tv The David Rubenstein Show Peer to Peer Conversations Bloomberg October 14, 2017 3:00am-4:00am EDT
♪ lisa: with 30 minutes dedicated to fixed income. this is bloomberg real yield. ♪ lisa: coming up, what will be the pin that pops the bond market? perhaps it will be the central banks as ecb firms up its plans to taper. leverage levels are creeping up all over as the imf focusing on the risk to financial stability. the largest u.s. banks report earnings and revealing a less credit where the american consumer. how big of a concern is that for debt markets? we start with a big issue,
markets continue to shrug off risk. >> it's really surprising when you look at all the events that have gone on in the market becomes so jaded. they don't react like they used to. >> i don't know about you, but i'm nervous. and it seems like when investors are nervous they are prone to being spooked. and nothing seems to spook the market. >> central banks are keeping the peddal too much on the gas and we are sucking out volatility that is not conducive to long-term growth. >> in this case, i don't think it's a bubble, i just think there is a disaster risk the markets are not taking into account. lisa: lots of existential angst. joining me in new york is michael cloherty. bonnie wongtrakool, portfolio manager at western asset management and scott kimball.
i want to start with the ecb. we did get news overnight giving more details about what their plan might look like next year. i'm struck by the fact that the market rallied. people bought on the idea of them buying fewer bonds. >> bcb bancorp will he finished tapering around the second half of next year. what's been talked about now is a little bit beyond that. that's why i think he saw them rally. we are not surprised by that. we came into the year feeling constructive on the eu. we felt it was underpriced. and now we have seen them recover quite well. inflation is ok. still not on target.
at this point, we actually think growth is going to decelerate a little bit. we don't think is going to reach the forecast. growth could be even less than 1.5%. and so, as a result we think ecb will have to remain in the market actively buying and doing qe for longer than the market expects. lisa: so if you see europe decelerating, you see the european central bank continuing its bond purchase longer than it is currently pricing to the market. michael, given that backdrop nothing because u.s. treasuries to sell off? michael: that is the problem. every time rates go up, we look really cute other countries. foreign buying has picked up and come much further out of the curve than it used to. a lot of private investors were used to two-year and five-year treasuries. they are buying ten year or longer treasuries. to get a really big move in the market what we really need is inflation to pick up a little bit. one is the obvious.
my cash flow is worth less if inflation is up. two is that, the last few years we have seen these people piling and risk assets in order to retain yield target. i can't afford to keep my house off of buying a treasury yield. double not generate enough cash flow. i have two piles into risk assets to take more risk. when rates start to rise people start to pull out of this risk assets and they can hit the yield bogie in a safer way. we see some jitters in corporate bond markets. and the fed suddenly says wait a minute, let me back off a little bit. we rally right back to where we were. that will continue to happen as long as inflation is low. what happens if we start to see inflation pick up? all of a sudden, the fed cannot have a foot there for risk assets and you have the potential to jump to a much higher yield. lisa: you think that is
possible? michael: not soon. i think we'll see a little higher than today, but not a dramatic jump. lisa: scott, are you piling into 30 year bonds? scott: the way we position the fund is to take advantage of what my colleague was talking about. as interest rates rise, we see some trepidation of people that have owned this risk assets may be rotate back into more traditional asset allocation tools like core fixed income. and part of that is owning longer dated securities.
we found a lot of value in owning corporate debt and we have been terming out a bit. with the expectation the upside case for rates is continuing to dwindle with lower inflation. lisa: i'm struck by the fact we are not seeing that much inflation. we are not seeing that much growth. people are piling into risky stuff. people are starting to get nervous. the imf talks about financial stability in and you have the yield curve that continues to flatten, suggesting growth will only slow down further in the future. at what point does this make you very concerned about the financial stability we are looking at if there is a downturn or a risk? bonnie: i think the yield curve is not by the flattening suggesting it will have a greater chance of a recession. it's in part with what mike was talking about. the level of yields absolute is low. people have to go up the curve. i think you see the curve flattening because we are seeing a little more inflation. there is a little bit more chance of the fed having to hike and going ahead with her normalization. that is why you are seeing the yield curve flattening.
