>> this this mrs. in our city, in our state -- businesses in our city, and our state, and our country will not recover from this. >> the tea leaves are harder than ever to read. >> i worry that markets are getting ahead of the politics. >> fiscal stimulus isn't there yet, and you've got a complete lack of coordination. >> this is "bloomberg surveillance" with tom keene, jonathan ferro, and lisa abramowicz. tom: good morning, everyone. "bloomberg surveillance." , we say york and london good morning to all of you on bloomberg radio and bloomberg

television. an exceptionally busy newsday, no question about that. we will look at the equity markets. same stove all here with us any moment -- sam stovall here with us any moment. i want to go to the thing you least want to talk about which is dinner with brexit in brussels. let's dive into it right now. why is this important for england's prime minister, dinner on the 13th floor? jonathan: let's question the premise of your question. i don't know how important it actually is. i think it is only as important as they think about where the deadline is for this. i have no idea where the deadline is. you are not going to catch me live on tv and radio talking about the 11th hour, last-minute last attempt, because how the times have we done that over the last four years? tom: let's review history. the first day after brexit, jon ferro doing a three or four hour stretch and on the -- three or

four hour stretch and london, having the exact same conversation. the same cannot be said about the ecb, where it has become an emergent meeting that we will see this week with madame lagarde. what do we expect? jonathan: now you've got my attention. this is what people are expecting, a bigger package and a longer plan. the package would be upped for asset purchases, may be 12 months or so. it is going to be a commitment essentially to stay in the bond market with immense >> ability for a longer time, -- immense ,lexibility for a longer time and that is what we see. is a real weight on the bond market across the curve, across europe. tom: the size of the package is so important. on stimulus in washington, due to a believer in america, the size of the package matters, doesn't it? lisa: terry haines of pangaea capital came out with a note saying he think there is now an

80% chance of a plane passing before year end. composition matters. it goes beyond size. i think the key question here is if you did not get enhanced on employment, will it have the same bang for the buck? will it have the same bang for the buck if you don't get state and local government aid? tom: let's fold the data check in here. futures up five, dow futures up 72. in the bond market, it is real simple. steve mager of hsbc, jim caron of morgan stanley pushing against the comments of james dimon of jp morgan. that debate just won't go away. jonathan: 75 basis points is the 2021.rom hsbc, year-end that is what steve major is looking for. we had a line of really smart people being made to look foolish by a bond market and yields that refused to go materially higher. i have been asking, if we get a

selloff in the bond market, immaterial one, 50 to 100 basis points, how self-limiting is that selloff? how long before yields kick higher, and equity in risk assets fall out of bed, and yields kick lower again? how long before yields higher starts to weigh on concerns about growth because of the debt load, and then yields come back in again? the only way you see treasury yields materially higher is either we could generate the kind of outlook for growth and inflation that leads to higher materially so in that five or 10 years, or two, you start to question the credit of the u.s. government. tom: you sound like you are on the edge of lisa abramowicz, there. [laughter] lisa: he's like, not that. jonathan: we had the stress tests. tom: the gloom is just killing me. jonathan: which way do yields go? lisa: happy birthday. tom: ok, enough gloom, guys.

you are killing me. this is just -- we've got to go somewhere with no gloom. joining us now, sam stovall of cfra. he does this off of the passing of robert stovall, a giant of what we do. robert stove all invented it. we are thrilled to have you with us. tell us about the optimism of robert stovall that you carry with you. [laughter] sam: good morning to you, and happy birthday to you. he passed very peacefully, but he taught me americans are optimistic by nature. it is ok to be cautious, but you really want to question whether you want to be out right bearish, primarily because if you are bearish and wrong, you are ridiculed. if you are bearish and right, you are hated.

