Latest news with #JeffSherman
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
NBA Finals 2025: 'I can guarantee we'll be cheering for OKC' — Why sportsbooks are rooting for the Thunder
The Oklahoma City Thunder are the largest NBA Finals favorites (-700 at BetMGM) in their franchise's history against the Indiana Pacers (+500), but sportsbooks will still be cheering for Oklahoma City when the series tips off Thursday night. "The Thunder have been our best result just about the entire playoffs," Halvor Egeland, BetMGM trading manager told Yahoo Sports. "That remains the case and with where the finals pricing is, I can guarantee we'll be cheering on OKC." Advertisement Sportsbooks were helped in the futures market tremendously by the Los Angeles Lakers losing in the first round to the Minnesota Timberwolves in five games. The Lakers were BetMGM's biggest liability "by a decent margin" to win the title, and among those bets was a $100,000 wager on Los Angeles at 10-1 odds that would've won $1 million. The Golden State Warriors, Denver Nuggets, Cleveland Cavaliers and Boston Celtics all were potential hazards for sportsbooks — and all were eliminated before the conference finals. "Our best result is Oklahoma City," Jeff Sherman, vice president of risk at the Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook said. "Their odds were low enough all season that liability didn't accumulate. They were one of our best scenarios going into the playoffs, and we do very well on them." Indeed, the Thunder's longest odds came before the season, when they were 10-1 to win it all at BetMGM for three total days last June. Oklahoma City was a +185 favorite entering the postseason and -175 entering the conference finals against the Timberwolves. The Thunder at -700 are tied for the seventh-biggest favorite in the NBA Finals since 1968, according to Sports Odds History. Advertisement The Pacers, on the other hand, opened as a long shot with 50-1 odds, and those odds got as high as 150-1 in March. Even entering the playoffs, Indiana was 80-1 to win the title, and the Pacers didn't get into single digits until before the conference finals against the New York Knicks, when they were +800 to win the title. Indiana wasn't even the favorite (+135) in its series against New York. 'Many bettors have backed the Pacers during a playoff run that includes taking down the top-seeded Cavs and the high-profile Knicks with multiple dramatic comebacks," Adrian Horton, director of North American sports trading for ESPN Bet, said. "Given their relatively long price compared to OKC, who have taken care of business as a 1-seed, it's the Pacers who are our bigger liability today.' BetMGM told Yahoo Sports there are "a couple" of Pacers futures wagers with a chance to win six figures at 125-1 odds. Sherman said Westgate took a $400 wager on Indiana at 150-1 in mid-February, along with two $200 wagers at that price, making Indiana a "small liability." Not many bettors were backing Indiana down the stretch of the regular season, despite the Pacers now sporting a record of 46-18 since Jan. 1. Advertisement "Certainly for the Eastern Conference futures, having the Pacers come through was a huge win," Thomas Gable, sportsbook director at The Borgata in Atlantic City (a BetMGM book) noted. "We had liability on both the Knicks and Celtics and were pretty much break even on the Cavs. The Pacers were pretty much ignored in the futures all year." Likely due to the big potential payout, bettors have been backing Indiana to beat Oklahoma City, with a staggering 92% of the bets and 91% of the total dollars wagered so far on the Pacers to win the finals. If the Pacers pull off the stunner, it would be the biggest NBA Finals upset since 2004 when the Detroit Pistons (+500) beat the Los Angeles Lakers in five games. Game 1 tips off at 8:30 p.m. ET Thursday on ABC. The Thunder are 9.5-point favorites, with the total at 230.5.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NEO Q1 Earnings Call: Sales Growth, Pharma Headwinds, and Pathline Integration Shape Outlook
Oncology (cancer) diagnostics company NeoGenomics (NASDAQ:NEO) fell short of the market's revenue expectations in Q1 CY2025, but sales rose 7.5% year on year to $168 million. On the other hand, the company's full-year revenue guidance of $753 million at the midpoint came in 2% above analysts' estimates. Its non-GAAP loss of $0 per share was in line with analysts' consensus estimates. Is now the time to buy NEO? Find out in our full research report (it's free). Revenue: $168 million vs analyst estimates of $170.9 million (7.5% year-on-year growth, 1.7% miss) Adjusted EPS: $0 vs analyst estimates of -$0.01 (in line) Adjusted EBITDA: $7.07 million vs analyst estimates of $5.27 million (4.2% margin, 34.3% beat) The company lifted its revenue guidance for the full year to $753 million at the midpoint from $740 million, a 1.8% increase EBITDA guidance for the full year is $56.5 million at the midpoint, above analyst estimates of $55.63 million Operating Margin: -16.6%, up from -19.6% in the same quarter last year Free Cash Flow was -$29.83 million compared to -$31.5 