Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Abramowitz. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: To find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. The single headline, John,
Speaker 1: I see and this will be good to get into,
Speaker 1: Jeremy stretch out of g t FX at C I
Speaker 1: b C is what they do which we don't do,
Speaker 1: is they go out three years to two thousand twenty
Speaker 1: five and there's a miraculous conception of inflation plunging. There's
Speaker 1: no other way to put it. From an eight level
Speaker 1: down to a stunning two point four percent. That is
Speaker 1: optimism of a certain level. Jeremy, stretching all your years
Speaker 1: of central bank watching, Can they get out near three
Speaker 1: years and look for an inflation and disinflationary trend? Is
Speaker 1: the ECB publishers today or is that wish for thinking? Well?
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting that the CB are still anticipating
Speaker 1: the inflation will still be above their target threshold by
Speaker 1: the end of twenty twenty five. I wouldn't have been
Speaker 1: surprised that the ECB felt it would appropriate, or at
Speaker 1: least the ECB staff had attempted to try and find
Speaker 1: a narrative that allowed the inflation profile to get back
Speaker 1: to target. But clearly because of the upward revisions that
Speaker 1: we've seen in the profile that both this year and
Speaker 1: next year, it is going to be very very difficult
Speaker 1: to see or it's going to be a very tough
Speaker 1: ask for the ECB to be able to force or
Speaker 1: drive inflation with pressure down without probably a greater degree
Speaker 1: of economic dislocation that they're currently pricing into their forecast.
Speaker 1: So I think, but perhaps a little bit too too
Speaker 1: ambitious to optimistic contems to the growth trajectory, and if
Speaker 1: if we are going to see inflation falling back, it
Speaker 1: is going to be a very much a challenge that
Speaker 1: is going to have to be met by probably a
Speaker 1: more aggressive policy reaction than the market has been or
Speaker 1: certainly we have been considering well. Yeld declimbing in response
Speaker 1: to that, particularly the front end of the BUN market.
Speaker 1: Your German two years up by eleven basis points to two,
Speaker 1: the ten years up by eight or nine basis points
Speaker 1: on a ten year right now to a round about
Speaker 1: two percent two point zero two percent. For give me
Speaker 1: for throwing so many numbers at the war, but I
Speaker 1: do want to go through the inflation projections again from
Speaker 1: the u c B. We now see average inflation reaching
Speaker 1: eight point four percent in twenty two before decreasing a
Speaker 1: six point three percent in twenty three, with inflation expected
Speaker 1: to decline markedly over the course of the year. These
Speaker 1: are still really high, Prince Jeremy. Just to go through
Speaker 1: core and their projections there projected to average three point
Speaker 1: four percent in twenty two point three percent in twenty five.
Speaker 1: That's headline. When you strip out food and energy, that's
Speaker 1: projected to be three point nine percent on average in
Speaker 1: twenty two and then rise to four point two percent
Speaker 1: in twenty three. Can we just talk about that clip,
Speaker 1: High Jeremy, that they're looking for in core inflation through
Speaker 1: next year. Your thoughts on that and just how far
Speaker 1: they can push the terminal rate given what you expect
Speaker 1: to happen with GDP on what they're looking for as well. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, I think that, I mean, I think you know,
Speaker 1: when we've you've obviously been talking a lot about the
Speaker 1: FED projections over the course of the last twelve hours
Speaker 1: or so, and there is a real dichotomy in terms
Speaker 1: of the inflation profiles that we're seeing from those requisite
Speaker 1: central banks, and the pace of the moderation in terms
Speaker 1: of the Eurozone is very very glacial in effect. And
Speaker 1: of course, as you quite rightly say, those core inflationary
Speaker 1: pressures are going to be pronounced over the medium run,
Speaker 1: and that is going to be a real difficulty for
Speaker 1: the for the European central banks. So I think in
Speaker 1: the context of some of the discussions you're having after
Speaker 1: the FED last night, is that who has the greatest
Speaker 1: potential policy problem with policy dilemma than I think in
Speaker 1: the ECB definitely falls into that remit because of course,
Speaker 1: as we know, there are those fragmentation risks as well.
