Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts,

radio, news.

>> This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily,

reporting from the magazine that helps

global leaders stay ahead with insight

on the people, companies, and trends

shaping today's complex economy. Plus,

global business, finance, and tech news

as it happens. The Bloomberg Business

Week daily podcast with Carol Masser and

Tim Stenc on Bloomberg Radio.

>> Stocks uh lower bonds higher as renewed

anxiety over the impact of artificial

intelligence on company profits joined

lingering tariff uncertainty in

squaltching risk appetites. And you've

been talking about the risk trade-off.

Bitcoin tumbling below what 65,000. Gold

rallying. We've definitely been seeing

that play out in the markets. And the

tariff story, which felt like it was

baked into the trade, is now coming

front and center again. We were talking

just on Friday, right, about how low

volatility was and like the VIX wasn't

moving, but the VIX has arisen from its

slumber. It's it's much higher.

>> We're above 20. We're at almost 22 right

now in that fear gauge.

>> So, so investors are nervous. So, we're

focusing on all of this. We wanted to

get uh a little bit more on kind of the

legal decision of the Supreme Court um

decision we should say uh that we got on

Friday and kind of what happens next and

what legal challenges uh could be coming

or legal actions coming off of that. So

we're delighted to have back with us

Katherine Judge. She is Harvey J. Cole

Schmid, professor of law at Columbia Law

School joining us right here in New York

City. Um Katherine, nice to have you

here with us. Um before we move forward

about what might be coming in terms of

legal action, I would love to get your

thoughts uh on what we got uh the Friday

Supreme Court decision on President uh

Trump's tariffs. What's kind of top of

mind or you think should be top of mind

for the Bloomberg audience? A couple

things. First, it was a blockbuster

decision. 63, the president loses. That

in of itself was incredibly significant

given that the president has made this

his signature economic program of a

second term. Beyond that, however, what

we really got was much more uncertainty

and and more questions than answers. We

saw a fractured court, six of them

getting to the same outcome, but by a

very different path, a heated descent

that felt that the president really did

have the authority under the claimed

statutory scheme to proceed as he wanted

to. And so part of the challenge going

forward, as we've seen, the White House

still wants to impose tariffs, is having

to use other sources of authority that

have a bunch of limitations. and the

spillover effects and the full

ramifications of Friday's decision are

really going to take some time to work

out.

>> Right. So, when you think about the

decision, does it rebalance the trade

authority back to Congress or does it

just now challenge President Trump to

figure out other tools that he has to

impose new forms of tariffs?

a little bit of both, but really the

core is the court recognized and the

majority of the court recognize

tariffs are a variation of the power to

tax. The power to tax is one that the

constitution clearly vests in Congress.

uh it is such an impressive and

important power that you need

congressional authorization. And it

really was an aggressive reading by this

administration to try to use the

international economic uh emergencies

authority for a power act for this

purpose. Again, it doesn't even mention

tariffs anywhere in the act. And they

like that in the sense that most of the

situations and there are many that give

the president authority to impose

tariffs have a bunch of limitations.

They have limitations regarding how high

those tariffs can be. They oftenimes

also have d limitations for the duration

for how long those tar those limitations

can be in place. And what President

Trump most wanted was a capacity to

engage in dealmaking and to say look I

have a huge amount of discretion here.

And one of the things the court did say

quite clearly on Friday is that type of

discretion that type of just handing

over of the power to determine what the

rate should be against him and to make

constant adjustments for any reasons.

Congress didn't and Congress can't hand

that type of authority over to the

president.

>> Professor Judge, though, it still sounds

like from what you're saying, there is

still some questions about how this

Supreme Court views presidential

authority. So, other issues may come up

where they may say, "Yeah, he has the

right to do." I mean, go back to that

decision about immunity from

presidential actions, which seem to just

open the door wide for this president

and perhaps future presidents to do

almost just about anything.

Now, it's a great case to invoke in part

because the majority opinion in the

immunity case was written by Chief

Justice Roberts, who also authored the

majority opinion in Friday's case. And

what we saw in the immunity opinion was

not just a very broad understanding of

presidential immunity, but we really saw

Chief Justice Roberts opining on his

core understanding of how to think about

the three branches of government and the

incredible authority vested in article 2

in the presidency in the president

himself. And so the opinion on on Friday

was in some ways a welcome reprieve.

We've seen a number of decisions also

this term, oftentimes not full

decisions, but but shadow docket and

other abbreviated opinions typically

giving the president a great deal of

discretion. I don't think the court is

going to abandon that. We have a court

that is very committed to strong and

broad executive power, but that doesn't

mean it's going to be limitless. And the

power to impose these types of tariffs,

really the power to tax is one of the

core powers vested in Congress. And so

we do see that there's at least

limitations that this court is going to

be willing to impose on the degree of

discretion that can be exercised by the

White House, by this president.

