Bloomberg TV anchor Stephanie Ruhle welcomed a beautiful baby girl last week.
Her daughter, Drew Beachley Hubbard, was born on Friday, April 19th.
Thought Drew was my treat for week-then #StreetSmart gang sent these!Thnx! @ajinsight @trish_regan @jasonfarkas#btvtwitter.com/SRuhle/status/…
— Stephanie Ruhle (@SRuhle) April 21, 2013
Congrats, Stephanie!
Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.
Bloomberg TV's Stephanie Ruhle laid down the latest word on hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones' controversial comments on Wall Street's lack of female traders, and they're the best we've heard yet.
Why? Because Ruhle's call is a call to action — she wants him to do more than talk about the lack of women trading on Wall Street, she wants him to do something about it.
In case you missed it, a few weeks ago The Washington Post published a video of Jones giving a speech at his alma mater, UVA, and here's what he said:
"As soon as that baby's lips touched that girl's bosom, forget it. Every single investment idea, every desire to understand what's going to make this go up or go down is going to be overwhelmed by the most beautiful experience which a man will never share about a connection between that mother and that baby."
The blogosphere exploded with arguments for why this comment was sexist — because (scientifically) men are just as predisposed to getting attached to kids as women, because (scientifically) women can be better traders ... and so forth.
Ruhle, who rose through the ranks at Deutsche Bank herself, isn't even touching that. She acknowledges that, science or gaffe aside, PTJ's comments are those of an experienced hedge fund manager and likely true. Women leave The Street in droves after they have kids despite every corporate effort to recruit them.
From Ruhle in The Huffington Post:
Since leaving DB, I have participated in many conferences and swish events that other financial institutions have held for their women's groups. Those institutions too have very few senior women in their senior ranks, especially in trading. So where is the disconnect?
Paul Tudor Jones' remarks were ugly and revealing...The most talented investors are animals solely focused on winning. In reality, no one on Wall Street cares about anything except performance. It isn't easy for women to navigate their way to the most coveted trading positions, especially with the lack of sponsorship, but when they do it's all about the numbers. Investing is pure....It shouldn't matter who delivers it. If that is true, why haven't more women reached the top? I challenge Mr. Jones to embrace his well-honed problem solving skills and help answer why so many resources are devoted to recruiting and retaining women when they may be destined for the pink ghetto.
In short, she wants PTJ to do something about this issue. Wall Street shouldn't just be throwing resources at women because it has to, it should be building women up so the industry will rise with them.
As Ruhle pointed out, women are the sole or primary breadwinner in 40% of households and they're graduating from college in droves, surely there are some awesome female traders out there.
Or not, but they deserve the chance to find out.
So I begrudgingly thank Paul Tudor Jones for raising the very unattractive side of this issue. We don't like to hear it. Now I must raise an even thornier dilemma. What if he's right? Is it bias that leads to the current situation or reality? Are there hundreds of women who want to be macro traders that are being held back by the men or the establishment? Or do their skills really vanish the moment they have a child? The thing about Wall Street is that people are very focused on performance. If you can put up the numbers, it shouldn't matter if you wear a dress or a tie. So let's test Paul's hypothesis. Remove the bias and see if mothers can succeed.
Ruhle's view is the only one we've heard that doesn't simply dismiss Jones' remarks as sexist without looking at the reality of their implications. He's not simply wrong, this is a complicated social problem, as Business Insider has argued, and there must be a solution. People's biases don't change over night, sometimes they need to be pushed by those who control the institutions we interact with every day.
This wouldn't be the first time that people have needed to see change in front of them before changing their minds.
So have at it, PTJ.
Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.
When you're taking in your must-read financial news, you're probably dreaming about the journalists who brought you each sentence and number.
Brains are, after all, very attractive.
Now, put that together with an actually good looking person and you've got a dangerous combination.
We found the 35 sexiest financial journalists in both print and TV who embody brains and beauty.
They'll get some information out of you for sure.
Today we'll put aside the hedge fund battles, the controversial calls, and the wrangling with Washington and give thanks for what really matters — family, football, and most crucial for our purposes right here, food.
Business Insider asked some Wall Street notables what they'll be looking forward to eating today.
Here's what they said:
That's all everyone. Have an awesome day.
Quant fund manager Cliff Asness dropped a sexist line while talking about "quant stuff"with Stephanie Ruhle on Bloomberg Television.
"So yeah, you're giving me that look that I get when I talk to women about quant stuff," Asness said to Ruhle during the first few minutes of the interview.