million in the same quarter last year Market Capitalization: $1.1 billion NeoGenomics' first quarter results reflected continued growth in clinical testing, particularly from its next-generation sequencing (NGS) portfolio and expanded commercial reach. Management attributed the increase in clinical test volumes and revenue per test to the successful launch of five new NGS products and targeted investments in its salesforce, as well as the recent acquisition of Pathline, which expands the company's Northeast presence. CEO Tony Zook emphasized that the company's strategy remains focused on serving community oncology providers, with new product launches and operational efficiencies supporting ongoing momentum. Looking ahead, leadership lifted full-year revenue guidance, underpinned by the expected benefits from Pathline, additional NGS product introductions, and commercial partnerships such as the collaboration with Adaptive for minimal residual disease (MRD) testing. Management also cautioned that macroeconomic pressures, including weaker pharma and biotech spending and non-clinical revenue headwinds, are likely to persist but will be offset by growth in the core clinical business. CFO Jeff Sherman reiterated NeoGenomics' commitment to financial discipline, stating, 'We will continue to take a balanced approach to investments with increasing adjusted EBITDA, enabling further investments to drive operating efficiencies in the business and targeted investments in R&D.' NeoGenomics' management highlighted several major factors shaping first quarter performance, with accelerating growth in clinical diagnostics and ongoing investment in new products and operational capabilities. NGS Segment Drives Growth: The launch of five new next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests accounted for 22% of total clinical revenue, reflecting strong adoption within community oncology practices. Management noted that deeper relationships with community hospitals are providing a competitive edge and driving higher-value test utilization. Pathline Acquisition Expands Market Reach: The recently closed acquisition of Pathline, a New York state-approved laboratory, establishes a physical presence in the Northeast and is expected to accelerate top-line growth by improving access to regional providers. Integration efforts are underway, with management expecting incremental clinical revenue contributions this year and greater earnings impact in 2026. Salesforce Expansion to Support Penetration: NeoGenomics completed the expansion of its commercial team to approximately 140 salespeople, aiming for near one-to-one coverage between hospital pathology and community oncology. Leadership sees this as critical to supporting upcoming product launches and deepening market penetration. Non-Clinical Revenue Pressure: The pharma and biotech segment, which comprises about 10% of total revenues, remains under pressure due to reduced research spending and macroeconomic factors such as tariffs and potential NIH funding cuts. Management acknowledged this headwind but maintained confidence in the long-term strategic value of the segment. Product Pipeline Highlights: Validation and early-access programs for PanTracer liquid biopsy, an NGS-based blood test, have generated strong interest from community oncologists. The company also highlighted a new partnership with Ultima Genomics for low-cost, high-quality sequencing and ongoing development of next-generation MRD technologies, aiming for product launches in the next two years. Management's outlook for the remainder of the year is anchored by the continued expansion of NGS offerings, Pathline integration, and the maturing salesforce, while acknowledging ongoing challenges in the non-clinical segment and industry-wide macro pressures. NGS and Product Launches: Future growth is expected to come from the commercial launch of PanTracer liquid biopsy and upgrades to the comprehensive NGS panel, along with increased adoption of MRD testing through the Adaptive partnership. Leadership anticipates these launches will drive higher test volumes and revenue per test. Pathline Integration Synergies: Successful integration of Pathline is expected to gradually enhance operating leverage and support incremental clinical revenue, with more substantial benefits projected for 2026 as NeoGenomics' full test menu becomes available to Pathline's customer base. Non-Clinical Revenue Headwinds: Management warned that continued softness in pharma and biotech spending, along with external factors such as tariffs and research funding uncertainty, could further weigh on non-clinical revenues in the near-term. The company expects core clinical growth to offset these headwinds but highlighted this as a key risk. Andrew Brackman (William Blair): Asked CEO Tony Zook about any early surprises since taking the helm and whether any business areas need more attention; Zook replied he saw no major surprises and reaffirmed confidence in the company's trajectory. Dan Brennan (TD Cowen): Requested details on full-year pharma headwinds and Pathline's contribution to Q2 guidance; CFO Jeff Sherman