>> But it's something interesting to keep

in mind whether it's still on

immigration issues, whether it's on

upcoming elections, be it midterm or

anything, you know, state issues. I

mean, these are things to keep in mind

that might come before the Supreme Court

again when it comes to presidential

authority or presidential overreach.

Somewhat some might call overreach, but

they could come before the Supreme

Court.

Certainly and I think that's the right

way of understanding this opinion. So

part of the opinion was just a a

question of statutory interpretation.

How do we understand the extent of

discretion vested in this particular

statute? You know this passed in 1977.

But as you're pointing out it's part of

a much broader conversation where we've

seen a very significant shift in both

the court's Jewish prudence and also

presidential actions. I mean, presidents

since Ronald Reagan have taken a more

expansive approach to executive

authority and during the second Trump

presidency, we've seen that go on to a

whole new scale, right? And so, we're

really working out these core legal

questions of what is the nature of the

authority that the constitution vests in

the three different branches and what

are the nature of the limitations? What

is the role of the judiciary and the

Supreme Court in particular in in both

allowing but also limiting presidential

action? And so there's this broader

conversation uh that really is is at

stake in the decision that we saw on

Friday.

>> Yeah. And you talk about limiting. I'm

wondering how you're thinking about this

decision affecting other uses of

emergency powers beyond just tariffs

because of course the the act the AIPA

did have to do with emergency uses of I

guess presidential authority. Yeah. And

that's actually one of the things that's

really interesting that we thought might

be resolved here. One of the ways

President Trump on numerous fronts has

expanded the effective authority that

he's been able to exercise is by

invoking different states of emergency.

There's a whole variety of statutory

schemes that say, "Well, here's the

normal rules of the game, but in real

emergencies, we want the president to

have more authority, more discretion."

And so, he's widely invoked a variety of

emergencies. We actually learned less

about that than we might have in

Friday's case because it was largely

resolved on other grounds. So we had uh

three justices just saying

straightforward matter of statutory

interpretation. You know the statutory

scheme here doesn't allow for tariffs.

APA does not allow for tariffs. It

doesn't say tariffs. So it doesn't mean

tariffs. Uh and then we had three

justices in an opinion largely written

by the chief justice focusing on major

questions and saying look there's a

particular constitutional value that's

at play here and that is the Congress's

power to tax and so we're not going to

read into what we see as otherwise

ambiguous language this broad authority

that the cong that the president has

invoked to impose tariffs and and in

such a discretionary uh and ad hoc way

and so we didn't get the type of

traction we might otherwise

>> of have hoped to see regarding the use

of trying to invoke emergencies because

there were a whole variety of

emergencies that had been invoked

because they were able to dispose of the

case on other grounds. So that's one of

the legal issues that in some ways

remains open. I will say Friday's case

does say look we as courts are going to

play a role policing.

>> Yeah.

>> How the president uses authority that he

claims is granted to him under different

types of statutes. And that also would

seem to potentially be an invitation for

at least some policing of of the ways

that he has invoked emergencies.

Professor Judge, one of the things

though that the court, the nation's

highest court left open is refunds. They

kind of pushed that back. Um, I don't

know. So, we're now beginning to think

what are the next legal things and

issues to come when it involves

presidential tariff action. So, how are

you, you know, how should we be thinking

about that and how that might play out?

We keep hearing two, three years that

this is going to take to maybe resolve

and it potentially could. I mean, this

is part of what's so interesting about

this is so far the government and we we

see different estimates, but some

estimates suggest about $160 billion uh

that the government has collected. And

not only that, but it's money that has

come in during a time when the deficit

has been growing and there have been

real concerns about the deficit. And so,

this was kind of a way that a president

who doesn't want to be a high tax

president was de facto imposing taxes on

the American public. And again, that's

part of the reason we got the outcome we

did. But it does create this real

challenge now in terms of how if at all

the money is going to get paid back. And

so the Supreme Court one joys of being

the Supreme Court is they can often

avoid these messy issues. Right? So the

disscent calls it out and the descent

says look this is going to be a big

mess. But for the majority that doesn't

resolve the legal issue. I mean just

because something's going to be messy to

make right doesn't mean the president

should be given authority that the

president wasn't actually given uh by

the underlying statute right so they

again they it's get sent down to lower

courts we do have a specialized court

for federal claims and that court is now

going to be charged with trying to

figure out what to do in this particular

case and there's also the open question

of you know how many others are going to

come forward now that we have this

opinion and and demand reimbursement of

money that they were paid for in an in

unlawfully invoked uh basis for imposing

these tariffs.