so it is good to be cautious because there are opportunities almost everywhere, and as jon was just mentioning about the concern about higher interest etc.,u.s. bond decline, it means investors are simply going to look elsewhere and probably overseas. kostin atd goldman sachs models optimism out to 2022. do you? 2021,ell, i am looking to setting us up for 2022. i do notice that when we look at the number of all-time highs that we have had this year, which is 30, above the average of 23 since the dow got back to breakeven in 1954, we have also , one person days plus. we had 108 of them this year, twice the average. in the following year, whenever inhave been about average

these post-bear market years, the market goes up 10% on average and rose in price every single time. so history is a good guide. itiously never gospel, but is encouraging that in 2021, this could be a good year as well. jonathan: we seem to have lived about 20 different outlooks in the space of six months, and this is by far the more constructive one. in your experience, can you give a time where the story has changed so quickly so often, like it has this year? sam: not that quickly. this year we actually went from peak to trough in the bear market of 34% in only 33 calendar days, which was three times as fast as we experienced in 1987. we then got back to breakeven in five months, the third fastest on record. so essentially, it was a inuation that was pandemic

its initiation, that was human designed, if you will, to close down economies. but once the fed said we will do whatever it takes, we knew that the fiscal policy, as well as monetary policy, was behind us. lisa: when you look at the technical's, there's a question of what will outperform. perhaps everything will continue to do well, but spoke investment group came out yesterday and said the nasdaq posted positive return on 62% of trading days in 2020. that ranks the fourth highest going back to 1971. typically it will underperform the year after. do you think that the nasdaq is going to be a weak spot heading into 22 anyone -- into 2021? sam: we have definitely seen over exuberance, in my opinion. rolling 12ok at the month differential between the s&p 500 growth in the s&p 500 value index going back to their inception in the mid-1970's, we

had an all-time high of 35% differential which is even higher than where we were in the mid-1990's. for me, full me once, shame on you. full be 12 times, shame on me in terms of forecasting a rotation into value. i think we just got to a level of access so much with growth that by default, we have to be looking toward value this year. jonathan: looking at the nasdaq over the last 10 days, this rally has been phenomenal. it has been 10 straight days of gains on big tech. record highs not just on the small caps, but also on the nasdaq 100. tom: this is so important. thank you for bringing this up. the whole idea that everything else is picking up is great, but you still got nasdaq moving along. maybe not like it was before. why don't you continue with sam? jonathan: let's talk about that. i think there are obvious lockdown winters that won't be

winners when we move beyond this pandemic. i think clorox is the example often used. then there are these companies that are a hybrid, that do terrifically well in the lockdown because accelerates the secular trend. think amazon, think zoom. but they are also going to do well when we reopen, and arguably they will do well over a much longer time period as opposed to companies that were fighting for survival and now they are surviving. so you've got the distinction between the ketchup trade, the quick 30 to 60 day snapback because they are going to survive, but there's a difference between surviving versus thriving. you draw a is how do distinction withing -- distinction within value of the companies that will do well in the same way that the secular growers will? that is a good point because historically, but we find is the nine months after a bear market bottom, it is usually the worst three

performing sectors that tend to outperform the market, and the 10 worst performing sub-industries, and they have done that this time around. the three worst performing sectors are up 70% versus 65% for the market, and they were energy, financials, and industrials. andthen 90% versus 55%, those are, half of them, from the oil and gas area, but in other part in stores, airlines, hotels, etc. i would tend to say you are right. food and brito is an area that just recently fell out of my industry momentum portfolio category that i think has seen the light of day, has seen its day in the sun because of the lockdown, but investors are going to be gravitating more towards areas that could have longer-term potential as the economy improves. infreight logistics, many the industrial category, trading companies, trucking, also

looking in the tech area. the market is anticipated that interest rates will remain low, and that is why the growth companies have done so well because when you have an interest rate below 1%, we forecast it to remain below 1% in 2021. it makes for the intrinsic value computations to be more attractive. jonathan: sam, appreciate your time this morning, and truly, our thoughts are with your family for your loss in the past week. cfra.ovall of good morning. alongside tom keene and lisa abramowicz, i'm jonathan ferro. this is bloomberg. ♪ ritika: with the first word news, i ritika gupta. the trump and adminstration is making its first move since election day to break a long standoff over a coronavirus relief package. treasury secretary steven for $916 plan calls

billion in spending that would include aid to the states and liability protections for business. house speaker nancy pelosi called it progress, but said it shouldn't disrupt negotiations that are already underway. , the government has an ambitious plan to vaccinate must americans by next on our -- by next summer, but rests heavily on two shots, astrazeneca and johnson & johnson, which together would provide up to 200 million doses in the first quarter. the u.s. supreme court has dealt a sharp blow to president trump's effort to overturn the election results. it rejected requests by some of his allies to overturn joe biden's victory in pennsylvania. the decision came in a one sentence announcement and didn't say whether any justices dissent ed. global news 24 hours a day, on air and on bloomberg quicktake, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries.

i'm ritika gupta. this is bloomberg. ♪

mr. biden: this will be one of the hardest, most costly operational challenges in our nations history. we need congress to finish the

bipartisan work underway now for millions of americans that may wait months longer to get the vaccine. jonathan: president-elect joe biden urging congress to close a deal down in washington, d.c. for our audience worldwide, good wanting to you all. that will be the topic of debate for the next five to 10 minutes. for that matter, for the next few hours on bloomberg tv and radio. counting you down to the opening bell one hour and 20 minutes away, with the equity market up about 0.1 percent. euro-dollar unchanged. yields up by a couple of basis points to 0.94% on the 10 year. tom: i am not going to keep this short, jon. look at the real yield, and i don't mean the show on friday. out to four digits, the real yield is giving me -0.9%. it won't give it up. jonathan: i'm with you, tom.

i just want to keep this short so we could get to our guest and talk about stimulus, but yes, i think that has been at the epicenter of financial markets over the last year. tom: there's no question about it, but jonathan leber knows that this is the point where we always promote "the real yield. again, look for that on bloomberg television friday afternoons. jonathan leber with the eurasia group. andall of this foolishness tragic drum body -- and tragi -dramedy of stimulus, what are you trying to observe? will they or won't they. it seems they are on the precipice of a deal, but it seems every time, they find a new excuse to disagree. it is almost like lucy in the football, where they get up right to the edge, and then they they whiff andn

fall on their backs. now they are just quibbling about the content. i think it is easy to solve. tom: football here is american football. lucy would hold the american football, and charlie brown would try to kick it. [laughter] jonathan f: why would someone hold the football, though? tom: it's a pointy football, and you had to hold it to get three points. jonathan f: so it's not round? lisa: oh my god. jonathan f: and someone holds it? lisa: quote of the day. jonathan f: someone holds the ball? lisa: quote of the day, "i am not going to keep this short," tom keene. we will get into the debate over football come around versus blog. , i apologize.r this is "bloomberg surveillance ," for all of those watching on bloomberg television. i am wondering whether there is

more democratic up septa and's -- democratic acceptance of this liability clause. do you think we will get that along with state and local aid? jonathan l: i think they are going to have to. mcconnell has been extremely forward leaning on this issue, and i don't know how he can back down. either he needs some deal that helps him say face, or they are going to have to give a little bit on it. the democrats are concerned about this proposal. they say it is taking protections away from workers. republicans say it is needed to reopen. there's got to be some kind of compromise here. jonathan f: let's talk about the potential for a copper mines. the compromise is they take the two red lines and put them to one side and come to a deal, which is what leader mcconnell is trying to pursue now, or has been for the last several months which to something we can all agree on. have you seen any evidence whatsoever in the last couple of weeks through these negotiations that democrats and democratic leadership are willing to put

aside their demands for state aid, so long as we publicans put aside their demand for liability protections and come to some kind of deal on everything else? jonathan l: none whatsoever. that is why the democrats are so eager to embrace this bipartisan proposal because the gang proposal of eight -- because the proposal by the gang of eight has something for state and local government, but also has liabilities. the mnuchin offer that came out last night was a deal for both, and i think that is ultimately where they end up. tom: i want to go back to tufts university. you're one of the cool guys who got the degree in philosophy. the rest of us faked it. you actually did it. we are at a point where liberal and conservative economists all say get on board, provide income substitution. what is the actual american philosophy that says we can't go

further, as led by the senator from kentucky? of itan l: i think a lot is just muscle memory at this point. in their defense, the long picture forget and deficits looks pretty bad in this country. you've got gdp going out the budget window, solvency with social security and medicare. if you don't leave those are just accounting fictions, it is a long-term issue, and that is what these are responding to. in the short-term, we know they are willing to do something. i think this new compromise bill is probably going to get 80 plus votes in the senate once it comes together with trump's blessing, but we are still a little away from that. jonathan f: great to catch up with you. our best to the team at eurasia group. isn't that a story at the moment? we've got these two red lines.

they've existed all year, state aid and liability protections. either there is a bill with both in, or a bill with neither in, and at the moment, democrats are looking to try and engineer some kind of bill that has state aid, but without liability protection, and we are mcconnell is trying to say we will agree to something narrower, something smaller without both in. i will drop my redline if you drop yours and revisited in january. tom: i've always had trouble with redlines, whether in europe or here or any other negotiations that we dance to worldwide everyday. what i would suggest is there is only one redline, a lot of aid for a lot of americans stops this week, and certainly next week as well. that's the only redline that matters. jonathan f: i'm with you. i thicket puts more pressure on them. where the market has been rallying is the idea that the pressure is building on d.c. to do something they have been reluctant to do for the last

five months. drop their redlines and come to an agreement, and the pressure is coming from the pandemic. the vaccinations won't start for a while and they won't be rolled out significantly enough to pare back economic restrictions anytime soon. you are seeing the shutdowns right across the country. what you get to that kind of point, your redlines matter only so much. lisa: that is certainly what seems to be giving some feeling of increase in a chance of stimulus efforts. i am billy struck by the debate you guys were having about the shape of a football. i think that it's really going to be the preeminent debate in washington, d.c. over the next 60 days. jonathan f: i'm pleased it got your attention. i am happy to continue a very important conversation on why i game would be called football when you use your hands. i don't want to offend anyone. tom: you know, i've got an idea

on this simulcast. we really need a bar. we really need a referee. [laughter] where's my birthday bloody mary? do something. jonathan: this is bloomberg. ♪

jonathan: from new york and london, for our audience worldwide, good morning. this is "bloomberg surveillance." i think about it sometimes. if i told you this time last year with this year would look like in the economy, would you have told me where this market would be? unreal. a 15% on the s&p on small caps. coming in today come the nasdaq 100 10 day winning streak. the s&p 500 advancing other six points. get to the bond market. yields have not come along for the party in the last month the way some people might anticipate or expect them. why? central bank policy is one factor. yields this morning up about one basis point. the curve little bit steeper. on 10 years to .94%. how much further can we go?

that will be down to the federal reserve and the meeting that takes place next week and that is the big debate. will the fed give the green light to allow yields to go higher by extending their asset purchase program. that is the story, story tomorrow at the ecb. i mentioned the amount of bonds they will be buying. package thend the way many people and them to do. 70% is the supply from europe that will be bought by the ecb next year. that is not net issuance. net issuance taking out redemption, you are looking at 150% of the issuance bought by the ecb. think about that. the ecb is a huge factor. tom: no question. to get your head around it is impossible to do because this is not in the textbooks. this is -- this has been an

extraordinary 2020. years buckley over the with immense perspective on europe. this moment speaks of the oddities of bond purchases. i go back six and seven years to the imf. -- tryingblanche are to figure out how to reflate. hard proposed is what we are trying to do now. as blanchardlate tried to tell us to do? george: first of all, let me say happy birthday to you. to answer the question, i think it is very difficult. first of all it is unlikely inflation will end. economists forecast

horizons at levels the ecb will be happy with. .5%re talking about levels below where they would like inflation to be. some sort of reflation is required. this is the second tricky point. it is difficult when you've maxed out most of your policies. this is why next year's strategy will be very important. it will look into new techniques and tools they can use. it will see how they can make the most of their current tools. what tools work best together to do this. when you're talking about are they going to do an extra 10 basis points on interest rates, are they going to do extra 100 billion here or there? it just shows you how difficult it will be. 10 basis points is neither here nor there. it will not be the make or break to push inflation back to targets. tom: the mechanics are almost 19th century. the telegraph yesterday with a brilliant essay showing how

germany is going one way and france going another. we have a surplus in germany and a somewhat controlled deficit to gdp. in france, it is a mess. will those dynamics lead to great instability if christine lagarde cannot be successful? george: that is right. france started this crisis with a higher level of debt to gdp. germany had more leeway to expand its policy. in that sense, that is true. when you look at the scale of the decline in gdp, in germany, relative to many other european we did not see the bigger fall in economic output. when you are the president of the ecb trying to think about whether to support the european --nomy, the european economy there are many different economies in europe and they are all doing different things.

most of the bigger economies -- relative to 2019 q4 gdp to each other. germany, france, and italy showed very different declines in gdp yet they have all bounced back to within a whisker of each other. the big difference is spain of the u.k., both of which are still very sluggish, 9% or 10% below where they were. when you are a central bank, especially one dealing with 70 diverse economies across the euro area -- with so many diverse economies across the euro area, it is a challenge. jonathan: forgive me for breaking -- for making a broad statement, but an economy is only as healthy as its banking system. do you think the banks are getting the right assistance they need from monetary policy? george: banks are in a better position than they were prior to the global financial crisis, which is encouraging. what the ecb has been doing is

to help the banks as much as it can. i suspect what will see from the tltro's is an extension of this cheap borrowing and a cheapening of that borrowing. it may be the case they say if you lend more to the real economy that we will give you an even better rate. the one thing they have not done is to lower interest rates. we have not seen cut interest minors to where it started the year. they are fearful what impact they might have on bank profitability. they can counter that by changing things like the tearing ratio. that is on their mind when they think about how to recalibrate policy this week. ,onathan: as you have seen banks are tightening their lending standards. i wondered whether the ecb can do anything about that? george: look at the u.k..

we have seen large increases in mortgage interest rates. not surprising. would you want to lend at the same rate if you are concerned about getting your money back, which are lending to borrowers which may find themselves unemployed? most estimates run employment across the euro area and the u.k. are for a rise over the course of the next year. they have to be very careful. they cannot offer the same terms and conditions they did when unemployment was not expected to rise. that has to be a feature of any bank lending. the other point to make is we look at credit impulse and say when you get a big surge in the credit impulse, the change in the amount of net credit, that is very good for the economy. on this occasion, a rise in credit is telling you about how much firms are having to borrow to see themselves through what is an exceptionally difficult time. the fact we are seeing some easing off of total lending to

corporate might not be a bad thing. lisa: you do have to wonder if you do not have the transmission mechanism to main street, if you do not have the feedthrough the true economy, one is the point of accelerating quantitative easing when it is not getting to the economy in real time? george: this is what they are trying to do. they are trying to do a combination of both. to help the transmission to the real economy they are providing -- both of which are intended to encourage banks, not just to borrow money and sit on it, but to borrow money and lend it out. also in terms of the asset purchase program, it is not just a case of lowering borrowing costs to governments. the borrowing costs of firms is a function of what government borrowing cost, because it is usually government borrowing costs plus x. in that sense, it is helping. also by withdrawing a lot of

cash out of the government bond market and buying it up, it means there are plenty of other assets available which will have full -- which will have to be brought instead. it is the idea of moving along with risk. lisa: are you saying that right now quantitative easing and a negative rate policy together have been effective and should be looked back on with history as having been appropriate for getting the eurozone up and running and out of negative inflationary environments? sayge: it is difficult to exactly what central bank policy has been able to achieve. i would not like to see what it would be like if we had not done anything, if we had not loosened policy and the way policy had been loosened. i suspect conditions would be worse. i think the markets would be far more concerned they would be putting much larger risk rhenium on peripheral debt -- risk

premium on peripheral debt. i think it would've looked a lot worse in the sentiment would be worse. it is important not to look at where we are in terms of levels of gdp relative to where it was and say qe did not do anything, tltro's did not do anything. you have to think about what would have happened had we done nothing. i think you could do a lot worse. jonathan: this must be the longest conversation you've had all week and you've not spoken about brexit. we have two minutes left so i you and torture our audience. can you walk me through it. george: i am supposed to think about what this dinner will yield between boris johnson and ursula von der leyen and whether that ends up in something positive or negative. at the moment we do not have any idea. you can imagine all of these economist tried to write their 2021 outlook thinking what

assumptions do we use? do we use the assumption this will end and no deal? a deal? when you look at the impact done, looke opr has at the scale of the difference for happens in q1 next year if we get a deal versus no deal. jonathan: next year has to be better than this year. that has to be the working assumption. george: to be honest, it has to be the working assumption because assuming you get a covid related bounce, a vaccine related bounce, brexit, you might not even be able to see it in the data because this will be such an important and momentous occasion, the gdp will bounce significantly at some point in 2021. jonathan: i think we sent tom to sleep. lisa: he is snoring. jonathan: george buckley on europe and brexit.

tom has his head down, half-asleep. this is what happens when you get older. you need a nap. lisa: come on. happy birthday. tom keene woke up just with that. tom: when is it over? when is brexit over? lisa: really? jonathan: do you think i thought it would last 4.5 years when david cameron made it sound simple. i remember him saying if you vote to leave i will go to brussels and trigger article 50 and we will leave, and then he quit and then we spent four and a half years talking about accurate -- talking about it. lisa: let's go four more. jonathan: i do not think the deadlines are fixed. they can all move. tom: is there window where i can make the first trade in the market. is there an entry point?

lisa: i think we have to go. jonathan: we have to leave. we have a bus. this is bloomberg. u.k. will drop tariffs the european union imposed on $4 billion of u.s. goods. it is part of the long-running dispute between legal aid to aircraft manufacturers boeing and airbus cured the u.k. says it will set its own tariff policy when it completes the split from the eu at the end of the month. democratic lawmakers are bulking at joe biden's choice, and elon musk is tired of being taken for granted -- switching stories. he is moving from california to texas. the cofounder of tesla told the wall street journal california has become complacent with its status as an economic giant and is taking too much for granted. tesla is headquartered in northern california but elon musk's billing a factory in austin, texas.

global news 24 hours a day, on air and on quicktake by bloomberg, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries. i am ritika gupta. this is bloomberg. ♪

tom: it is so good for me at home. i am watching tiktok. jonathan: you look distracted.

what is that? tom: when you feel confident, put on a bowtie and explain events on tv. why do so many tv economists actually wear bow ties is a mystery? tom: are you going to be ok? jonathan: you've got this. tom: could you get my walker? jonathan: a very happy birthday to our good friend, our partner in tv chaos. from edu, for all of us -- from me to you, for all of us. lisa: happy birthday. tom: it is great. david rubenstein is going why am doing this? on youryou have next other properties more important than us? jonathan: steven wieting. tom: he has always good on the linking of profit to corporate success. right now david rubenstein joins

us. peer-to-peer conversations. this is important. mr. rubenstein speaks to the gentleman who invented conversation in the modern zeitgeist. he has added so much to what i have done with his initiative to get people together to converse. they will shift from davos to singapore. mr. rubenstein speaking to dr. schwab before the announcement of singapore. many people know who clouse schwab is.ho klaus what is the distinction about dr. schwab? david: he is a german citizen by birth, was a professor at the university of geneva, and 50 years ago came up with the idea of bringing people together to talk about global issues. it was a couple hundred people in 1971. it is now thousands of people. it is seen as a global elite gathering, but he has many young people.

it does a good social purpose. i think it is good operation. it doesn't serve these purposes by recognizing -- it does serve these purposes by recognizing -- it has been criticized by some as overly elite. tom: i strongly agree. i'm a huge defender of what klaus schwab defended. have done panels there to great success. os look like in singapore? david: normally we are trying to dodge snow and ice. we will not have that in singapore. is haveus wants to do the first gathering in person after the virus is behind us a bit. it was not possible to do us in switzerland because of health reasons. singapore seemed like a better place. some of it will be virtual and will be a fair number of people. interesting time

to be discussing the world economic forum and large contacts that have been the birth of ideas, often created behind closed doors, not necessarily in the discussion. it puts a highlight on how different 2020 has been. do you think the experience of the pandemic has put into relief the importance of these in person meetings, or do you think it has shown how things can migrate to a virtual platform? david: the world has changed forever. there is no doubt people do not want to travel as much because they can do virtual meetings and everyone realizes there is more simplicity and ease. over thousands of ease -- over thousands of years, humans have liked human contact and therefore you will have people gathering in person. it will be a hybrid. some people will come in person and that will be the future. -- lisa: talking about

the criticism of world economic forum has had of being elitist, you think the virtual era will democratize these meetings by bringing more people in, allowing them to join, if not by private jet, virtually. david: sure. people who cannot afford to go will be able to do it virtually with no cost. i think that will attract younger people who may not be able to afford to go to places like dabo spirit i think it will be helpful -- go to places like davos. i think it will be helpful. i think klaus is a genius for putting it together. how many things are working so well 50 years after they have been invented? tom: what this is about as capitalism. we are not clearing markets like we used to years ago. there iseness out tangible. when will we start clearing markets so we can get back to financial normality? david: i don't know because

obviously there's a lot of frothiness in the markets and i think at some point some of that will deflate a bit. there is no doubt the world has changed and people are looking at different kinds of companies. people see it as a land rush. they want to be on the ground floor in the next zoom technology and a lot of people feel the world has changed and if you are not in the ground floor you will miss out on profits. some of these bets will be great, some will not be great. of: david rubenstein schawb onnd klaus peer-to-peer. this is incredibly important. somebody in the household came up to me and said there is a whale in new york harbor. this is lisa abramowicz last night.

she took the canoe she had of the adirondacks and she is out there in the hudson river looking at a humpback whale. lisa, this is a rare occurrence, to say the least. nice video. lisa: how did you track me? how did you know i was out there. this is your pre-birthday discussion. can i say, you've been speaking about a whale all morning. are you talking about softbank going private, are you talking about the federal reserve? no. you're talking about a humpback whale. it looks like the river thames. it is an even more rare occurrence in england. back to 1913 it has only happened once. this made headlines in new york city. for those of you on radio, what you need to know is lisa is out in her canoe getting ready for the next trip to the adirondacks and a loch ness monster is what it looked like. lisa: me or the whale?

[laughter] tom: the whale. excuse me. let's look at the markets. lisa: let's look at those markets. tom: the market will save us always. this is a market that will not go down. lisa: no. record highs. i was reading outlooks for 2021 because that is what i do in the evenings, there's a clear theme fundamentals do not justify the enthusiasm we are seeing inequities. policy is propping up valuations and continues to do so. that is the thesis in wall street carrying threw two today. tom: no question will be -- carrying through to today. tom: no question will be following it. thank youw jersey, for emailing into describe the abramowitz whale. white waves. thank nessie and the loch ness monster. lisa: i will give you a canoe. tom: if i'm in a kevlar canoe i

go right through the kevlar. chairman, withc david westin. this is bloomberg. futures up seven. ♪ wanna lose weight and be healthier?

it's time for aerotrainer. a more effective total body fitness solution. (announcer) aerotrainer's ergodynamic design and four patented air chambers create maximum muscle activation for better results in less time. it allows for over 20 exercises. do the aerotrainer super crunch, push ups, aero squat. it inflates in 30 seconds.

aerotrainer is tested to support over 500 pounds. lose weight, look great, and be healthy. go to aerotrainer.com. that's a-e-r-o trainer.com. ♪ jonathan: from new york and london, for our audience

worldwide, good morning. the countdown to the open starts right now. 30 minutes away from the opening bell. s&p up about six points. we begin with the big issue. the white house returning to fiscal talks for the first time since the election. steven mnuchin pitching package, a fresh including money for state and local governments and robust liability protection for businesses, schools, and universities. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer calling it progress, but preferred to concentrate on the bipartisan negotiations already underway. mitch mcconnell suggesting he will set aside his top priority of business liability protections in exchange for democrats dropping their demands for state aid. recommend well: i set aside liability and set aside state and local and past those things we can agree on, knowing