clarified pharma revenue is expected to decline, with Pathline adding $3–$4 million per quarter and ramping up in later quarters. Tejas Savant (Morgan Stanley): Inquired about capital deployment after paying down convertible notes, and the flexibility to invest in new product launches; Sherman stated cash flow will improve in 2026, providing options for the next round of debt. Matthew Sykes (Goldman Sachs): Probed the outlook for average revenue per test (AUP) amid Pathline integration; Sherman explained Pathline's lower AUP will dilute the blended metric, but core modalities are still seeing incremental gains. David Westenberg (Piper Sandler): Asked about the salesforce ramp and when new hires reach full productivity; Warren Stone said most additions are complete, with expected full productivity reached in six to nine months, pointing to late 2025 and early 2026 for maximum impact. In the coming quarters, the StockStory team will be watching (1) the commercial launch and physician adoption of PanTracer liquid biopsy and related NGS upgrades, (2) the pace and success of Pathline integration, including the rollout of NeoGenomics' test menu to new customers, and (3) progress on operating efficiencies and cost-saving initiatives as the expanded salesforce matures. Execution on partnerships, especially with Adaptive and Ultima Genomics, and visibility into non-clinical revenue stabilization will also be important indicators of strategic execution. NeoGenomics currently trades at a forward P/E ratio of 38×. Should you double down or take your chips? See for yourself in our free research report. Market indices reached historic highs following Donald Trump's presidential victory in November 2024, but the outlook for 2025 is clouded by new trade policies that could impact business confidence and growth. While this has caused many investors to adopt a "fearful" wait-and-see approach, we're leaning into our best ideas that can grow regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate. Take advantage of Mr. Market by checking out our Top 6 Stocks for this week. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 176% over the last five years. Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-small-cap company Comfort Systems (+782% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bond market braces for potential summer turbulence
0:04 spk_0 Welcome to a new episode of the opening bid podcast. I'm Yahoo Finance executive editor Brian Sai. Like I always say, this is the podcast that will make you a smarter investor, period. And to that end, we have a real treat for you today that will make you a, a very, very smarter investor. Double line Deputy CIO Jeff Sherman. Jeff, good to see you. It's been a while. Thank you for coming on here. So for those not, uh, as familiar with with Double I as I am, having covered you guys and and talked to you many times, what does the business look like today? 0:33 spk_1 Yeah, we run a little bit over $90 billion in in assets um for very, very diverse set of clients out there. We run institutional money, we run private placements as well as publicly available 40 act funds, think mutual funds and exchange traded funds. Um, if you think about the way we invest, uh, the bulk of our assets today sit in the fixed income arena. Uh, we focus on products that are kind of more traditional or traditionally the standpoint of thinking about what people think about when they think about the broad bond market, like the the Bloomberg US aggregate, uh, to very customized strategies, whether it's that limited interest rate exposure risk on the duration front, uh, but it's a credit specific strategy where people are looking to kind of actively allocate across the fixed income space, core, we're an active manager and so what we try to do is use kind of the top down macroeconomic landscape uh to inform views about how we see the world and couple that with bottom up security selection through fundamental analysis with the analysts that we have, uh, that are experts within their specific areas of the fixed income market. 1:37 spk_0 I imagine over the past month, you've really been leaning into the active side because it has been, uh, some would say bonkers. Of course, we saw the big stock market slide in early April after Liberation Day. We've seen markets stabilize, but we still have the 10 year close to 4.3%. It was a little bit higher than that. What have you been doing and and what have the past few weeks been like for you and your clients? 