Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane.
Speaker 1: Daily we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, and of course on the Bloomberg What
Speaker 1: a joy it has been through surveillance this morning to
Speaker 1: speak to any number of women who have been out
Speaker 1: front with academic courage and uh professionalism within the industry,
Speaker 1: including Julia Cornado with us earlier and now for the
Speaker 1: entire hour. Thrilled to bring you Abby Joseph Cohen, who's
Speaker 1: had a wonderful commitment to my work at Bloomberg on
Speaker 1: the economy and Bloomberg Surveillance, and that she would commit
Speaker 1: an hour to us this morning is greatly appreciated. Abby. Um,
Speaker 1: you are the permeable, but the pros who know you
Speaker 1: know you're not. And you have shifted over the last
Speaker 1: number of months. Why have you shifted from a real
Speaker 1: optimism on the stock market and on making money over
Speaker 1: the long term to something that is more cautious. What
Speaker 1: brought about that shift? Well, thank you very much for
Speaker 1: including me in your programming today. I'm flattered to be
Speaker 1: given this much time. In response to your question, I'm
Speaker 1: going to quote Lord Maynard Kines, who one asked why
Speaker 1: he had changed this forecast. He said, when the facts change,
Speaker 1: I changed my mind. What do you do? And as
Speaker 1: I take a look at things right now, UM, we
Speaker 1: have this very mixed picture. It's almost bipolar, uh, in
Speaker 1: terms of one extreme versus the other. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: the fundamentals of the U S economy looks lalid. The
Speaker 1: economy is growing well, g d P is rising, the
Speaker 1: unemployment rate is moving lower, corporate profits moving up. All
Speaker 1: of that looks great. And this is against a backdrop
Speaker 1: in which inflation interest rates are rising only in a
Speaker 1: very modest way. But what are the concerns? I'll start
Speaker 1: with valuation. You know, if something good is already priced in,
Speaker 1: where are the surprises likely to come from? And I
Speaker 1: would say that what is priced into bonds right now
Speaker 1: is that inflation um will stay extremely quiescent, and that
Speaker 1: demand for US bonds will stay extremely robust. And I
Speaker 1: think if anything we are making as a marketplace, UM,
Speaker 1: we we're all too complacent about that. I think rates
Speaker 1: are rising, and I am concerned that demand for treasury securities,
Speaker 1: particularly among non American investors, may in fact be declining somewhat.
Speaker 1: The second thing I would point to is the following.
Speaker 1: We are all creatures of our arithmetic. We run the
Speaker 1: valuation models. We have numbers for earnings, numbers for g
Speaker 1: d P, numbers for job gains. What we have a
Speaker 1: harder time building into our models are some of the
Speaker 1: other things, the other factors. And right now I think
Speaker 1: we're looking at notable changes in government policy, and some
Speaker 1: of these are not for the better. You know. Just
Speaker 1: a few moments ago, Mario drag when he was asked
Speaker 1: about the European outlook, which is improving, growth is accelerating there.
Speaker 1: When asked what he was concerned about, he says, the
Speaker 1: number one risk was trade protectionism in the world, and
Speaker 1: I am concerned about that, particularly since the United States
Speaker 1: UH seems to have thrown down the gauntlet and thrown
Speaker 1: down the gauntlet in a in an ill considered manner,
Speaker 1: So that to me is a risk. I also think
Speaker 1: there are risks in terms in terms of some of
Speaker 1: the other policies that have already been implemented UH that
Speaker 1: I think there were errors made, for example, in the
Speaker 1: tax policy, but there are also errors in terms of
Speaker 1: the things we're not doing, And we could spend a
Speaker 1: whole hour on this, but basically, long term growth of
Speaker 1: any economy is tried arithmetically to two things. Number one,
Speaker 1: how many workers do you have and is there growth
Speaker 1: in that labor force? And secondly, how productive are each
Speaker 1: of those workers the labor productivity? And when I take
Speaker 1: a look at policy initiatives that, for example, number one,
Speaker 1: may reduce the pace of growth in our workforce because
Speaker 1: of the changes in immigration, that is concerning. And number two,
Speaker 1: when we take a look at are we investing sufficiently
Speaker 1: in the future to bolster the productivity of all of
Speaker 1: our workers, Um, it's not looking as propitious as it
Speaker 1: normally does. In the United States, there have been cutbacks,
Speaker 1: for example, in government funding for research in R and D,
Speaker 1: and it's still early innings here, I know. But when
Speaker 1: we take a look at what corporations are doing with
Speaker 1: their prodigious cash positions and cash that will be increasing
Speaker 1: because of the reduction in the corporate tax rate, so far,
Speaker 1: the number one use of those funds seems to be
Speaker 1: scare we purchased rather than doing things like raising wages
Speaker 1: or in terms of long term investment, putting it back
Speaker 1: into the company in the form of Capex. Having Joseph Corner,
Speaker 1: I just want you to comment on when you went
Speaker 1: to Cornell. I believe that it was one of the
Speaker 1: few Ivy League schools that admitted women into the into
Speaker 1: the study of economics and science. And I'm wondering if
Speaker 1: that has changed to such an extent that the way
Speaker 1: we view markets and investing has changed money. If you
Speaker 1: could just give us your thoughts on that historical change. Well,
Speaker 1: you know that's a great question, UM and takes us
Speaker 1: back many years. The answer is yes. When Cornell was
Speaker 1: found in eighteen sixty five as the land Grant College
Speaker 1: UM for New York State, it accepted women immediately, but
Speaker 1: it was harder for women to be accepted than for
Speaker 1: men for a whole variety of reasons. That has now changed.