>> And then if new tariffs come down from

the president, which he's already talked

about, like Emily, that just, you know,

you have to layer that on top of it all.

>> Yeah. I'm curious, Professor Judge, if

that's what you're watching next year,

is it more important to pay attention to

what's going to be happening in the

lower courts or paying attention to, you

know, the headlines about all of these

other new forms of terrorists that could

be coming out?

>> And we only have about 40 seconds.

>> Sorry. The answer is both, right? I

mean, we we know the president's going

to is not giving up on tariffs, but

there are a lot of additional checks and

I think there's also just a broad

appreciation now of legal uncertainty

and that's going to reduce things like

his deal making capacity in really

meaningful ways.

>> Yeah. No, it's you know, we've already

seen some push back uh from the European

Union. So, you've already started to see

some actions uh around that. Katherine

Judge, Professor Judge, thank you so

much. He's Harvey J. Gold Schmid,

professor of law over at Columbia

University uptown from where we are. Uh

joining us with the latest the legal

actions around that Supreme Court

decision and President Trump's tariffs.

Stay with us. More from Bloomberg

Business Week Daily coming up after

this.

>> You're listening to the Bloomberg

Business Week Daily podcast. Catch us

live weekday afternoons from 2 to 5:00

p.m. Eastern. Listen on Apple CarPlay

and Android Auto with the Bloomberg

Business app or watch us live on

YouTube.

>> In the meantime, a lot to coming from

our Bloomberg economics team. In fact,

they put out a brief today. Uh, and they

noted that we started 2026 with a

bullish outlook, but not even two months

into the year, many of our assumptions

are being challenged and they say they

talk about things like the Supreme Court

ruling, um, concerns about the AI boom

and all the spending around that. So we

wanted to see what our next guest has to

say. He's actually where Michael McKe is

surrounded by Fed officials and

economists. Great to have back with us

Greg Do. He is chief economist at EY

Parthonon and he joins us from the 2026

National Association of Business

Economics Policy Conference in

Washington DC. Um Greg, so glad you

could catch up with us. Uh I'm here with

uh Emily Grafo. Has the game changed in

terms of the US economy starting with

the Friday Supreme Court decision? Are

all bets off?

>> I'm not.

>> Yeah. I mean, I think in general, uh,

what we're seeing in terms of the the US

economy is is still ongoing resilience,

but a lot of uncertainty as a result of

the Supreme Court ruling, as well as a

result of the subsequent announcements

by the administration to impose the

section 122 uh 15% tariff, which have a

maximum duration of 150 days. From a

business standpoint, this is a highly

uncertain environment. It's one where

it's very difficult to plan how much

you're going to invest, how much you're

going to be hiring, and it makes it very

difficult to plan in the long run. So in

terms of the momentum for the overall US

economy, the paradigm has not shifted

that much, but we are going to be in an

environment where there is likely to be

more restraint in terms of investment

because of this latent uncertainty when

it comes to trade.

>> What does it mean for growth prospects

in the US? talk about kind of how you

guys are calculating the outlook for

growth now that you know some tariffs

are being taken away but now more are

being proposed.

>> Yeah. So if you put it simply and you

think about the AIPA tariffs that were

imposed with the AIPA tariff you had an

average cost of doing trade with the US

that was around 17% 16.9%.

um that was the average tariff rate.

With the Supreme Court ruling that the

imposition of these tariffs was not

legal, that brought down the average

tariff rate to about 9%. Now, with the

subsequent reannouncement of section

122, 15% global tariff, you're back up

to around 13 1.5%. So, a big share of

essentially this uh potential easing in

tariff restrictions has been offset by

the new announcement uh of these these

new tariffs. In terms of GDP growth, we

were anticipating a drag from the AIPA

tariffs of about 1.2% of GDP. Without

them, only about 0.6% of GDP. Now, with

the new section 122 tariffs, we're back

to a drag of about 1% on GDP growth. So,

a lot of the relief has actually

potentially been offset by this new

announcement of new tariffs being

imposed.

>> All right. One step forward, two steps

back, it feels like. Greg, I do want to

get to um what your note you wrote uh

and you put out specifically on this and

you do and this is some of what you just

covered. You say the Supreme Court's

decision materially reduces the economic

drag associated with AIPA based tariffs.

Effective tariff rates have fallen,

fiscal revenues will decline, growth

headwinds have eased, and inflation

pressures moderate at the margin.

However, tariff risk has not been

eliminated and policy uncertainty

remains elevated. You just talked about

all of this and I just go to this idea

of uncertainty whether it's over AI

spend whether it's over tariffs you know

what have you this is never good for an

economy

>> yeah that's right in general uh business

leaders across various sectors always

want to know what's going to happen next

even if that means there is a tax

increase on the horizon or a tariff

increase on the horizon as long as they

know that there is going to be stability

in the environment they're going to

evolve in. They are able to plan.