Speaker 1: So it's going to be very difficult to see how
Speaker 1: the ECB is going to be able to square the
Speaker 1: circle by trying to tighten policy but without creating significant
Speaker 1: degrees of uncircaity against what is still a backdrop of
Speaker 1: very lated and amplified core inflation repressures. And they do
Speaker 1: can see that the Euro Area economy may contract in
Speaker 1: the current quarter and next, So there is a hint
Speaker 1: at that recession, although not necessarily coming out with the
Speaker 1: same kinds of prognostications as the Bank of England also
Speaker 1: talking about food and underlying inflation, Jeremy is the e
Speaker 1: c B, which I think it was a lot more
Speaker 1: interesting in terms of the statement than the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: Is the ECB just sort of getting ahead of what
Speaker 1: the federal have to deal with and recognizing a stickier
Speaker 1: inflation for a longer period that goes beyond what the
Speaker 1: markets are currently allowing for. Yes, I think that's true.
Speaker 1: I think we are going to see core inflation proven
Speaker 1: to be remarkably sticky. So yes, we can see headline
Speaker 1: inflation repressures gradually easy if we are correct in assuming
Speaker 1: that those energy forward curves are correct. But core core inflation,
Speaker 1: in terms of service driven inflation, I think is going
Speaker 1: to be much more challenging to drive out of the system.
Speaker 1: And it may well be the case that we see
Speaker 1: many central banks facing difficulty to really squeeze core inflation
Speaker 1: back towards target thresholds over a two year four past arizons.
Speaker 1: So in a sense, that's why it's still interesting that
Speaker 1: the CB are still struggling to get back to their
Speaker 1: target threshold even in year three. And that just underlines
Speaker 1: that inflationary pressures I think are going to be much
Speaker 1: more pronounced and stickier, particularly if we're going to see
Speaker 1: wage growth remaining relatively elevated because of still relatively tight
Speaker 1: lego markets, even if we're seeing a moderation in macro activity.
Speaker 1: What a challenge. Jeremy Stretcher C I p C. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm already leaning too. January twelve. Well, you know we've
Speaker 1: got a job jobs report January six. I believe it is,
Speaker 1: but but I'm sorry, I'm already going to January talk
Speaker 1: to get another look at inflation. Someone doing that as
Speaker 1: well as Jonathan Pingle, chief you US Economics that you
Speaker 1: be as security Jonathan, I gotta study for you in
Speaker 1: your academics from years ago, and that is simply, is
Speaker 1: there any history of any central bank modeling and getting
Speaker 1: right a major three year disan flationary trend the FEDS
Speaker 1: trying to do it, and in technical this morning the
Speaker 1: e c B has elevated up inflation for this year
Speaker 1: and they go out to a nirvana in two thousand
Speaker 1: twenty five. Is there any predictability to that exercise? Well? Thanks, Tom,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. First of all, Yeah, forecasting inflation
Speaker 1: is hard. Um. I I think that has been proven, um,
Speaker 1: in spades in when we look back at history. You know,
Speaker 1: getting this exactly right on the way down is probably
Speaker 1: going to be as hard as getting it right on
Speaker 1: the way up. Um. When I think about the central
Speaker 1: bank experience, UM, you know, you've had some immaculate disinflations
Speaker 1: following World War Two. Is is one example. UM. It
Speaker 1: was certainly the case the Chairman Green's band seemed to be,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of ahead of the curve and the
Speaker 1: productivity gains in the mid nineties and the disinflation that
Speaker 1: that led to. UM. But you know, let's face it,
Speaker 1: a three year, two year, even one year head inflation
Speaker 1: forecast at the moment um, it is pretty difficult. UM.
Speaker 1: And in some respects UM. You know, I think the
Speaker 1: FED has been dealt a better hand than the e
Speaker 1: C BUM because they are getting some data in hand
Speaker 1: that starts to look like there is some real disinflation coming.