1:59 spk_1 Yeah, that's, it's pretty interesting, uh, Brian, because you would think being an active manager that we've been extremely active in trading and moving, uh, moving our allocations and credit exposures around. Uh, but you have to think back about the landscape we came into in 2025. And what I mean by that is that um we had a market that had very high valuation. You think about the stock market, people talked about the price earnings ratio, the cap ratio, that long term PE uh being extremely uh, we also had in the credit markets as well. Um, in the credit markets, that's referenced by tight spreads the incremental pick up that one gets for investing in credit assets over kind of treasury assets. And so what, what we found, uh, during the month of January, you know, coming into the inauguration was assets were still on a tear since that post-election run and um essentially anything credit oriented or anything risky or riskily or risk was, was really doing quite well. And so as we sat down ourolocation committee meeting, um, as, as we went into kind of February, we said, you know, look, this like there's going to be, um, there's going to be provoking a lot of uncertainty, right? Uh, we weren't sure about Liberation Day, we didn't think it would be as severe as anyone else. But what this led us to do after giving the run on the assets and knowing that there's heightened uncertainty was reduce some of the credit risk within our portfolios back in February. And again, it wasn't because we saw Liberation Day, uh that was coming in in 5 weeks' was more of the standpoint of saying, look, spreads their type, there's not a lot of incremental risk premium out there in the marketplace today, and if we live in a world that has heightened uncertainty, right, you should command a higher risk premium. And so what that made us do was kind of rotate some of those assets um into kind of more uh high quality things like government guarantee, like treasuries or agency mortgage backed so what happened on liberation Day, obviously, um, it was, it was much more fearful than people thought. It was much more extreme than people thought. And in some ways, parts of it have gotten significantly worse since then, although you, you mentioned the markets have rebounding. So what we've actually been doing in our portfolios over the last 3.5 weeks since we've been that we actually have just been re-underwriting risk in our point flow, making sure that we're comfortable with it, making sure what we own is what we want to own, and we haven't actually been highly active in today's market. And why is that? Well, because there still is uncertainty, right? Uh, markets have rebounded in some way, um, they retraced somewhere between 1/3 to 5% of their levels, um, when I, when I talk about spreads of the sell-offs we've seen, uh, in, in credit assets, but really I feel like the uncertainty hasn't we still have an elevated level. We still have these uniform tariffs that are out there. Uh, we have an extremely elevated tariff policy against China, uh, which is having a significant impact on, on kind of the trade data we got trade data this morning, uh, the deficits at a at a new uh nominal record out there as well. And so what's happened out there is that some of this like by the dip mentality came into the marketplace, and right now we just don't think it's a good time to be adding to risk in portfolios. So welike our positioning coming in, um, what we've done is reassess where we are in terms of that return to risk payoff that we see in the future. And today we're very comfortable with those assets. But again, we're looking for some direction in the marketplace today. And again, I would say in the last 3.5 weeks, all we've seen is more turmoil, more uncertainty, and it doesn't give you as an investor, this nice fuzzy warm fuzzy feeling of wanting to up one's risk budget today. Jeff, 5:36 spk_0 II love the Yahoo Finance community, but, you know, they, I think, are very active with the top 7 largest stocks in the world. This is Apple, this is Nvidia, this is even a test all thrown in there after its posterings rally, and they only pay attention headline on the 10 year yield, and if that goes up, they are trained to think stocks go down. Frame this for this, uh, frame this for this community. How important is it that we are seeing the 10 year above 4%, and then if it were to rise further as we layer on more debt, I haven't gotten to the potential next Trump tax plan, we layer on more debt on this country, but how worrying is it if we do hit that 5% level? 6:20 spk_1 Yeah, I mean it is worrying, but you, you have to remember that we went down below 4%, um, you know, previous to this kind of this this sell-off in rate yields and pushing them back up. And so the reason interest rates are important is because the 10 year treasury, it feeds the economy. That's kind of how mortgages are priced when when the homeowner goes to take that out, uh you can think about corporate debt, it's how corporate America finances itself. And so what that does is that feeds into kind of mechanism and it also leads to a discount factor for thinking about your future earnings and how to value stocks. Um, now, the issue that we've seen is that rates have been extremely volatile, and they're volatile for kind of two reasons, and I, I call it this push in the pool that you have in the the push of rates going down is the lack is really the fear that economic growth and activity is going to diminish, right? And some of that is because of the tariffs, right? It's because of the uncertainty of the policy, it's because of the unknowns out there, um, and again, if prices are going up meaningfully, um, it probably reduces overall so from that standpoint, that