Speaker 1: If we take a look at Cornell or any number
Speaker 1: of other schools, we now see greater balance in things
Speaker 1: like engineering, applied science UM and in the medical college
Speaker 1: at Cornell more than half of our female half of
Speaker 1: our students or women. So yes, there has been an
Speaker 1: enormous change over this one generation. And I would say
Speaker 1: good news, not just for the women, but also for
Speaker 1: our population. Good news for our country overall. Well, let's
Speaker 1: come back at Joseph Cohen with us here for the
Speaker 1: A lot of things we'll do Central banking here next,
Speaker 1: with huge changes at the fount of course, Mr Drug
Speaker 1: so terse statements today on multilateral and unilateral trade dynamics
Speaker 1: as well. Abby. We have a new vice chairman, Richard Clarida, who, well,
Speaker 1: at least we believe he will be appointed. I guess
Speaker 1: that's where we are in the mix. Who will be
Speaker 1: a monetary economist to assist Jay Powell? Explain to our
Speaker 1: audience how someone of the academic abilities of Richard Clarida
Speaker 1: dovetails with a Wall Street veteran like Jerome Powell. How
Speaker 1: does that work? Well, I think it's a wonderful question Tom,
Speaker 1: and really raises a broader issue, and that is the
Speaker 1: members of the Board of Governors of the Settle Reserve
Speaker 1: are supposed to be diverse in their backgrounds, and when
Speaker 1: the ft was originally put together, the idea was diverse
Speaker 1: in their business backgrounds and also their regional backgrounds, which
Speaker 1: is why you have the various regional banks around the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve system. For the Board of Governors itself. I
Speaker 1: think it's critical to have people with business experience, banking experience,
Speaker 1: but also the academic economic experience. We saw just how
Speaker 1: valuable that was under the last two FED chairman. So,
Speaker 1: for example, Ben Bernankee, his academic expertise was in the
Speaker 1: Great Depression of the nineteen thirties, and so when the
Speaker 1: financial crisis hit here um and around the world in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight two thousand nine, there was probably
Speaker 1: nobody better informed than Mr Bernankee to think about what
Speaker 1: could be done going forward. And similarly, when Janet Yellen
Speaker 1: was chair of the Board of Governors, her expertise was
Speaker 1: in labor markets. And if you think about where the
Speaker 1: stresses and strains have been in our economy, it has
Speaker 1: been with regard to the workforce facing both cyclical and
Speaker 1: structural issues. These have been her areas of experts ease.
Speaker 1: So I think it's very appropriate to have somebody with
Speaker 1: academic expertise come onto the Board of Governors, whether if
Speaker 1: it's not going to be the chairperson, at least there
Speaker 1: is that strength there. And let's not forget the very
Speaker 1: capable staff that supports the Board of Governors in Washington Abby,
Speaker 1: Joseph Cohen, what kind of guidance or perspective can you
Speaker 1: offer individuals, whether they be professional investors or people that
Speaker 1: are concerned about their retirement, paying for healthcare, caring for
Speaker 1: members of their family, or even I dare say it,
Speaker 1: paying for tuition. What can you offer them in terms
Speaker 1: of a new federal reserve governor what is important for
Speaker 1: them to understand that would affect the way that they
Speaker 1: plan for their financial future. Well, there are so many
Speaker 1: different elements that one needs to take into consideration. And
Speaker 1: let me begin with one group that you mentioned, and
Speaker 1: that would be individual investors. I think that many individuals
Speaker 1: really should begin with a financial plan. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: I've spent my career working primarily with institutional investors, but
Speaker 1: individual investors need to take into consideration many of the
Speaker 1: factors to which you just alluded. So, for example, what
Speaker 1: are their long term goals with regard to education for
Speaker 1: their children, their own retirement, but also what is their
Speaker 1: tax situation? Uh? And are they saving appropriately? I think
Speaker 1: as a nation we are facing some problems and that
Speaker 1: we are finding that many families are not saving adequately,
Speaker 1: and we really need to start there. So before we
Speaker 1: even get to the individual investment decisions. Let's make sure
Speaker 1: that households are saving enough of their current income to
Speaker 1: plan for their future needs. Okay, So in that context,