She called him out on it.
He backed it up saying he was only making fun of himself in college.
"Two minutes in, and I'm getting sexist by accident. Just to be clear, that was me making fun of myself in college."
Here's a transcript to give it some context:
Asness: Now, the way I invest and AQR invests, we are quantitative ... We tend to take many different positions and they tend to be offsetting positions. So we certainly take risks. I won't pretend that's not riskless, but we try very hard — succeed more often than we don't, but not always — not to make what we do about what happens in the Ukraine. To have offsetting positions. So for me, when something happens in the Ukraine, it's going to affect my portfolio, but for me this is a weird concept — I shouldn't know how.
Ruhle: One more time?
Asness: OK, let's say you're market-neutral. You're long a bunch of things. You're short a bunch of things. You think these things are better than these things.
Ruhle: Uh-huh.
Asness: If the world is good, you're going to make money on the longs more than the shorts. And if the world is bad they're going to go down less. If something happens, it's going to scramble the whole thing.
Ruhle: Yes.
Asness: I still hope to make money. But I wasn't betting on that thing. I wasn't calling the Ukraine. So yeah, you're giving me that look that I get when I talk to women about quant stuff.
Ruhle: Oh, really? Are you hitting me with sexist line right there? ... Let's just have a time-out right there ... Sorry, this is how it goes. "When I talk to women about quant stuff ... " I mean, seriously ... I'm, like, ringing a foul-ball bell ...
Asness: Two minutes in and I'm getting sexist by accident. Just to be clear, that was me making fun of myself in college.
Ruhle: [Laughs] All right.
We've included some screenshots of the reaction:
Watch below:
Forget Halloween... Let's just call it Stephanie Ruhle Day!
All Hallows Eve is the Bloomberg TV star anchor's favorite holiday and she owns it.
"I love Halloween because—unlike most holidays—there is no gift, travel, family or meal pressure. It's just about a great party. I especially like costumes because everything is better when you are wearing an afro or a mustache. I spend my days interviewing people, so the last thing I want to do on a Friday night is walk into a crowded cocktail party and discuss jobs, real estate or school admissions....I am however interested in where a stranger may have picked up his chaps or her go-go boots," Ruhle told Business Insider.
She's going to debut two costumes this year. Here's the first one of Ruhle and her husband dressed and Bruce and Kris Jenner.
Here's another shot to get the full effect.
In case you're in need of some inspiration, check out some of Ruhle's past costumes she's been posting to social media for the month of October.
Bloomberg TV's star anchor Stephanie Ruhle and her husband, Andy Hubbard, are selling their beautiful Tribeca condo for $5.2 million.
Ruhle is the cohost of "Market Makers" and Hubbard is currently a portfolio manager at UBS O'Connor (multi-strategy hedge fund) where he runs their structured credit strategies.
Their stunning 2,783-square-foot three-bedroom, three-and-a-half bathroom home was designed by Stephanie's award-winning architect sister, Stacey Ruhle Kliesch.
StreetEasy has the listing.
Bill Ackman, the hedge fund billionaire, looked calm at the Bloomberg "Most Influential" Conference on Tuesday.
He usually does, especially when he's offering his help.
"I guess maybe I could help Valeant with PR," he said with a chuckle.
"They are not good at PR and perhaps government relations ... they went from being a very small pharma company to being a very big pharma company fairly quickly. And they’re a bit of what I call an outsider company."
The crowd didn't share Ackman's sense of humor that day, it seemed, as no one else laughed.
Perhaps that's because Ackman, the ultimate insider, was defending a hedge fund darling that had seen better days. Since September 18, Valeant's stock has lost a quarter of its value.
Over the last two weeks especially, accusations that it arbitrarily and exorbitantly jacks up the prices of drugs it purchases into its portfolio while dramatically under spending its peers on R&D have started flying at Valeant from all directions.
This year, Valeant raised the prices of its brand name drugs by 66%, Deutsche Bank said in a recent report. That's 5 times more than other drug companies in the space.
House Democrats have even asked to subpoena the company and call its CEO to Washington to explain himself.
Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both called out the company.
This price-gouging issue was brought to America's attention when hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli got a nationwide wag of the finger for jacking up the price of a drug he'd purchased by 5,000%.
The practice wasn't illegal of course, but it was arguably unethical — something that the market has never had much success at differentiating.
Bloomberg's Stephanie Ruhle made that ethics point — and brought up Shkreli — to Ackman during her interview.