Speaker 1: What do you make though of how much of this
Speaker 1: disinflation really stems from some of the more variable areas,
Speaker 1: which include gas, natural gas, gasoline, crewe products. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: in the US. You know, certainly the energy um, you know,
Speaker 1: the energy prices moving up and down, UM, you know
Speaker 1: has played a role. But you've also got um a
Speaker 1: number of components of inflation, like you know, use car
Speaker 1: prices that you know, you know exploded higher in new
Speaker 1: car prices up UM, and we're already seeing use car
Speaker 1: prices fall two percent a month the last few cp
Speaker 1: I s. So UM. It is a lot of our
Speaker 1: little components. And you know, what goes up, you know,
Speaker 1: could come down quite quickly in the US. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, in Europe and the Eurozone, you know, the
Speaker 1: reasons to think inflation might be a little stickier than
Speaker 1: the USUM, particularly if the Fed does engineer and increase
Speaker 1: UM in unemployment UM. You know, in the US that
Speaker 1: does typically prove somewhat disinflationary, even if you think there's
Speaker 1: a flat Phillips curve. You know, in the Eurozone, they
Speaker 1: don't have quite the same flexibility in their labor markets UM,
Speaker 1: which you know, could also lead to sort of more
Speaker 1: persistence UM in the Eurozone relative to the US for inflation.
Speaker 1: Although the e c B did come out with perhaps
Speaker 1: an even more hawkish statement than the Federal Reserve in
Speaker 1: terms of how much higher they revised upward their inflation
Speaker 1: expectations for this year, for next year, for the year after.
Speaker 1: From your vantage point or the balance of risks, have
Speaker 1: they changed when it comes to both the FED and
Speaker 1: the ECB in terms of either going too far or
Speaker 1: not going enough. Before it was not going enough. Do
Speaker 1: you think now it's more evenly balanced? Oh? Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: I definitely, I think it's more evenly balanced. Li Sa, No,
Speaker 1: it's a great point, um. I mean, you know, we
Speaker 1: actually are expecting a pretty weak U S economy in
Speaker 1: the latter part of three. You know, that's both because
Speaker 1: households are exhausting their excess savings, which we think is
Speaker 1: going to you know, start to bind for more household
Speaker 1: and restrain consumption. And and on top of that, we're
Speaker 1: just gonna still pile the mounting effects of you know,
Speaker 1: what's been a very rapid tightening cycle. The e CV
Speaker 1: is a little bit further behind the FED. There they
Speaker 1: are playing some catch up, um, but there as well,
Speaker 1: you know, they are facing a tough economic outlook as well.
Speaker 1: So I do think these risks are becoming more balanced.
Speaker 1: Are we in neutrality? For rates? Yeah? In the US
Speaker 1: are we in neutrality in terms of the central bank ballet,
Speaker 1: So I would actually I mean, I you know, chure
Speaker 1: Pal yesterday said he thought policey rates were in restrictive territory.
Speaker 1: I would agree with that. I mean, there's a pretty
Speaker 1: big margin of error for whether or not, um, you're
Speaker 1: really at neutral. Um. I don't mean to interrupt, but
Speaker 1: just because Jonathan, just because of time, this is really important.
Speaker 1: What is the single variable of our mystery about that
Speaker 1: collar around neutrality? Is it inflation? Is it jobs? Is
Speaker 1: a g d P? Is it just we don't know? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean we just don't know. I mean it's also
Speaker 1: a longer run concept. I mean, you know there's a
Speaker 1: lot that goes into the neutral rate. It's our demographics
Speaker 1: are productivity growth, thank you, um, but it's you know,
Speaker 1: pinning it down in real time. It's your Powell's explained.
Speaker 1: Can he come on again? And I disgust that was great?