that is a gross scare, I'll call it, which pushes rates down. On the other hand, um, I don't have to rewind the clock very far, uh, we can take it back 3 years to when we had very elevated levels of inflation, and the bond market has not forgot about these levels of inflation. Now, I'm not saying we're going back to a 9% inflation what's happened there is that the bond market now realizes that it has to price in inflation uncertainty. And what that means is that if the bond market thinks there's a level of inflation, it will command what we call a real yield, that incremental yield above the expectations of it also has to price in some uncertainty around that inflation level. And because in the short term tariffs can be inflationary, right? The bond market is struggling with what is the inflation narrative today, and also that kind of pulls rates so these two things are kind of battling one another, and you mentioned 4:30. Well, if you actually look back over the last, let's call it 18 to 24 months, what you see is a 10 year trading range has really been, you know, kind of like mid 360, call it 365, to about 470. So where does that put you at a 4:30 today? We're roughly in the middle, maybe slightly above the middle of that range, but what you see is these push and pull factors have been driving, you know, the the the tenure up and so, if the tariffs come through and there's price, um uh there's price pressure out there, and look, you saw Amazon be castigated by the White House this morning, right, uh for the idea that they were going to publish uh what how much of the tariff is pushing that rate price up, uh, they were talking about that policy, butThis is the idea that ultimately, if that has to pass through, that's going to cause higher prices and these higher prices will ultimately change the consumption pattern of the consumer. And the challenge is, is that, you know, the, the problem that this administration has is they want us to buy American. They want us to buy goods that are produced in the there's nothing wrong with that. That's a that's an admirable goal. The problem is we don't have substitutes for a lot of these goods that we consume that are produced in the US. So if we want to buy them, we have to pay the higher price, or we choose not to consume them, which can cause pain for some of those industries. And so this is the dynamic going on in the marketplace, and this is why I there being massively elevated uncertainty today. And then you brought in the policies that the administration is trying to push, right? That they want tax cuts, they want to extend the TJCA from 2017. They probably get that done. But then they want an incremental tax cut on the back of that as well. And again, are they going to be able to find the funding, uh, thus far, what we've you look at the quarterly refunding of how many treasuries are going to be issued, uh, that was announced yesterday, it really hasn't changed the dynamic of the market. So for all this talk about those and government efficiency, and we're going to reduce the deficit, thus far in 99 days in, there hasn't been a lot of progress. That said, the onus typically sits with Congress, not the president, uh, to push these policies through. 10:30 spk_0 All right, hang with us, uh, Jeff, we're gonna go off for a quick break. We'll be right back on opening right, welcome back. Having a great chat here with Double Line Deputy CIO Jeff Sherman. Uh, of course, continue, continue to hit us with all those likes on the social media platforms and podcast podcast platforms. Always, uh, enjoy your feedback and, uh, it's always very interesting stuff. Look, Jeff, I don't want to sit here and be aYou know, someone in our field that is trying to get headlines, but people are telling me this summer we might be headed toward a bond market crisis. They point to the trade war, they point to potential debt, they point to an economy that might be in a mild slowdown. All these things seem plausible to me. Do you see a potential bond market crisis this this summer, and what in the world would that even look like, and what would it mean to markets? 11:22 spk_1 Yeah, well, I mean, look, the deficits obviously some debts untenable in the long run, um, and so it's something we need to address, and as we talked about in the last segment, I was talking about the idea of like trying to reduce the deficit, having more policies that were friendly towards that. But what that means is austerity, Brian, and and the challenge with that is that that we have to tighten the belt. That means we have to slow consumption, and we got to quit spending money on, on programs out there, and that will obviously slow down economic activity. But then what happens kind of again, this is like the the the ills of that side, it sounds great in the problem is, once the economy slows, usually the government is the backstop to help ignite it once again. That is, they issue debt, um, they promote policies that are trying to promote job growth and the likes. And so it's that if, if we are austere and we cut the deficit, there's going to be a consequence which may may make us