"That's not my favorite version of how to make money for sure," he responded.
"And obviously those kind of glaring examples are going to attract a lot of attention. There's been a lot of attention on Valeant cuts dragged into the story. A very small part of Valeant's business is repricing drugs."
The question is, then, why has Valeant been dragged in? And what is its business anyway?
If you love Valeant, this is how you explain its business model:
Valeant “is not a company whose strategy can be easily categorized,” said Nomura's Shibani Malhotra in a recent note, reassuring clients that the stock was still a buy.
Malhotra also said that it is not built on predatory pricing post acquisitions, but rather on efficient capital allocation.
Ackman explains it in much the same way. He also says that it has had a "massive contribution to drug development, almost more than any other company" despite the fact that its peers spend 15%-20% of their revenue on R&D to its 3%.
"Valeant doesn’t pay dividends, so it's no cash leaving the system," Ackman said on Tuesday. "And it's not buying back stock, right. So they generate a lot of cash flow. Where does it go? Well, they spend about 3 percent of revenues on R&D."
Ackman continued: "They spend money building plants to make pharmaceuticals. They pay their employees. Valeant believes that they are not good at drug development, i.e., or really coming up with new molecules and taking them all the way to the approval process.
"That's a — has been historically a very low return business."
And no one wants a difficult, low return business by definition.
Instead, Valeant focuses on marketing and distributing the drugs it acquires through M&A. That is what the company believes it is good at.
To make that happen, though, it must increase the prices of the drugs it acquires, according to Ackman.
An unfortunate side effect, according to this argument.
So where a traditional drug company raises prices so that it can work on the next innovation, Valeant is raising prices so that it can buy the latest innovation.
"Now if you regulate prices, if you say you can't charge market for a drug, that's going to reduce the profit," Ackman said.
"That's going to reduce the cash they have to buy the next drug company. That's going to reduce the returns the entrepreneur, the scientist, the startup can receive starting a drug company."
If you hate Valeant, this is how you explain its business model:
Valeant jacks up the prices of the drugs it purchases because it doesn't grow organically. In fact, for years short-sellers have accused the company of being a roll-up — a company that uses aggressive accounting to appear healthier than it is.
"Drug revenues have always been a withering asset class; even more so for Valeant's strategy of buying mature drugs already in the market," wrote short-selling firm Citron Research in a recent note.
"Attrition of drug revenues is normal in the pharma business, as newer products, better treatments, expiring patents and competition from generics all eat away earlier-achieved revenue runs."
For most companies, this is a cyclical thing as old drugs get older and new drugs go into the pipeline. But since all of Valeant's drugs are old, its detractors posit that it has to raise the prices of all the drugs it acquires.
Last year, Ackman unsuccessfully tried to help Valeant buy Allergan, another pharmaceutical company. Allergan also claimed that Valeant had no organic growth. On top of that, it was concerned that Valeant would take Allergan's R&D cash to do M&A deals, acquire more companies and move on.
And it needs that cash. Because Valeant's valuation is low as measured by P/E, it's not very attractive for them to use their stock to finance M&A. After its failed Allergan purchase attempt, Valeant acquired another drug company, Salix, in an all cash deal.
"Obviously if you're a consumer and all of the sudden your drug goes up in price, that's something you're going to be sensitive to," said Ackman on Tuesday, "but very few people pay gross price."
What does it matter if you're not paying gross price, though, if the price you're paying is still too high?
That, according to the Financial Times, is what Berna Wilson experienced when Valeant increased the price of Syprine, a drug used to treat a rare condition called Wilson's disease. Despite having good insurance, her out of pocket cost went from $510 a year in 2010 to $12,000 a year in 2014.
That's some kind of gross price.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: The CEO who raised the price of a life-saving pill 5,000% is doubling down
Today Barney Frank appeared on Bloomberg TV with Erik Schatzker and Stephanie Ruhle.
The soon-to-be-retired Congressman and former head of the Financial Services Committee touched on everything from money market funds to financial regulation.
Everything seemed to be going just fine — no Maria Bartiromo style fights here— until about 7 minutes into the interview.
That's when Stephanie Ruhle asked Frank about Jamie Dimon's testimony after the $2 billion trading loss in JP Morgan's London Chief Investment Office. She asked Frank if regulators had the ability to regulate Wall Street given the fact that DImon's testimony was "softball city."
Frank was visibly displeased.