it's not inverted. i don't know how many people leave the flattening is pretending a recession. lisa: michael, do you think the curve will turn in the near term? michael: no, no, if the fed starts to type more aggressively we think will steepen relative to the curve. perfectly flat. we really need to have an imminent recession. if you look at consumer balance sheets right now, they are extraordinarily strong. consumer spending should hold up even if we had a little shocked to it. today we saw a solid report on the consumer side. so with that, the biggest piece of gdp, we had decent growth going forward. yeah, no recession soon. scott: we would agree. we look at the underpinnings of what is going on with the yield curve. it is emblematic of a disagreement. we think the investor community is having given the fed. we use the word "transitory"
to describe the lack of inflation since about 2013. the market is interpreting that. particularly some of the comments from the fed governors about a particular word. there is a bit of wrangling going on with exactly how much longer we are going to wait before transitory is removed and the word "structural" comes in. we think the flattening of the curve reflects the market for telling to the fat there is certainly structural underpinnings. gdp in the u.s., it has been very strong. we think it was probably an upside case to be made for inflation to accelerate in the next 12 months. lisa: who matters more? bonnie: when you talk about quantitative easing, the ecb. the fed already communicated what they will do. they have been transparent about it. he will be very gradual. there is not a lot of room around there to have movement. lisa: how many hikes that we see from the fed next year?
michael: i think we will get sort of a quarterly base going forward. we will see three or four next year. the fed -- even of inflation is below where they would like it to be, that is the norm. inflation is only about 2% about a quarter of a time going back 25 years. so, you still need to take some insurance out, moving back towards a more normal policy rate. if you wait for inflation, it is too late. you have to be more aggressive to catch up. it causes much more inflation with the rapid tightening. everyone is piled in a more risk. markets seem less liquid. people have more risk on the used to because of the lack of volatility. if the fed does something hard they are much more likely to break the system. lisa: we will talk about that inflation. everyone is taking with us. michael cloherty, bonnie wongtrakool, and scott kimball.
♪ lisa: i'm lisa abramowicz. this is "bloomberg real yield." i want to head to the auction block now. this week the u.s. treasuries sold nearly $190 billion in bonds. we are focusing on the 30 year bond sale. a bid to cover ratio of 2.53, the highest level since september 2015. walmart sold bonds to refinance debt. the world's largest retailer
issued $6 billion of unsecured bonds in six parts, with the lowest portion, a 30 year security yielding 75 basis points. john frieda companies are raised over $14 billion this month. it is very likely it will had a five-year peak for sales. still with us, michael cloherty, bonnie wongtrakool and scott kimball. i'm struck by what you all are saying to me and what we hear again and again. we just don't see the risk. people will continue to buy bonds. we saw the biggest weekly inflow over the past week since 2015. it makes me wonder why not lever up?
why not just get as much leverage as you possibly can and pour your money into absolutely anything risky you can find? michael: sadly i think we have seen people doing that. unfortunately is the people out of the most stress. retirees they need some income. other people like that were at least able to sustain the loss. pension funds, other funds. lisa: are you seeing pension funds lever up? michael: it is really corporates, things like that. you are forced to chase yield because you have to meet some target. you have to pay retirees. you have to meet some earnings targets. you can't do that buying treasuries, so you are forced to buy out the scale. lisa: are you more willing to use leverage? scott: for our bond fund, it does not use leverage as a tool. we move around between 80% investment great securities with the opportunity to do with the 20% below investment-grade. the opposite of the trade you have outlined.