Without that stability, they're much

less able to plan. And you were just

talking, Carol, about inflation. And I

think it's important to remind everyone

that even if there is an easing in the

average tariff rate, it's an open

question as to how much of that easing

in input cost will be passed on to

consumers because we know a lot of

businesses have been compressing their

margin as a result of these tariffs to

avoid passing on the cost to consumers.

So, it's very realistic that even with

some easing of the tariff rate, there's

not going to be much relief on the price

front because businesses are not

necessarily going to pass on these

reduced cost onto consumers.

>> Yeah, let's talk about the consumer and

what this all means for household

incomes.

>> Yeah, I think that's a very important

component of of economic activity and we

tend to forget it. Uh if you think about

uh how the Fed is conducting monetary

policy, it has two mandates. It has an

inflation mandate. It has an employment

uh mandate. But the reality is that

we're forgetting about the income

component of economic activity. And when

you look at developments in terms of the

labor market, there has been fewer job

growth, less job growth. We're talking

about a jobless uh expansion and wage

growth is under pressure. You combine

the two and you have a trajectory for

real disposable income growth that is

gradually cooling. And adjusted for

inflation, real disposable income is

below 1%. What does that mean for the

average person? It means that they're

less able to spend freely. And so we're

seeing this deceleration in consumer

spending activity as a result of this

slower trajectory for income. And I

think that's a key risk that we have to

be increasingly focused on in a jobless

environment.

>> It makes me a little nervous. It makes

me think of something Emily talked about

on Friday about for a while we were

talking was it last year the year before

a lot about stagflation of slower growth

um but higher prices inflationary

pressures and you know even Fed's Chris

Waller says the March rate call depends

on the labor market he's watching the

weakness in the labor market should we

be talking or even thinking about

stagflation uh at this point Greg

>> I don't think it's the right time to be

talking about stag inflation in the

sense that if you look at growth numbers

they're actually quite strong. Uh and

inflation yes is slightly above 2% but

it's not alarmingly so. We're not in a

stagflationary environment in the purest

definition of the sense where inflation

would be at 5% and growth would be zero.

Uh we are seeing an economy that's

growing at 2 1/2%. Uh and we are seeing

inflation slightly above the 2% target.

One thing that I am increasingly

concerned though is this notion that not

everybody is benefiting from this

economy. We have an environment where a

lot of the growth is productivitydriven

and we have an environment where a lot

of the growth is driven by AI

investment. Not everybody benefits from

these gains and that means that the

income for some may be really strong but

the income for a majority is under

pressure and that in turn is a key

constraint in terms of economic

activity. So I'm not as concerned about

stagflation as I am potentially about

downside risk to growth because of this

uh slowdown in real disposable income

growth.

>> Right. And I do think about the gaps,

right? And if some don't feel the

benefits of that growth, their income

not growing for them, it maybe doesn't

feel so good. Um, Greg, thank you so

much. I know it's a busy event. So glad

we could check in with you. Greg Do,

he's chief economist at EY Parthonon

there at uh the NAB event in Washington.

Stay with us. More from Bloomberg

Business Week Daily coming up after

this.

This is the Bloomberg Business Week

daily podcast. Listen live each weekday

starting at 2 p.m. Eastern on Apple

CarPlay 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 11:30.

>> Hey, speaking of a lot of stuff going

on, there's a batch of items we're

watching in the GLP1 space on this um

Monday. We've got him and hers reporting

after the closing bell today. And then

earlier today, uh, Nova Nordisk's ADRs

dropping uh, around 17% intraday, lowest

since 2021. Some disappointing data.

We're going to get into that. The news

shares of Eli Lily rallying, which we'll

get into. They also got um, some news

from the FDA. So, let's get to a roundup

on the space. Back with us is someone

who tracks this uh, the ins and outs

constantly. Bloomberg News health

reporter Madison Muller. She's here in

our Bloomberg interactive broker studio.

There is a lot of stuff, but let's start

with Novo, what their news was. And

again, kind of another disappointing

batch of news for them.

>> Exactly. It was another rough start to

the day here for Novo, which we've seen

over the last couple of weeks. You can't

help but feel bad for them. I just feel

like the bad news doesn't stop coming

right now for Novo. A company that

created the weight loss drug market uh

over a decade ago and really pioneered

this field, is now really falling behind

uh Eli Liy. So what we saw this morning

was that Novo's next generation drug

Kagrama which is not yet on the market.