Speaker 1: Are you suggesting that the Yeah? I mean, Jonathan, thank you,
Speaker 1: that was brilliant. What he absolutely nailed there, which drives
Speaker 1: me nuts, is all it's like the dots, all this
Speaker 1: gazing and Pringle nails, the demographics nails the technology we're
Speaker 1: living in we don't understand, etcetera, etcetera. Jonathan panofs. But
Speaker 1: we can sit on the bank aving it for longer,
Speaker 1: Bioll meats. We're going to do that now with that
Speaker 1: shop Bettia, Deputy c i Owe the fixed income at
Speaker 1: Newberger Berman a show first to you, just your reflection,
Speaker 1: your thoughts on what we've learned from two central banks
Speaker 1: in the last twenty four hours. Yeah. I think the
Speaker 1: the overruning message is that the time of central banks
Speaker 1: being able to hike rates without an impact on the
Speaker 1: real economy and real growth, which was a lot of
Speaker 1: the story of two thousand and twenty two, that's over
Speaker 1: and we're now transitioning to this environment where central banks
Speaker 1: are divided over how do you wrestle with inflation rates
Speaker 1: which are very high but likely to come down and
Speaker 1: the future trade offs to growth And you know this,
Speaker 1: This dissension and the collared descents on the BOE really
Speaker 1: just put an exclamation point on it, which is there
Speaker 1: are some individuals that you know, think and want to
Speaker 1: conduct policy more on a forward looking basis us where
Speaker 1: others are still view the risk management attributes of policy
Speaker 1: making is we've still got to be very dependent upon inflation,
Speaker 1: and this is the debate that's going to be at
Speaker 1: all the central banks for for next year. How do
Speaker 1: you invest around that? How do you take the messaging
Speaker 1: and use it to to really create some sort of
Speaker 1: thesis based on the fact that a lot of other
Speaker 1: people are discounting at wholesale and say the data will
Speaker 1: be what the data will be, and we don't buy
Speaker 1: what they're selling. So I think the biggest investment implication
Speaker 1: is is fixed and convolatility is going to go down. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, you look at this year from low to high,
Speaker 1: the US tenure moved in about a three hundred basis
Speaker 1: point just under a three hundred basis point range. We're
Speaker 1: probably heading back to something next year where you know,
Speaker 1: we're going into this environment of slower hikes, fewer hikes.
Speaker 1: You know, I think consensus is broadly correct on that.
Speaker 1: But what that means is expect ten uere interest rates
Speaker 1: in the US to move maybe in a hundred hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty basis point range. It's going to be a
Speaker 1: dramatic reduction next year. And what that means is that
Speaker 1: income high quality income um it's going to be more
Speaker 1: volatile still on a day to day basis, But ultimately
Speaker 1: you invest on the idea that with less volatility you
Speaker 1: can earn income and high quality income, and you know,
Speaker 1: in a lot of fixed income markets, and you stay position.
Speaker 1: You have some positions on that, some of the more
Speaker 1: devish um uh, you know, central bank views that inflation
Speaker 1: can fall in the growth impact um that that that
Speaker 1: could play out and lead to some higher returns and
Speaker 1: fixed income next year. A shark is we approach neutrality
Speaker 1: or approach restriction? Is it easier to have confidence in
Speaker 1: a portfolio of fixed income? I mean, now that we're here,
Speaker 1: is it easier to prosecute a portfolio and hold a portfolio? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And I think the biggest driver of this, and Powell's
Speaker 1: actually I think been quite articulate on this, which is
Speaker 1: three big drivers of inflation. You've had goods inflation, housing inflation,
Speaker 1: and then services x housing. If you go back three months,
Speaker 1: all three of those were rising and who knew, who
Speaker 1: knew when they were going to stop. Um Now we're
Speaker 1: looking at goods prices in you know, mid to high
Speaker 1: single digit deflation. We're seeing some you know, higher conviction
Speaker 1: that over the next six months housing prices are going
Speaker 1: to come off but it still leaves this issue of
Speaker 1: the third which is the services ex housing inflation. But
Speaker 1: we've transitioned to this environment where call it two out
Speaker 1: of three of the big CPI categories, we have a
Speaker 1: little bit more confidence of we know what the trajectory
Speaker 1: will be there, and that's the key thing that gives
Speaker 1: you a little bit more confidence that some of the
Speaker 1: left tail of significantly higher rate possibilities are being reduced
Speaker 1: pretty quickly. So thanks for being with us today. We
Speaker 1: always appreciate it. We'll catch the with you a little
Speaker 1: bit later in the year. I'm sure I check battier
Speaker 1: the of new Berger Berman. We have the advantage and
Speaker 1: particularly after the Bank of England decision today, which I'm
Speaker 1: gonna call collar descent, those looking for a more aggressive
Speaker 1: rate move in the was looking for more dubbish rate
Speaker 1: moves have someone I could only think of. Adam Posen
Speaker 1: is the equivalent. John Riding is Chief Economic Advisor to
Speaker 1: bring capital with Service to the Bank of England, his
Speaker 1: Bank of England and also to the Federal Reserve System
Speaker 1: as well, and he joins us now with decades of
Speaker 1: experience here. What will you listen for from Governor Bailey
Speaker 1: is he has colored descent, something totally unfamiliar to Americans.