we are more willing to move further out the yield curve and investment-grade to capture yield as opposed to trying to stay low and by high-yield at a low high-yield premium. so effectively, our viewpoint there is we think there are better opportunities ahead look at some of these risk assets. right now we are more on the investment-grade side of things. bonnie: i'd say similarly, we don't use leverage in our core plus funds. in terms of valuations, we think the valuations are relatively full for credit. so what we have done is cycled out of some of that and been very selective about where we have those holdings and then into other markets we think of more values like emerging markets. lisa: i want to pick up on emerging markets in a minute. i just want to ask both scott and bonnie, do you see investors engaging in behaviors that
concern you as far as how much leverage they are taking on? borrowing short-term in order to invest longer-term, as well as more than they would like to? scott: i think this is sort of the corporate bond or credit bull market that is the most hated in history. people have been trying to predict its demise since the day it started. very candidly, when we look back at our own expectations for credit risks and returns, they continue to surprise to the upside. at this point, we don't think the risk premium is high enough to own super structures and take on too much risk. particularly, borrowing to for the risk out the curve. at the same time there are a lot of investors engaged in that. that is one of the concerns we have about when this credit cycle ends, when the cushion pops. it may be more pronounced. bonnie: we have seen investors in this search for yield as spreads have compressed in certain actors moving or allocations to other sectors. i would not characterize it as over-levering. lisa: people talk about the amount of cash. the flipside is that are not
enough bonds for people to buy. you are seeing synthetic cbo's coming back in people creating contracts to go around risky bank bonds in europe. i'm just wondering, is this natural? is this still small potato stuff? is this becoming a more prevalent issue as people search for something to buy? >> again, is it a systemic risk, no? we are not close to that amount outstandings yet. we have seen looser language on some corporate bonds. less security. people stress for yield and they have to give up something. you are seeing a little bit of a slide. overall, the economic backdrop still looks bright enough you will not expect a massive wave of defaults coming in that would really hurt corporates. what worries me most about corporates is this huge move
towards passive investing. if we get a surprise default from somebody, our panelists know how to handle that. they know how to handle that security. they can work their way out of that. some of the passive folks, i sell it, i move on. as it gets bigger and bigger, the risk of a surprising fall -- it was before your days, but if we get that, it will be much messier. lisa: and bonnie, quickly, you you said you're going into more investment-grade and high-yield debt. investment-grade is also highly valued. bonnie: we are going into more emerging markets. lisa: you are going into investment grade, right? scott: in the market we are can to doing to see strong flows. i have to echo michael's sentiment about passive versus active. core plus is an active fund.
lisa: everyone is going to be sticking with us. we will delve into the emerging markets. michael cloherty, bonnie wongtrakool, scott kimball. let's get a market check on where bonds have been in this week. all getting tighter. people piling into bonds cannot get enough of them. the final spread. the weekend features the 19th chinese communist party congress. the country's most important political event only occurs twice a decade. this is bloomberg real yield. ♪
time for the final spread. fed chair janet yellen takes part of a group of 30 international banking seminar. catalonia faces a deadline regarding its independence. greek prime minister alexis tsipras visits the white house. goldman sachs reports earnings, and china holds is 19 party congress, the country's most important political event. still with us is michael cloherty, bonnie wongtrakool, and scott kimball. i want to talk more about what you are talking about with respect to shifting away from high-yield credit in the u.s. moving more to emerging markets. how are you doing that? recently, an increasing number of firms are putting more money into local currency, debt, and away from dollar-denominated emerging-market debt. is that what you're doing, as well?
bonnie: so emerging markets, we did start to move into that earlier at the beginning of the year, got that was a good value. since then spreads have compressed, particularly on the dollar denominated debt. we do have a decent allocation. i would say of his are following, but it has more room to go. if you look at the differential and real yields between developed and emerging market economies, we think it still holds value. lisa: scott, are you also shifting more of your portfolio into emerging markets? scott: we have not shifted our core plus strategies into em. we're emphasizing looking for opportunities in em corporate. the company is domiciled in emerging-market. lisa: michael, how concerned are you that this is a leveraged dollar bet? as soon as the dollar strengthens people get a rude awakening? michael: right, so some of the
bet is, do you think the fed will tighten hard and fast? probably not. if you get aggressive tightening, that is probably not going to work out too well. it's unlikely we will get an aggressive fed. we have had this gap. with some of the new fed chair potentials coming in, you will probably see a narrowing of the gap. i don't think you will see wild actual differences in policy by the different fed potential chairs, but we will see a change in how the market reacts. lisa: bonnie, are there any countries you are avoiding? bonnie: we're definitely selective. emerging markets is not a monolith. you need to have an active manager to go through that. you don't want to have passive exposure. different countries have different risks. there is going to be geopolitical risk across the entire world, little of emerging markets. in terms of credit we like, we do like argentina, brazil, india