It's sort of supposed to be Novo's

answer to Lily Zeppbound which has been

extremely popular. It's extremely

effective um more effective than Novo's

drugs ompic and WGO. So Kagrama was

supposed to be the next thing for Novo

to help it compete with Zepbound. And so

they ran this head-to-head trial between

Zepbound and Kagrama. And Kagrama the

expectations were that they would maybe

be on par with each other. But what we

saw was that Kagrama actually wasn't as

effective as Zepbound, which sort of

dashes Novo's hopes for this next

generation drug.

>> What can I just ask you why is Novo like

stumble after stumble? As you said, they

created this this category. So why why

do they continue to have problems or is

that just the way drug development goes?

>> I mean, it's not supposed to go like

this. I mean drug makers are aware that

these patent cliffs come that you know

more effective medicines are developed

and they're supposed to be always

investing in R&D to sort of get ahead of

this problem. One of the issues was that

Novo has really relied on ompic and

wagovi which the molecule the active

ingredient is called semiglutide and

they sort of were like nothing's going

to get better than this and pinned their

hopes on that. So this next generation

drug kagrama also has semiglutide in it

and instead of really branching out and

exploring other types of molecules and

drugs they've really focused their

efforts and their investments on this

molecule over the last few years and

that's you know blinded them to kind of

what else is out there. I mean there are

other dynamics at play for Novo just in

terms of the US healthcare market some

of the pressures now that they're seeing

with uh President Donald Trump. So

there's a lot of issues that are going

on for them, but what we're seeing here

in terms of R&D and investment and

falling behind on the science uh is

something that sort of has been brewing

for a few years. So Morgan Stanley said

that the data readout for Novo is a

worstc case scenario. Now I know you

guys talk about health and GLP-1 drugs a

lot, so forgive me if this is kind of

like a basic question, but people

treated with the dose of this drug

achieved a 20.2% weight loss. Like

that's not terrible, right?

>> It's really good actually.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's it's

great. It's better than WGOI and Ompic.

The problem is that the expectations for

this weight loss market have gotten so

high. I mean in order to compete with a

company like Lily that has a drug, you

know, that Zepbound is so effective, so

popular, you need to come up with

something better. And if it's not

better, it has to be really different.

Maybe a pill, maybe a less frequent

injection. The problem is that Kegrama

is the same weekly injection as the

shots that are currently available. And

it's not much better in terms of

efficacy. So why would you put all of

your investments, all of your eggs in

this basket for a drug that isn't any

better than one that's already on the

market?

>> I kept thinking that there were going to

be different classes of patients who

were going to have to take one drug over

another just because everybody's a

little bit different in how they deal

with drugs. Is that really not the case?

>> No, that is what's happening. That's

totally it. Yes.

>> Okay. Yeah.

>> But but Eli Lilly's version is really

good for a lot of people.

>> Exactly. So there's different buckets.

There are the people that maybe don't

need to lose 20% of their weight. Maybe

they need to lose 15% or less or they

want to. And those are the people for

whom pills will be really good. Um the

people that are in maintenance that have

already lost their weight and just need

to keep taking something to keep that

weight off. Pills. That's that's sort of

the market where pills will come into

play. Then you have these really

effective injectable drugs like Zepbound

that you can lose up to 20% of your bo,

you know, more than 20% of your body

weight on. That's good for a broad swath

of the population. I mean, I think it's

like 90% of people respond well to these

drugs. Um, and then you have people on

the higher end of the obesity spectrum,

people who are more sick, who might have

other co-orbidities like liver disease

or heart disease. Um, and even though

Zepbound and WGO do address some of

those other coorbidities, there are

drugs that these companies are trying to

develop that are even more effective.

So, that will help people lose 25% plus

of their weight. And that's sort of

another segment of this market. And then

there's a bunch of inbetweens of people

that don't want to take an injection

every week. But you're right that the

market is segmenting and that what we're

seeing is there's just more options for

pe for patients that are better targeted

to their specific needs. Shares of Eli

Liy Madison up about 4% right now.

That's not just because of Novo's

setbacks today though, right? Eli Liy

also has some other new drug

developments uh coming. Yes. In the

future.

>> Exactly. And and on this same topic of

options, what Lily did this morning was

they launched a new formulation of their

drug Zepbound. So right now, if you have

Zepbound, you can get it in a vial form,

which is, you know, you take a syringe

and you inject the drug yourself, or you

have a shot, an auto injector pen that

you do a weekly shot. You have four pens

and, you know, you change them out each

week. What they launched today is a a

single pen that has a month's worth of

the drug in it. And so each week you

just turn a dial and you've sort of

controlled the amount of medication that

you give yourself. Um it's not

revolutionary. I mean Lily's used this

for insulin and or for their diabetes

drugs. So they already had this

technology. Um but what it does do is it

gives patients another option if they

prefer to use one pen instead of four if

they're you know conscious about waste

or it also gives them a little bit of

flexibility with controlling the dose.

uh which is something that Lily doesn't

necessarily promote but that a lot of

patients and doctors have sort of been

doing themselves and they launched it at

a $2.99 cash pay price which is the same

as what they offer uh their vials for in

terms of cash pay. So it's an option for

people that don't have insurance

coverage for weight loss drugs or that

just want this option and want you know

are willing to pay for it out of pocket.