"I'm sorry, I think you watched only the Senate. If you go back and watch the House hearing…"
Ruhle broke in and said that she watched both hearings to which Frank replied frustratedly — "may I finish!"
He and Ruhle talked over one another for a few tense moments (she explained a new point, and he acknowledged it) before they got back on track.
"The House members, particularly the Democrats, but a couple of the Republicans, were quite critical of the practices of the bank and asked some very tough questions of Mr. Dimon about his support for being totally deregulated in London."
Frank went on to elaborate about regulating American companies trading abroad, and when he was done Ruhle followed up with:
"Well he (Dimon) seems somewhat happy now because his job is quite secure while other people's at JP Morgan is not."
That really upset Frank: "Excuse me no, I don't like you to make these kind of comments and not let me respond!"
From there, its rough going.
This past weekend, the designated market maker, Knight Capital, secured crucial financing to keep the company afloat via a deal with Jefferies.
Stephanie Ruhle of Bloomberg Television's Market Makers, explained the deal and all that happened during the 48 hour window.
In the clip, Ruhle does a fantastic job describing exactly why Knight CEO Tom Joyce chose the Jefferies deal and not the deal proposed by Ken Griffin of Citadel.
Did you know that in 2011, Citadel hired two of Knight's former executives to run the firms new quantitative trading unit?
Well, here's the clip from Bloomberg.
Bloomberg TV's Stephanie "Red Specs" Ruhle got to meet hot-shot Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte last night during Fashion's Night Out in Manhattan.
Lochte, an eleven-time Olympic medalist, was even wearing Ruhle's famous red specs that she always Tweets about.
Check out this Instagram picture she Tweeted.
We're not saying Bloomberg's Stephanie Ruhle and AQR's Cliff Asness should quit their day jobs and go on tour, but they had some solid one-liners at the Bloomberg Markets 50 conference today.
Ruhle asked Asness about everything from his time at Goldman to the philosophy at AQR and how that applies to the hedge fund world in general. Pretty standard stuff, until you pick out the zingers.
Here are some of our favorites:
See? Who said Quants were no fun?
Bloomberg TV's Stephanie Ruhle has been at the University of Virginia since last night, interviewing hedge fund manager Kyle Bass, talking to Darden Business School students, and attending a football game.
Obviously, we're jealous. Ruhle had a wonderful time, and said as much during a short monologue on Bloomberg.
Here's a snipit:
"I cannot believe my loyal team in New York is playing 'Hot For Teacher', they do everything they can to make me feel like a cougar and let me tell you on the field last night with the team I sure felt like one."
Watch the whole thing below:
TV star Stephanie Ruhle is pregnant!
The former Wall Streeter and anchor of Market Makers and Lunch Money will be having a bouncing baby girl in April.
"I've spent 14 years on a trading floor of boys. I've got two at home, plus my husband," Ruhle told Business Insider. "One of the best parts about coming to Bloomberg was finally being surrounded by great women and now I'll be adding another one to the mix since I'm expecting a baby girl in April."
Best of luck Stephanie!
Hedge fund legend David Tepper is on Bloomberg TV with Stephanie Ruhle today, and arguably the best part of the interview has nothing to do with what Tepper's is saying about markets.
The best part of the interview may actually be the 1978 Tepper photos Bloomberg flashed on TV a few minutes into the interview.
Check them out below:
David Tepper, the founder of hedge fund Appaloosa Management, let his hair completely down in an interview with Bloomberg TV's Stephanie Ruhle this morning.
It was so revealing that we even found out that Tepper won 'Best Actor' in high school. Ruhle, being an enterprising journalist, wanted to see why.
Tepper played father Harry MacAfee in the classic musical 'Bye Bye Birdie', but to showcase his talent, he sang some of Conrad Birdie's part.
He didn't do a bad job either. Check out how delighted Stephanie Ruhle is about 0:56 into the video.
Check it out below (from Bloomberg):
Bloomberg TV's sassy, smart, and outspoken Stephanie Ruhle has been on air for a short time, but she already has a loyal following on Wall Street.
Every weekday, Ruhle acts as a foil to her straight-laced co-host, Erik Schatzker on Market Makers. A former banker herself, she's not only known for her easy manner with some of the biggest names in the business, but also for her scoops. It was Ruhle, after all, who harpooned the London Whale.
For all those reasons and more, Business Insider asked her to take us on a tour of her life. Ruhle was kind enough to oblige. The day starts at 5:35 a.m. and does not stop until around 11:00 p.m., or maybe later.