and indonesia. some of that is based on the risk to china for example. china, we are confident china can kind of continue to decelerate growth, but we are cognizant about a misstep rocking the market. you need to coordinate accordingly. lisa: this is the period where we do rapidfire. you guys are supposed answer quickly. one word answers. you think it is likely we will see recession in the u.s. in the next 18 months? michael: no. bonnie: no. scott: no. lisa: what is riskier in the next six months, u.s. treasuries or emerging-market debt? michael: em. scott: em. lisa: which is more prone for losses, german or u.s. government bonds? michael: u.s. bonnie: u.s. scott: german. lisa: german, interesting, and
what is more overvalued? scott: high-yield. bonnie: high-yield. michael: high-yield. lisa: thank you so much michael cloherty, bonnie wongtrakool and scott kimball. from new york, that does it for us. we will see you next friday at 12:00 new york time, 5:00 p.m. in london. jonathan ferro will be back in the seat. this is "bloomberg real yield." ♪
♪ financially self sufficient at 14, nathan always knew he wanted to be an entrepreneur. the company he started in 2008 is now valued at more than $36 billion. achieve strategy officer at airbnb, from the company's san francisco headquarters, the company to which sharing economy could further shape our lives. ♪ nate, welcome to high flyers. good to have you with us today. nate: thanks. haslinda: airbnb, it was a model against everything your parents
taught you. here you are, one of three cofounders. take us through the early days. nate: that's right. this doesn't start with business ambitions. we were solving our own problem, how to pay the rent. haslinda: broke. nate: we were roommates in san francisco. in the summer of 2007, the rent an apartment was raised 25%. i said i'm out of here, but the two other guys wanted to say. they became entrepreneurs, also known as unemployed. [laughter] they were broke as well. they went to an international design conference in san francisco. all the hotels were sold out. they thought, why not rent out that empty room? the room was empty with no bed, but my friend set up an air bed. he called it an air head and breakfast -- air bead and
breakfast. that's what airbnb is is short for. they all went to the conference and had a good experience. it was just supposed to be that. a couple months later, the three of us had quit our jobs. we were living in san francisco, everybody wants to be an entrepreneur, so we were wrecking our brain, what can we do together? maybe there were other people in other situations where we could do the same thing. maybe we could make it just as easy to book someone's home as a hotel. haslinda: it wasn't so easy though, was it? you were the one who coded the original airbnb website. it must have been difficult. they have a dream. you have to bring it to reality.
how do you do it? nate: they can make it up in dream faster than i can coded. [laughter] that's why we wanted to work together. two things we noticed, we had the same work ethic -- haslinda: which was what? what was the work ethic? nate: when we did have jobs, on nights and weekends, we had projects. we noticed that about each other. the second thing is we had complementary skill sets. i was helping them create websites for their project. they were helping for my project. well, between the three of us, we can do anything. haslinda: airbnb wasn't your first startup. you had two or three other startups before that. how does it help your journey to airbnb? nate: well, actually, i got started as an engineer, head of programmer, computer programmer at the age of 12.
haslinda: real job. nate: yeah. haslinda: you are making money even back then. nate: what happened was, it started with me as a young person really liking computer games, like so many young people to. but then -- young people do. but then, i wanted to modify the games. my dad is an engineer. he has a lot of books on computers. one day, i was bored, sick from school, and looked through one of his books. this was a hobby i had. posted my work on the internet. i said, if you like my work, please send me five dollars. at the age of 14, i got a phone call. they offered $1,000 to make something similar. i told my dad. he laughed and said son, no one will pay you $1000. [laughter]
i said whatever, i'll do it. i got paid. i got introduced to other people, and begin a business iran threat high school. i made almost -- i ran throughout high school. i made almost $1 million. haslinda: paid for college. yes. i paid for college, more important than the money was the lesson that taught me. one, i could teach myself all the necessary skills to build these products. two, i could build these things that other people valued. i knew i wanted to be a lifelong entrepreneur. haslinda: what made you think airbnb was going to work? nate: i think literally it was because we had seen it firsthand. we have seen the value proposition designers from out of town, having a place to stay when there were no other options. also, how much they enjoy the local experience, friendships that were formed. that was something that was hard for people to understand. the first thing that came to mind was, how can you trust strangers?
on the other hand, we had overcome that mental barrier, and see what good can result. the question was how can we convince everyone? are major innovation in 2008 has been around trust, creating an environment where people can't -- can have trust, the good stuff can flourish after. it's really come down to three things in the beginning, user profiles that were very descriptive, very much about the person. second was how we handle the money. there's no risk of financial loss because you pay through airbnb as an intermediary. the third is, at the end of every transaction, the host reviews the guest, the guest reviews the host. literally people build up reputations. haslinda: have you been surprised by the listings you
have? there are castles, treehouses, private islands. nate: we literally offered an air bed at the beginning, the first accommodation ever on airbnb. it became entire apartments, then it branched out from there. one day, someone put a treehouse up, an island, about. [laughter] -- a boat. [laughter] at first, we didn't support it . thousands of boats have materialized. the internet has the ability to connect people to so much of the information that was previously lost. that's the same for the off-line world.