>> All right, so we've got him and hers

after the closing bell. Anything that

you're watching out when they report?

Yeah, I mean this is a big day for him

just given all of the recent news with

the lawsuit with Novo Nordisk. Um the

FDA saying that they're going to crack

down more on this copycat weight loss

drug market.

>> Um

>> which they could do when there were

shortages. Correct.

>> Exactly.

>> But now they can't cuz there aren't

shortages.

>> Exactly. And HIMS hasn't stopped. I mean

they launched a copycat version of

Novo's new weight loss pill just, you

know, a few weeks after Novo launched

it. Novo came back and sued them even

though HIMS took it off the market. So,

there's a lot of drama around this

company and investors haven't really

heard yet what the path forward looks

like for their weight loss drug

business.

>> Is there a path? I mean, the stock's

down 52% year to date. 37% of the float

is short. Investors are super negative.

Is there a way forward when it comes to

these drugs? I mean, it depends on the

level of regulatory risk that HIMS is

comfortable with, which they've always

sort of skirted or pushed that boundary

and been comfortable in the gray

regulatory area. But this is a little

bit different. The FDA is signaling that

they're serious about this. This is the

most that we've seen from the FDA in

terms of uh signaling that they're

interested in taking enforcement

actions. So, the risk scenario has

changed and we'll have to see what Hims

thinks about that. I love this space.

Are we three years in? I was trying to

remember.

>> Yeah, I think three years in.

>> This is our third, right? The third

year.

>> So much has happened even in the last

one year. It's hard to keep track.

>> Winners, losers, but him's really

getting crushed. I mean, it's down 70%

over the last 12 months.

>> Yeah. I mean, unbelievable. All right,

Madison, thank you. Always getting us up

to speed on this Bloomberg News health

reporter. Stay with us. More from

Bloomberg Business Week Daily coming up

after this.

You're listening to the Bloomberg

Business Week Daily podcast. Catch us

live weekday afternoons from 2:00 to

5:00 Eastern.

>> Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto

with the Bloomberg Business App

>> or watch us live on YouTube.

So, as delivery payments and software

stocks right now are sliding, there was

a report out this morning that has been

picked up by Bloomberg News and pretty

much every other media outlet. It's from

Centrini Research. So, they're a macro

research shop and they walk through

essentially what it is is a like

hypothetical report that is coming in

2028. And so it's like st it takes place

in 2028 and it's all about the quote

weird economy that's going

>> 2028 global intelligence crisis. They're

saying if this was coming out in 2028,

here's what we' be talking about.

>> Here's what we would be be what we would

be talking about. And they mention, you

know, 10% unemployment rate and a labor

market that has just been completely

upended by AI. Carol, it's quite

bearish. I I do recommend.

>> So here we are in 2026. So now what the

trick is for all of us and all of

investors is to figure out, you know,

how much might they be right about in

terms of predictions. Um it's definitely

playing out in the trade though. We've

seen uh shares of Door Dash, American

Express, Blackstone all slumping more

than 7% during uh the day. You've seen

names like Uber, Mastercard, Visa,

Capital 1 Financial, Apollo Global, and

KK are also taking some hits. Um let's

bring in our own Ryan Vstellica. He is

Bloomberg News equities reporter and

he's out there in our Chicago bureau.

This report Ryan definitely having an

impact on the trade today. And is it

just because there's nervousness in the

market or because investors, you know,

we've been thinking about this this AI

scare trade a lot over the last few

weeks.

>> Hey, thanks for having me. So, what I

would say is that investors haven't

really needed any excuse to sell stocks

broadly, especially in the tax sector

over the past several weeks. seems like

this report is just sort of the latest

example of people being concerned about

AI disruption and using really any

catalyst like this, any negative

headline as an opportunity to really

just sell things broadly. Uh we had on

Friday um Anthropic came out with a new

security tool that sent cyber security

stocks lower. They came out with another

report today talking about a ways to

modernize the cobalt uh programming

language. You see IBM is down quite

sharply today. So there's all kinds of

concerns related to AI disruption and

people are just selling things in mass.

Very cautious, a lot of concern. What is

this going to mean for growth, for

profit margins, for pricing power going

forward? This is a real long-term issue

that people are starting to grapple with

in a very more pronounced way.

>> What do you make of the fact that

investors are basically just looking for

a reason to sell though? Because it that

just seems like

>> an excuse, right? Right. It must be

backed by some fundamental reason that

investors are are finally sniffing out.