"If I'm lucky 11 p.m. ... I go out a lot at night and usually I return after my kids go to bed," Ruhle told Business Insider. "But if I'm home and try to be disciplined, it usually fails and I get sucked into watching the newest episode of Girls."
We've all been there.
This morning, Bloomberg TV's Stephanie Ruhle took a tour of NYC's super exclusive Core Club, and it's something you should definitely see.
The club costs $50,000 to join with annual dues set at $15,000. Members include the likes of Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang and John Rogers of Ariel Investments.
All of that gets you amenities like James Beard awarded chefs, a gym, raquetball court, deals with private jet company XOJet... the usual. They're not stopping there though, founder Jennie Enterprise is looking to expand to other globe trotting hotspots Core Club memebers hit.
Check out the video from Bloomberg below:
Bloomberg TV anchor Stephanie Ruhle welcomed a beautiful baby girl last week.
Her daughter, Drew Beachley Hubbard, was born on Friday, April 19th.
Thought Drew was my treat for week-then #StreetSmart gang sent these!Thnx! @ajinsight @trish_regan @jasonfarkas#btvtwitter.com/SRuhle/status/…
— Stephanie Ruhle (@SRuhle) April 21, 2013
Congrats, Stephanie!
Bloomberg TV's Stephanie Ruhle laid down the latest word on hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones' controversial comments on Wall Street's lack of female traders, and they're the best we've heard yet.
Why? Because Ruhle's call is a call to action — she wants him to do more than talk about the lack of women trading on Wall Street, she wants him to do something about it.
In case you missed it, a few weeks ago The Washington Post published a video of Jones giving a speech at his alma mater, UVA, and here's what he said:
"As soon as that baby's lips touched that girl's bosom, forget it. Every single investment idea, every desire to understand what's going to make this go up or go down is going to be overwhelmed by the most beautiful experience which a man will never share about a connection between that mother and that baby."
The blogosphere exploded with arguments for why this comment was sexist — because (scientifically) men are just as predisposed to getting attached to kids as women, because (scientifically) women can be better traders ... and so forth.
Ruhle, who rose through the ranks at Deutsche Bank herself, isn't even touching that. She acknowledges that, science or gaffe aside, PTJ's comments are those of an experienced hedge fund manager and likely true. Women leave The Street in droves after they have kids despite every corporate effort to recruit them.
From Ruhle in The Huffington Post:
Since leaving DB, I have participated in many conferences and swish events that other financial institutions have held for their women's groups. Those institutions too have very few senior women in their senior ranks, especially in trading. So where is the disconnect?
Paul Tudor Jones' remarks were ugly and revealing...The most talented investors are animals solely focused on winning. In reality, no one on Wall Street cares about anything except performance. It isn't easy for women to navigate their way to the most coveted trading positions, especially with the lack of sponsorship, but when they do it's all about the numbers. Investing is pure....It shouldn't matter who delivers it. If that is true, why haven't more women reached the top? I challenge Mr. Jones to embrace his well-honed problem solving skills and help answer why so many resources are devoted to recruiting and retaining women when they may be destined for the pink ghetto.
In short, she wants PTJ to do something about this issue. Wall Street shouldn't just be throwing resources at women because it has to, it should be building women up so the industry will rise with them.
As Ruhle pointed out, women are the sole or primary breadwinner in 40% of households and they're graduating from college in droves, surely there are some awesome female traders out there.
Or not, but they deserve the chance to find out.
So I begrudgingly thank Paul Tudor Jones for raising the very unattractive side of this issue. We don't like to hear it. Now I must raise an even thornier dilemma. What if he's right? Is it bias that leads to the current situation or reality? Are there hundreds of women who want to be macro traders that are being held back by the men or the establishment? Or do their skills really vanish the moment they have a child? The thing about Wall Street is that people are very focused on performance. If you can put up the numbers, it shouldn't matter if you wear a dress or a tie. So let's test Paul's hypothesis. Remove the bias and see if mothers can succeed.
Ruhle's view is the only one we've heard that doesn't simply dismiss Jones' remarks as sexist without looking at the reality of their implications. He's not simply wrong, this is a complicated social problem, as Business Insider has argued, and there must be a solution. People's biases don't change over night, sometimes they need to be pushed by those who control the institutions we interact with every day.
This wouldn't be the first time that people have needed to see change in front of them before changing their minds.
So have at it, PTJ.