these tree houses and castles always existed, but you as an individual never had access until now. it's all on airbnb. in a couple of clicks, you can click it and stay there. ♪ nate: we went to a lot of investors and they said things like, this is not a price i would use. by the time we got to the end of the first year, we were having a conversation about, when do know that it's time to quit? ♪
take us through the challenging times. nate: it wasn't obvious. at the time, it was only us that i think believed in the vision. we went to a lot of investors, and they said things like, "this is not a product i would use." they couldn't believe that there was a large market. they said, how could you trust a changer with someone else's home? they repeatedly said that. in terror first year, we were unsuccessful -- in the entire first year, we were unsuccessful raising money. people said, i hope that's not the only thing you are working on. [laughter] it was very discouraging that first year. by the time we got to the end of the first year, we were having a conversation about, when you know that it's time to quit? we didn't have -- we weren't making money. we still have to pay rent. haslinda: you guys were broke. you have built tens of dozens of dollars. nate: that's how we were paying for things, on credit cards. [laughter] investors were uninterested. we had conversations, when do you know that it's time to quit? we had a realization that
although over the last year we had been working really hard, we had actually been a little bit distracted, to. we had side projects going on -- distracted, too. we had side projects going on, as a team we weren't focused. we said let's give it 3-4 months where we live together, and have nothing in their lives except for this. we will work 6-7 days a week. it will be very regimented. and if it doesn't work, we will quit. haslinda: you bought dozens of dozens of cereal boxes, something to do with obama o's and mccain. what happened? nate: we had to be creative with publicity.
how do we get the word out? at the time, it was leading up to the election. we had the idea of breakfast cereal with the president. back then, we were called air bed and breakfast. we said, ok, let's do a play on the breakfast idea, president themed breakfast cereal. we came up with obama-o's, and captain mccains. we put cereal together. the first 100 of these we mailed to reporters. [laughter] and we thought, if we email her, she will delete our email and not take us seriously, but if she gets cereal, she will be very curious and write about it. we ended up on "good morning america." the day we were on cnn, it
became number one political video of the day. in the box we created we sold on a website for $40 a box every three minutes. we made $30,000 that week. we like to joke that that's how we financed the company in the early days. haslinda: what helped also is the funding from sequoia capital, $600,000. that was a game changer. nate: at the end of the three months, our business was growing for the first time. we started making $200 a week, having no growth. by the end, we were making $4500 a week, all in the span of three months. and sequoia capital we got introduced to.
they were impressed with what they saw and they gave us that $600,000 funding, which ended up being a good investment. the company is now worth quite a lot, $30 billion valuation. going back to what i said earlier, we were on the verge of quitting. haslinda: what's interesting is the involvement of actor ashton kutcher. how did he get involved? who approached who? nate: most people know him as an actor, but he's a savvy and prolific investor as well. he's invested in a lot of tech companies. i forget exactly how the introduction was made, but he loved the model, and we thought it would be great to have him involved. he's obviously a part of mainstream pop culture. we thought, this is a concept that requires a bit of explaining and requires a bit of trust. maybe he can help us build the brand.
haslinda: nate, you, cto officer, now street -- now chief strategy officer. party position -- how do you position the company? nate: there's three large directions we are growing. one is geographic expansion, early on we set our sights on being the global cup the. honestly, it was a question in the early days. we thought we would only work in new york, united states will it work in asia, china? we have proven that it popular all over. we are in 191 countries. verse 400 million millennial's in china part of the middle class. haslinda: although there is great potential, what do you make of the competition?