Right.

>> Well, I'm going to be watching out. We

get some pretty major earnings reports

this week from a lot of software

companies including Salesforce, Workday,

Inuit, Snowflake, uh, Autodesk, a lot of

companies that have been sort of in the

crosshairs of AI. It's going to be very

interesting to see what these companies

say, what the management teams say about

not only what they're expecting for the

rest of the year, but if they have any

sort of longer term thoughts about what

AI could mean for their businesses. Uh,

you know, are they going to be able to

introduce AI services that get their own

demand or are they really facing this

kind of existential competition from

these AI labs like Anthropic, like

OpenAI, like Alphabet, companies that

are just very hard to compete with is is

the fear. So how do you take a a

research report like this that is

looking into the future right two years

from now as we know if you just think

about the last year or last two years a

lot has happened in our universe even in

the first couple of months here of 2026

especially you know Ryan you Emily you

guys are constantly reporting on the

markets and different se sectors of the

market or segments of the market

everybody when it comes to AI I feel

like there is one though common

denominator or or narrative and that is

we're early in on this. We don't really

know ultimately how this impacts our

world and who are ultimately the winners

and losers.

>> Yeah, I'd absolutely agree with that. It

does seem like adoption is still pretty

low relative to what people are

expecting for, you know, the coming

years. It seems like AI technology

itself, it seems like it's advancing at

a pretty rapid clip. So, the idea of,

you know, there's certain things that it

doesn't seem like AI can replace right

now. Who knows what the next model is

going to bring? Who knows what we can

expect, you know, a couple of quarters

from now, a couple of years from now,

you know, and even extend out to even

longer, which is why you have these

companies really, you have sort of the

worst case scenario out there is pretty

bleak for them. This the idea that they

could be completely usurped and replaced

by these newer services from these AI

labs. It's something that is very hard

for people to grapple with. And you

know, so far we haven't really seen

estimates moving too much for the next

uh for the rest of 2026 or even 27 for a

lot of these kinds of companies. People

are still expecting growth in software

revenue and earnings. But when you get

further on past that, becomes a lot

harder to model and that makes it a lot

harder to determine have these stocks

come down too much? Do they still have

more room to go? What is fair value look

like? What is growth going to look like?

These are major questions that right now

it seems like you have a huge wide range

of potential outcomes. So when you have

a wide range of outcomes like that, it

makes uh makes it very difficult to

value stocks. And I think in the

presence of that kind of uncertainty,

people are just selling.

>> Yeah. And I I mean safe to say that

whether it's Salesforce or Snowflake or

Workday or whatever, these software

companies, Emily, can come out with a

good report, you know, can be upbeat,

but it doesn't mean that in a year or

two years or three years from now that

they could be disrupted. Like this is

this is kind of this

>> Netherland we're in right now.

>> Well, Ryan, I feel like you've set us up

really nicely to talk about Nvidia

earnings. Is there one key metric that

you and your sources are watching

>> for Nvidia?

>> Yes.

>> Yeah, that's a great question. It's it's

it's sort of an interesting company to

be reporting right now because on one

hand we just had uh you know all the

hyperscalers. So Microsoft and Meta and

Alphabet and Amazon, they really

affirmed pretty aggressive capex

spending. They continue to invest very

aggressively in AI and that really

should read down to Nvidia's benefit in

a pretty pronounced way. It has

obviously been really the main

beneficiary of AI spending over the past

several years. Now that trade has

started to evolve a little bit. We've

seen more interest going into say memory

and storage names for example. Uh you

know especially this year companies like

SanDisk and Micron and Western Digital

have done extremely well. So I don't

think there's a ton of concern about

Nvidia's near-term results just because

we've already had these pretty

aggressive spending targets laid out.

But further on, you know, there's a lot

of questions now about when is all this

AI spending going to start paying off

for these companies. You have all this

AI disruption, you know, just so many

questions out there and where that

leaves Nvidia, I think, right now

remains to be seen.

>> Yeah. And it's interesting to see that

this stock is little changed on the year

just uh up about 2% and it's down I

think about 7% from kind of an late

October high. So, we'll see what

happens, right? Ryan Lustellico, thank

you so much. Really appreciate it.

Equities reporter at Bloomberg News.

>> Stay with us. More from Bloomberg

Business Week Daily coming up after

this.

>> You're listening to the Bloomberg

Business Week Daily podcast. Catch us

live weekday afternoons from 2 to 5:00

p.m. Eastern.

>> Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto

with the Bloomberg Business App or watch

us live on YouTube.

Carol Masser along with Emily Grapho

here in our Bloomberg studio in uh New

York City. Uh a snowy New York City. Uh

on that, it is actually one of the most

read stories on the Bloomberg. It has to

do with this northeast blizzard.