Speaker 1: Well occasionally have thought there's a bifurcation in these dissenting views.
Speaker 1: Two members of the committee didn't want any change in rates,
Speaker 1: which I find somewhat remarkable and speaks to the devishness
Speaker 1: of some people on the committee, and on one person
Speaker 1: wanting a larger than fifty basis point rate high um
Speaker 1: and then you then you had six going along. So
Speaker 1: so that what what were the two who were not expecting,
Speaker 1: not not unexpecting, but not wanting a rate high when
Speaker 1: the inflation rates running at almost ten percent? Now, what's interesting?
Speaker 1: Compare that to the Fed? And you asked what, I
Speaker 1: hope Governor Bailey sounds like j Pal did yesterday because he,
Speaker 1: for once, he put in a terrific performance and he
Speaker 1: kept pounding away at the markets. The terminal rate five
Speaker 1: point one percent, it's going to stay there for a while.
Speaker 1: Don't look for cuts until there's clear evidence that inflation
Speaker 1: is headed back to two percent. And as you make
Speaker 1: the point, the markets are saying, well, we're still not
Speaker 1: even going to price in a terminal funds rate above five.
Speaker 1: All comes down to inflation. And I think that markets
Speaker 1: to some degree, are looking for central banks to react
Speaker 1: as they reacted when economies are going into recession over
Speaker 1: the last two decades, when inflation wasn't a problem. Inflation
Speaker 1: is a real problem, and a much bigger problem in Europe.
Speaker 1: You made reference to the banking in the UK is
Speaker 1: a small, open economy. Um, the exchange rate has a
Speaker 1: really big impact on inflation, much more so than than
Speaker 1: in the US UM and of course the bank also
Speaker 1: has to navigate A nice get little update on those
Speaker 1: troubles in the guilt market back in September forced the
Speaker 1: Bank of England to begin easing again with temporary quantitative easing.
Speaker 1: The day after, they confirmed that they were going to
Speaker 1: start quantitative tightening the following week, and they had to
Speaker 1: abandon those plans, which John, let's unpack some of this,
Speaker 1: and let's start with the nature of the descent on
Speaker 1: the b O way. The individuals that didn't think we
Speaker 1: should hike interest rates today, they believe in long and
Speaker 1: variable lags. They think the cumulatively over the last twelve months,
Speaker 1: we've done enough already and that's going to hit the
Speaker 1: economy next year, We're going to go into recession. They
Speaker 1: ultimately must believe that inflation is going to be on
Speaker 1: a downtrend. What would you say back to that, Well,
Speaker 1: let's use the language that the FED has adopted. Policy
Speaker 1: needs to be not just restrictive, but sufficiently restrictive to
Speaker 1: get inflation down. And ask, is a three and a
Speaker 1: half percent interest rate when inflation is at around nine
Speaker 1: and a half percent restrict if at all? Real interest
Speaker 1: rates interest rates adjusted for inflation are at negative six
Speaker 1: percent on the policy rate. And I don't know any
Speaker 1: economic theory that would say a negative six percent interest
Speaker 1: rate is a restrictive policy setting. So the message and
Speaker 1: the message to Fed has shifted to now they were late,
Speaker 1: but they continued easing through the inflation problem last year.
Speaker 1: But at least now they're they're getting that message out
Speaker 1: and and have they done their messaging. They said, it's
Speaker 1: not a question just how fast we raise rates, That's
Speaker 1: that's a lesser important question. Now it's how high and
Speaker 1: how long are we going to keep it there? And
Speaker 1: I think that they Europe and then the Bank of
Speaker 1: England is struggling with the how high. I think the
Speaker 1: Fed's largely got the message right, But then the next
Speaker 1: part of the message is going to be how long.
Speaker 1: And that's where the market simply just don't believe. They
Speaker 1: believe that the recession is going to lead to lower
Speaker 1: inflation and that's going to do the FEDS and Bank
Speaker 1: of England's and the ECB's job for them. And I
Speaker 1: think with these particularly these supply shocks on energy prices
Speaker 1: and still horrible developments in the Ukraine, these policy rates.