nate: china is not known -- haslinda: it's a complicated market. nate: complicated, and fierce competition it is famous for treat our approach for china is to focus on her unique strengths. -- focus on our unique strengths. not many of our competitors have that much of a global network. that's the only way for chinese millennials to travel abroad and authentically experience the culture. it has allowed us to become popular and experience a lot of growth. ♪ haslinda: how does it feel to be a billionaire? nate: it's not something i expected. it's easy to give money away, but to do that anyway that has a maximum benefit requires a great deal of thinking. ♪
♪ haslinda: nate, i want to talk about how you grew up. mom's a homemaker, dad's an engineer, he had a huge influence. picked up an engineering book. it helped change everything for you. nate: it started before them. my dad, -- tommy a few things. so he was always trying to help us understand how things work. he was bringing things home from work. haslinda: like a xerox copier machine. [laughter]
nate: like a xerox copier machine, which was very large -- he literally had it in the backyard for half a year. he would do things like this and the screws, of letting me explore curiosity. he was a do-it-yourself data. -- dad. he's always fixing things himself. the project was too big or too small for him. he taught that spirit of, you can do this. you don't know how to do this, but you can learn how to do this and take it on. as an entrepreneur, you have to have that mentality. haslinda: many don't know you were also blacklisted -- you were once named in the registry. what happened? nate: i had this business in high school about internet marketing, specifically stuff around email marketing, of which can order on the line of spam, back in the 90's. haslinda: it was legal back then? nate: back then, this was a new
way of promoting oneself on the internet. the internet was brand-new. and there were no rules in what you could and could not do. this was a space explorer trade -- i explored. it was an emerging space. out of that has been born a whole industry that now is more tightly regulated, but also is still very important for companies, and how they promote themselves online and maintain relationships with customers. but these were the early days. haslinda: would you have done anything differently? nate: i don't know, but the advice i would give to any young person: any setback you experience along the way, put that in perspective, which is to say, there's a lot ahead of you. see that setback as a learning opportunity. we talked a lot about my success stories in high school, and now airbnb. there's plenty of things and worked on that were disappointing.
haslinda: such as? nate: programs i created, but a -- put a lot of work into that didn't take off. when i started airbnb, i was working on to other projects very hard that weren't successful. that was disappointing up a time. but when i look back on those, each experience was a learning opportunity that may be more successful once i started airbnb. i benefited from that experience. i would just encourage people to see failure as learning opportunity. and as long as you don't give up, you keep getting back up to bat. these are all things that make you stronger. haslinda: you know, you were
broke starting out and now you're worth about $3.5 billion. how does it feel to be a billionaire? nate: it does seem rather unreal. it's not something i tend to think about. i have a lot going on work-wise. [laughter] in my personal life, i have a family. i'm incredibly fortunate. it's a challenge thinking about this position, what do do with -- what do you do with that? the bottom line is, what do you do with that? it's not something i expected. i feel a responsibility. what excites me most is having a positive impact on people. through business, we do that in airbnb. the question i ask myself is, what can i do with my newfound wealth that will be beneficial to others, in a way that is maximally effective? it's easy to give money away, but to do that in a way that has a maximum benefit requires a great deal of thinking.
haslinda: you're a disruptor. people now are already sharing rides, homes. can 20-30 years down the road, how does the future economy look? what kind of other disruption do you see happening? nate: yeah, i think there are going to be a lot of changes in the broader economy, is going to create challenges and opportunities. one big challenge is with artificial intelligence and self driving cars, is going to be a lot of work that will require people. the question becomes, what will they do? work is important. that's going to create new opportunities for people to, well, you need to ask the question: what can people uniquely do? and one thing people uniquely have is passion. things around education and healthy living, bringing people together for special moments --
those are things that cannot be easily changed or eliminated through technology -- things that cannot be easily changed or eliminated through technology with these changes. with these changes, will there be enough scale through time for new markets to be created in these areas of teaching and connecting people with similar passions? haslinda: do you do airbnb every time you travel? and is your home listed on airbnb? nate: yes and yes. [laughter] i've literally states are hundreds of homes. yes, i'm houston san francisco. someone arrived today -- i'm a host in san francisco. haslinda: do they know that it's you? nate: sometimes, generally not. sometimes i will have a conversation with them on the sidewalk. they are often very shocked. [laughter]
♪ announcer: the thrill of living well is in the pursuit. the pursuit of the rarest experiences. the pursuit of the finest products. the pursuit of quality in everything you do. and in all of these pursuits, you need the best intelligence to make the best decisions. >> we know that she sells for a lot, but what makes her important? >> it isn't easy. it's difficult work. announcer: welcome to "bloomberg pursuits," where you find information that helps you follow your inspiration. in this edition, utility meets luxury in three new suvs. hannah: immediate power. immediate response. announcer: master the offbeat etiquette of eating ramen. ivan: it's totally cool to just pick up the bowl and drink from it