have to turn back on the spigot and increase the deficit again. Um, so this is the challenge with kind of where we are in the overall kind of state of the of the markets you would talk about what does a crisis look like? Well, it looks like it looks like something back in let's call it the fall of 2022 when we saw the UK dealt crisis. And what what that was was a function where the bond market responded to policy. There was a policy issued by by then, I, I believe it was Theresa May at the time, and what happened, uh I'm sorry, it was Liz Truss at the time. I apologize. Um, but what happened with Liz Truss was that she was talking about they were going to do QE again. They were going to do tax cuts. Does that sound familiar, Brian? They were trying to stimulate the fight inflation, right? And the bond market said, no, you're not. And so that's what it looks like. It's when the bond market revolts and watching the, the, the two weeks ago, people said, oh, the bond markets revolting because the treasury curve and that that's talking about the 2-year rate all the way up to the 30 year bond, most of them went up approximately 50 basis points that week, butBut I, I, I point out to people is that, yeah, that's kind of what it looks like, but it's probably 50 basis points a day, and it's consecutive days. Um, the other thing is, is that don't forget during that 50 basis point rise, rates had rallied almost 50 basis points over the preceding like 6 or 7 days. So it it was just kind of an inverse of of of some of that move. And so sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture when you look at these micro moves. But ultimately what it would look like is that the bond market is the policy, it's saying that no, you cannot continue to pursue this, and that's ultimately when you know that the market has had enough. And what is it the old um, there's the old quote about that I want to come back as the bond market, right? Um, if he gets James Carville that it's attributed to, right, because it can bully anyone, uh, and it's the biggest, the biggest bully in the room. I'm paraphrasing there, but, but he did say he wanted to come back as the bond market. 14:19 spk_0 Yeah, that's a good one. somewhat uh actually probably really tied to one of the benefits of working at a company like Yahoo, you got a lot of data and you could very easily go back to certain things very, very quickly. I found you did an interview with my former colleague October 20, 2017, where you, you're talking about the Federal Reserve, Jeff, and you predicted that the next chair of the Fed would be Jerome Powell. It was right at the top of the story. I mean my colleague did not bury the lead, so he nailed it there, you started to, and your team started a handicap on who the next Fed chief will be, and what do you think about these attacks on the Fed's uh independence from the president? 14:58 spk_1 Well, let me take him in reverse order. Let's just start with the attacks is that, you know, one of the, the, uh, pleasures that we have, and as the US and having the dollar and having the big bond market is that we have the independence of the Fed, right, that it isn't leaning on the political whims and we don't vacillate back um, as criticized as the Fed can be, uh, at various points, uh, through time, they ultimately are trying to serve the good of the people. They're, they're trying to achieve their overall mandate. And so I think what you've seen from J Powell is that he has not been reflexively responding to the to the president. Um, what you also see is that he's been adamant about he's staying in um look, President Trump roiled the bond market and and the markets in general, uh, by saying that, you know, he want that Powell should be so then he backtracked it. I think some of that uh was Scott Besson and Howard Lutton that get in the room with him and saying we need to we need to do this. But ultimately, I think when you when you think about who the next Fed chairperson is, it's a political appointment. So it's probably someone who's going to align themselves more with the views. Um, you know, I, I think if you look at kind of the betting markets today, Kevin Warsh is the, you know, kind of front runner there, but he doesn't have a lot.a lot of confidence in there as well. And so I think the, the question becomes is that, do you find someone and who is going to try to shade themselves to what the political means. By the way, from my understanding, Jerome Powell is a lifelong Republican, right? He was appointment the first time as well. And he's done a very good job of being independent. And so I, I think the independence of the Fed is extremely important becauseUltimately, we saw this, you know, prior to the the era with Volcker, where you had, you know, someone in charge of the Fed that leaned politically and tried to really push those policies and keep rates too low for too long. And so I, I think for as much criticism as J Powell has got, especially during 2022, he's done a good job since then of kind of having a steady hand, not reacting to whims in the data, uh, looking at the overall data at this stage, I, I