Speaker 1: To imagine that a three percent policy rate would be
Speaker 1: high enough to bring inflation down, um, I just don't
Speaker 1: get it. There's also a disbelief, though, just to push
Speaker 1: back a little bit, that we could go from eighteen
Speaker 1: trillion dollars of negative yielding debt in the world to
Speaker 1: one trillion dollars of negative yielding debt in just a
Speaker 1: couple of months and that nothing will break and then
Speaker 1: suddenly we'd have this complete regime change that everyone would
Speaker 1: say that was going to be catastrophic, and then suddenly
Speaker 1: it would all be okay, and it wouldn't be enough,
Speaker 1: and suddenly rates had to go much higher. People don't
Speaker 1: believe that things can change this quickly without some consequences
Speaker 1: that we have not yet seen. How do you push
Speaker 1: back against that, Well, you're actually right I mean something
Speaker 1: did break back in September, which which was the guilt market,
Speaker 1: and then you were in an uncontrolled um rise in
Speaker 1: guilt yields because of the leverage decisions that UK pension
Speaker 1: funds had taken number of funds in terms of buying
Speaker 1: UK government bonds on borrowed money so they could also
Speaker 1: invest in equities to try and catch up with their underfunding.
Speaker 1: And what happened was those that that important and why
Speaker 1: did they do that? Because central banks have kept interesting
Speaker 1: it's too low for too long and they've been buying
Speaker 1: the assets and so banks got pension funds got over leverage.
Speaker 1: So something did brick and other things may break. The
Speaker 1: break in the crypto market I think is largely unrelated
Speaker 1: to um. These these policy issues, but things things will break.
Speaker 1: But but if you abandon targeting inflation, which of course
Speaker 1: in a sense the New York Fed has actually touched
Speaker 1: on that with this our star star concept, there might
Speaker 1: be interest rate that might need to be hind for
Speaker 1: and inflation might break the financial system. Yeah, I gotta
Speaker 1: ask you a question before we run out of time.
Speaker 1: I've heard this story before. The only reason you got
Speaker 1: into came, which is your mother beat math into you.
Speaker 1: It's well, well, well understands you said at the kitchen
Speaker 1: table and said, Johnny, do your your math. Can the
Speaker 1: time continuum that you mentioned there be a substitute for level?
Speaker 1: Can the Feds substitute a certain level of interest rates
Speaker 1: for getting up to a Bullard like excess terminal rate? Yes?
Speaker 1: I think they can. But the difference between the Fed
Speaker 1: is that they have policy rates getting clear at least
Speaker 1: close to if not in restrictive territory, and when the
Speaker 1: end and planning to get an ongoing process is going
Speaker 1: to get rates higher, and then they can let those
Speaker 1: rates sit. And I think that's where the conversation shifts.
Speaker 1: I have the problem the banking that the ECB is
Speaker 1: policy rates and know when you're restrictive, so time cannot
Speaker 1: substitute for that. I just imagine that. Look up the
Speaker 1: the articles the Federal on opportune disinflation back in because
Speaker 1: that is going to be I think that if the
Speaker 1: February visits that the genesis of framework for the idea
Speaker 1: that we can just sit at a restrictive rate for
Speaker 1: a longer period of time to push down on inflation,
Speaker 1: and that will work, providing the FED has credibility. I'm
Speaker 1: providing policy is on a restrictive setting. John, this was awesome.
Speaker 1: I'll just tell you how great it is to see
Speaker 1: Mrs Riding in the studio as well. Fantastic, isn't that great?
Speaker 1: Taka love screen, Love that, John, Thank you, Thank you,
Speaker 1: John Ryding. Bring capital, France and Argentina. Oh, after the
Speaker 1: hand of God incident. I've got to go with France.
Speaker 1: Just can't let that go. Can't let it go? Come
Speaker 1: that we go back to the eighties. I have no
Speaker 1: idea what you're talking about. Okay, So like the voice
Speaker 1: of God, you don't know what Diego did. No no clue,
Speaker 1: Get on YouTube and find out. Ridiculous, John, how am
Speaker 1: I working with her? This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to
Speaker 1: ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: each day from six to nine am for insight from
Speaker 1: the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Surveillance Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course on the terminal. I'm Tom
Speaker 1: Keene and this is Bloomberg