>> Mhm. It's a powerful winter storm buried

New York City in one of its 10 snowiest

days on record, Carol, and poised to

rank among one of the worst blizzards in

almost 50 years. Over 600,000 or almost

600,000 homes and businesses lost power

and more than 10,000 flights canled

through Tuesday.

>> I am grateful not to have lost power,

but we feel for those that are and it's

not over yet and we know the streets

have to be cleaned up certainly in this

area. We want to start there because

kind of want to know when this is all

over the tallies and dare we uh even ask

might there be more snow coming this

week because it sounds like there might

be. Let's get to it with Bloomberg News

weather reporter Lauren Rosenthal

joining us here in New York City.

Lauren, good to have you here. Um, so

where are we right now in the storm?

Because if we look outside, it does look

like I'm looking out the windows. It

looks like things are calming down here

in New York City slowly.

Yes. Uh, we could still see another few

inches through early evening hours, but

we are definitely through the worst of

it. Um, so don't be surprised if you see

some light snowflakes if you're in the

northeast, but um, you don't need to

fear another two feet dumping on you uh,

in the middle of the night like we had

uh, overnight Sunday. And how has New

York City's response been so far? I did

see some buses running, a couple folks

saying they're taking the subways. The

transit system seems to be working

smoothly. Yeah, we've had reports of uh

you know, subways operating on local

schedules and I've seen buses where I'm

based in Brooklyn with chains attached.

Um I think the system's operating

slowly, but it is still up and running

in places. Amtrak on the other hand uh

canceled all service between Boston and

uh New York's Moahan train hall today

and there are cancellations that have

cascaded into New England. So um air

travel has become impossible over the

last day or so. We've seen thousands of

flights canceled. Lauren, I want to go

back to what you said. Um the two feet

we we're probably not going to get the

two feet that's already dumped on us. Is

that the official tally? And I know from

shoveling and I live just across lower

from lower Manhattan. Um, I would shovel

and then within the next hour they're

like four inches back. You know, it

would just it was unbelievable how fast

it was coming down. So, is it official

that we're close to two feet here in and

around the New York City area? Yeah. In

Central Park, we're at 19.7 in as of

just about an hour ago. Uh, if you're on

Long Island, yes, totals have inched up

above 2 feet. There are reports of up to

30 in uh, you know, in some parts of the

Northeast. So, I'm not quite sure that

we'll reach uh 2 feet in New York City

proper, but it may come close.

>> And so, this is one of the 10 snowy

stays on record, or have we passed that

tally so far? I'm just looking at what

your colleague Brian Sullivan had put

out on Bloomberg News earlier this

morning with some superlatives.

>> Yeah, it's a 24-hour measurement, and

when all is said and done and the and

the measurements are verified, we'll

we'll have a better idea. We're far

short of the, you know, snowiest day on

record for Central Park. But this

morning, we did crack uh the top 10

24-hour uh snowfalls observed in Central

Park, and those records go back to the

1800s.

>> All right. Uh it's been a pretty um

snowy start to 2026. Are we done yet?

Somebody were sitting in their makeup

room this morning and people are like,

"Yeah, there's more snow coming this

week." Is there more snow coming this

week? Unfortunately, it is a possibility

depending on how you feel about winter.

Um there are uh chances of some sort of

slippery winter mix later in the week

and some forecast models have hinted at

the possibility of another nor easter

next week. However, this far out uh it's

difficult to say with certainty whether

we will see another significant

snowstorm.

>> Well, and I guess it all depends on the

on the weather. We know that first one

um that hit us, it was so cold, stayed

so cold for so long, which is why that

snow which just disappeared in my

neighborhood on Saturday um and is now

we're full of snow once again. But um

we'll see whether or not the

temperatures start to to kick up a

little bit so that maybe uh it doesn't

stick around as much. Um having said

that, is it too early to say 2026 in

terms of how it stacks up in terms of

snowfall?

>> Yeah, we have a ways to go before winter

is over. Uh I think you know a lot of

the forecasters we talked to on a

regular basis have cautioned us. Uh we

may not be out of the woods until April.

So uh we have a ways to go before we

know exactly how bad it was this winter

compared to

>> We're going to leave it there. Hey

Lauren, thank you so much. Appreciate

the update. Lauren Rosenthal, Bloomberg

News weather reporter.

>> This is the Bloomberg Business Week

daily podcast available on Apple,

Spotify, and anywhere else you get your

podcasts. Listen live weekday afternoons

from 2 to 5:00 p.m. Eastern, on

Bloomberg.com, the iHeart Radio app,

TuneIn, and the Bloomberg Business app.

You can also watch us live every weekday

on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg

terminal.