think it's important, and the market really appreciates having that, and having someone who is not independent in charge of the Fed, then the question becomes do the Fed governors start to have much more dissent as well, right? Because remember, it's supposed to be a policy, it's supposed to be cohesive, usually the Fed chairperson is the one that brings everyone together. So, um, we could see something more like what you see kind of the Bank of England, where the votes are out by 11 vote. It looks like a a Supreme Court ruling, like a 5 to 4, right? And instead this unanimous uh type of decision. So ultimately, I think it's very important, and there is a concern there, but the thing is, is that there's so many other concerns between now and the end of J Powell's tenure that I think I put it lower in the stack right now as we try to get through these tariff policies and what this trade war ultimately means for the US economy. 17:59 spk_0 So it doesn't sound like you're sold on Kevin Warsh. 18:03 spk_1 Look, I, I don't know enough about him to be honest, and, you know, we have this, we had this discussion recently, um, around the table here at Double I was that, OK, well, what does it mean? Is he, if he gets fired, who comes in? It would be much more disruptive to fire JPal, um, and try to focus on today, then get the next person. I think it's way too early to be And again, I'm not against Warsh um being there. I just don't know enough about him. And I think personally, I'll do much more homework as we get closer and typically, you know, usually the Fed chairperson is someone that's like about 2 to 3 months out from the appointment, you start discussing it. Um, but they're talking about discussing it later this summer. 18:42 spk_0 Jeff, I think it should be you, man.I think you, I toss your hat in the ring. I, I, I, you got my vote. Not that it matters, but yeah, 18:49 spk_1 I, I appreciate that. I don't think I'd be like. I'm not as pretty as Jay on the, on the, on the podium and stuff, so I'll leave it to those good looking uh academic types and business leaders and so are myself. 19:00 spk_0 Fair enough. In the last minute and a half, we always love to get a hot take from our guest andI don't have anything written down here, but I, I love the complexity of what a double line does and how like nitty and gritty the business is. Give us like that one, I guess, complicated investment or trade that that your teams have on right now, um, that maybe the average investor could could go out there and employ in some manner. 19:24 spk_1 Yeah, I mean, look, um, I, I, I always say that the complication we try to make simple, and it's trying to distill the complexity down to basic facts and tenants and and just inputs. So it's the building blocks approach. So, uh, I like to think about the portfolio and think about it as being somewhat simplistic, um, you know, people always ask about what's a view on rates, and I don't have a very strong view now because of that push and pull dynamic we talked about but what we do have a lot of confidence in it's what we call the shape of the curve, right? What we call a curve steepener, um, and this has been, um, what we want, what we think is that the term premium, that is the amount that you get for lending longer, should be higher in the long term than where it is today. And that that said in bonds speak, we would have a steepen our trade on, and what that means is that we 2 year, and we are short the 10 year or the 30 year asset against it. And so what that allows us to do is play the shape of the curve. So we're saying is that we want to be long the front of the curve, or we want to be inherently short the back end of the curve, and what that means is we're playing for that steepness of the slope of of the of the curve. So it sounds complex, it's very simple. You do it in the futures market, you buy one contract, you sell um, one thing is they have duration differences, so you have to adjust the number of contracts. So therein lies the complexity, Brian, but it is something that people could do with ETFs out there, right? There is, there's ETFs that focus on treasuries on the front end and on the back end, and there's actually inverses as well. So you can be a long investor, you go along the long, long the front end, and you go um along the inverse of the back end. 21:02 spk_0 Like I told everybody coming to this podcast, you would leave as a smarter investor. It feels like I'd be, I should be sending Jeff Sherman a check for all that, uh, stuff that he just told us. Uh, but good to see you, Jeff. It's been a while. Don't be a stranger. I hope to connect with you, uh, very, uh, very again soon. Please do tell Mr. Glock, uh, the outfits team says hello. Double line Deputy CIO Jeff Sherman, good to see you. We'll talk to you soon. 21:24 spk_1 Thanks, Brian. 21:25 spk_0 All right, uh, please do continue to hit us with the uh thumbs up on YouTube. Love all the feedback, all of your comments, always try to answer everything. Those 5 stars on the podcast platforms keep them coming as well. They add up and really help us. We'll talk to you soon.
