the big expected load growth from data centers and more, seems reasonably likely. However, it is only two months in and I think we've really got a wait to see how this situation develops, in which factions of the Trump administration are more dominant in the longer run.

All right, thanks to Derek flakel Bloomberg BANNI lead US policy.

Analystlomberg Big Takes. Story we focused on this week was entitled China's Auto industry is Already taking over the world. You can find it on Bloomberg dot Com and the Terminal.

The story looks at how China is on the verge of taking over the auto industry from its rise and electric vehicles. For more, we spoke at Chester Dawson, Bloomberg Senior editor.

We first asked Chester about how much of the global auto market China has right now.

It's starting from a very small base, but it's growing very rapidly, so it's basically about three percent, but it's forecast to grow by leaps and bounds over the next few years. And it's really amazing when you look at particular markets where they have a thirty percent share, like in Chile or in Russia, where for obvious reasons, most of the competitions pulled out, they've got over three quarters of the market. So those are obviously, you know, kind of outlier examples, but slowly, yet surely, almost everywhere around the grow, particularly in emerging markets. The Chinese are gaining more market share, gaining momentum, and often undercutting the more established rivals. Obviously the big exception there is the US, But elsewhere you're seeing tremendous growth.

So what has been the response by the western auto manufactured something in the Volkswagens and the Fords of the world. What are they doing or how are they responding to this growth by China?

Well, it's really twofold in their home markets. Obviously, they've sought protection by lobbying for various protectionist barriers. In many cases, the argument is, hey, we just need a few years of breathing room until we can get up to speed and have a more competitive product. But we've kind of seen how that works historically, and it's not always a silver bullet outside of the industrialized world, because Canada and even the U has been drawing up the drug verge a bit for Chinese made vehicles. But you know, in much of the rest of the world, where growth is often fastest, the Chinese are making really impressive head roads, and the you know, established automakers are not sitting on their hands. They're you know, they're often trying to beat the Chinese on price or you know, use their better brand name, recognition and credibility, and often and sometimes working with local dealers to pressure governments in places like say Brazil, to throw up their own barriers that lunt some of the in roads being made by Chinese.

This would be a silly question, but are Chinese carmakers displacing European and US carmakers or is this like expanding general auto market share.

You know, that's a really good question. I think it's both. I mean, you're not seeing growth so fast that the pies expanded to the point where everybody's getting a bit of it. You are seeing erosion. It's not true everywhere, but take Thailand. That's a perfect example of where that was basically owned by the Japanese for decades, and you know there were other automakers, Ford and others sell there too, but it was basically no is kind of Japan's backyard and where companies like to to sold tremendous numbers of vehicles. The Chinese have really started to eat their lunch, so that's happened, and you know you can see that a little bit in places like South Africa and Brazil as well. So yeah, the pie is still growing, but not that not enough for everybody to gorge equally, and truly the Chinese that are picking out, so to.

Speak, house equality of the Chinese cars. I remember when the Japanese cars came into the US in the seventies and eighties, the quality it was just a lot better. It was one of the reasons they were able to get shared. How about the Chinese quality.

That's an excellent point too, because for years the Chinese have kind of labored under the impression that their cars are junk, and you know, that was true until fairly recently. However, in recent years, the Chinese have caught up and in some cases even surpassed this technology that some of the Western or Japanese automakers have. There's a company called Shaumi in China that sold its first car last year and now just bumped its capacity up to three hundred fifty thousand a year, which is like seven times as many as Rivian, a US startup makes. This company was making mobile phones a couple of years ago, that was its main claim to fame, and it's been able to move a lot of that connectivity and technology into the confit of the vehicle. So you're finding that not only are Chinese cars cheaper, but oftentimes they have just as many creature comforts, or sometimes more than the equivalent, say, GM or Toyota or Volkswagen. All Right.

Thanks to Chester Dawson, Bloomberg Senior Editor.

This is the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday, ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal