james gorman, the ceo, saying we are really well-positioned.ry is the losses tied to archegos, the family office. still haven't determined what we can call it right now. posting a $911 million loss tied to archegos capital. i can tell you i can see sonali bassett has been working the phones. we will get some action from sonali a little bit later. here's your horse race. we are down by a little more than 1%. for our audience worldwide, what a week it has been. i think that's why i want to get to the weekend. it has been such a long week. yields, 1.55% on 10s, down almost three basis points. heard on bloomberg radio, seen on bloomberg tv, lisa selling it hard. [laughter] this is "bloomberg surveillance ." ♪ >> this fed, it started to lead, but out often -- but it often follows the market. the fed has held its line so far. but the question is, can they can they continue to do that if the data not only surprises to the upside, but persists to surprise to the upside? jonathan: the data certainly did that this week on cpi and on retail sales as well.

jonathan: james gorman has been very generous with his time with this network. we would love to catch up with him again soon. that would be fantastic to hear about what has been going on and why. thank you. sonali basak, our wall street correspondent, off the back of those numbers from morgan stanley. it has been like a horse race trying to cover the stock coverage side of the story. goldman sachs is slightly positive. the broader equity market up on the s&p 500. it has been record high after record high, and we've got another one this morning. lisa: this is exhausting. it is sort of like, well, another record high. there's a question of are we getting too perfect. i think that is some of the nervousness you see in the horse race this morning, where it is hard to gauge where we are. yes, we have analyst expectations that are high for these companies. they are beating, and the shares don't do much because that means the expectations baked into valuations is that much higher. jonathan: you can't help it, can you? lisa and i don't sit right next to each other, but

what did james gorman have to say about the archegos losses?ily office represented around 10% of their client base. these kind of losses almost never happen. we didn't even see this kind of loss during the financial crisis. they are not planning for major changes in their prime brokerage business due to this loss. in some ways, the loss made sense at morgan stanley relative to some of their peers because morgan stanley was the biggest prime broker to archegos. as we know from our own reporting, goldman had gotten in later on, so it makes sense that their exposure would have been less than morgan stanley's to begin with. he also called the sales of the stocks that contributed to more than $200 million of those losses is money well spent. alix: i'm sure, to get out of that and move on.aughter] sonali basak, things a lot for joining us -- sonali bassett, thanks a lot for joining us -- sonali basak, thanks a lot for joining us. joining us is chris difficult task -- christopher kotowski, oppenheimer senior analyst. christopher: if you look at the ea

james gorman on the earnings call. >> by the fact that one of the large single stock positions related to a security in which we have been an underwriter and we thought the right thing to do was to close that previous underwriting which happened on that friday. so we had to hold off, which caused us to be later than some, if you will. the reason for that was not that we weren't aware of what was going on, we just felt we had an underwriting obligation to deal with. >> morgan stanley sold around 13 times more stock in that secondary placing of viacomcbs than goldman's did who therefore decided they could start selling the stock sooner a senior source implied there was no hard feelings on this but rather goldman sachs was in a more convenient position as things played out. morgan stanley felt while selling sooner wouldn't have broken rules, it wasn't the right thing to do as a lead book runner morgan stanley's losses were far smaller than credit suisse and nomura they didn't know that they were all taking the same massive positions for one single client. on the call, the cfo touched on t

the other big difference for morgan stanley is james gorman recommitted to prime brokerage whereas gotsteind we're reducing exposure in that business finally, here he is addressing why their losses were so much bigger than other brokers. >> i'm not going to comment on other brokers' behavior, but we did analyze the situation at the time we did discuss with some other prime brokers. we decided to do this in an orderly fashion over the last few weeks. we would not have had the materially dissimilar outcomes if he had sold all our shares on that famous friday >> now, he did imply, sara in that interview that their total exposure was about 20 billion, their losses over 5 billion, so i'm not sure why their losses were so big, but based on my reporting, morgan stanley's exposure was higher, their losses about a fifth of the size he seemed to say it wasn't because they didn't get out quick enough maybe that was a factor. >> it does raise a lot of questions about the risk management up next on the show, the ceo of alaska airlines on the outlook for travel demand and when it could return to prepande