Speaker 1: if you went around Goldman Sacks or any big institution
Speaker 1: and you ask people to raise their hands to say
Speaker 1: how many people have six months worth of what it
Speaker 1: takes for them to live in cash? Do you think
Speaker 1: you get a lot of hands raised. Well, I'll give
Speaker 1: you an example from Goldman Sachs because you specifically asked
Speaker 1: about it. We do, in fact provide access to financial
Speaker 1: planning advice. So you would think that so many people
Speaker 1: who are involved in the investment business would not need
Speaker 1: or want that kind of assistance. In fact, they do
Speaker 1: um because even in a firm like ours, you know,
Speaker 1: more than a third of our employees are in technology,
Speaker 1: they're not really investment people per se. And we give
Speaker 1: people access to others who can help them on these
Speaker 1: issues about how much they should be saving, what the
Speaker 1: tax issues are in terms of long term saving and
Speaker 1: preparing for these long term goals. I don't think there
Speaker 1: is anyone exempt from needing this sort of assistance and
Speaker 1: help abby with then, where we are right now and
Speaker 1: within the central banks, well, let's do this. Let's come
Speaker 1: back and do this right. We're thrilled, Dave abbe Joseph
Speaker 1: Cohen for a lengthy time and instead of cutting her
Speaker 1: off here as we move to the market openings, let's
Speaker 1: do this right and come back. That means Joseph Cohen
Speaker 1: on central banking, and I really want to talk to
Speaker 1: her also about the state of her global Wall Street
Speaker 1: as well. Mrs Joseph Cohen is with Golden Sack. What
Speaker 1: a joy, Abby, Joseph Cohen with us. We've been talking
Speaker 1: about the equity markets, a little bit on central banks
Speaker 1: and some of the dynamics that we saw from Mr Droggy,
Speaker 1: Abby Pim and I would like to talk to you
Speaker 1: about the evolution we've seen. You've been hugely active within
Speaker 1: the c f A Institute program, writing trenched uh financial
Speaker 1: articles with some heavy duty mathematics to it. I would suggest,
Speaker 1: unlike the gloom in this country about a brain drain
Speaker 1: or a dumbness, the industry gets smarter and smarter and
Speaker 1: smarter and smarter. How much smarter are we now than
Speaker 1: when I did the sea if A are you to
Speaker 1: the c f A, Tom, I think that as a
Speaker 1: profession we have gotten smarter because we have better tools. Um,
Speaker 1: and I think that the average professional investor is now
Speaker 1: much more quant savvy, knows where the data are, knows
Speaker 1: how to use it and so on. And one of
Speaker 1: the things I am concerned about as we look intermediate
Speaker 1: to long term is that we become too complacent because
Speaker 1: they become so focused on those models. And what we
Speaker 1: have to ask ourselves are the models to use the
Speaker 1: statistician's expression? Are the models properly specified? That is, are
Speaker 1: the equations correct? Are there other factors out there that
Speaker 1: we're not yet taking into consideration? I mean, I look
Speaker 1: at this Pim Fox and can you imagine Ms Joseph
Speaker 1: Cohen that Goldman sex She shows up the first day? Well,
Speaker 1: tell us about it, Joseph Calm. What was it like
Speaker 1: walking in the door at Goldman Sachs when you first
Speaker 1: arrived there? Um, it was a delight because quite frankly,
Speaker 1: I have been recruited to Goldman. Uh. They knew what
Speaker 1: they were getting and that's what they wanted. Um. They
Speaker 1: wanted somebody who had background in quantitative analysis and also economics.
Speaker 1: And this was fairly new because at that point, portfolio
Speaker 1: strategy was often done by pardon me for saying this,
Speaker 1: UM a mature gentleman, UM, not a Goldman. But at
Speaker 1: other places, uh, sitting back smoking a pipe, perhaps pontificating
Speaker 1: about markets and the Goldman. Excuse me, you're you're describing
Speaker 1: Bloomberg surveillance at the softball Go for it. Continue. So
Speaker 1: what we basically have UM at Goldman is this focus
Speaker 1: on let's really do the homework. Let's dig into the
Speaker 1: data on economics, on corporate performance, work the valuation models
Speaker 1: and use that as a critical portion of our theme
Speaker 1: uh and our conclusions. And we always start with that
Speaker 1: as the base, uh, be at fixed income or equities,
Speaker 1: US or non US markets. And then I think the
Speaker 1: art form UH that's involved here is to say what
Speaker 1: are we missing what's not included in those models? And
Speaker 1: one of the things that we are focused on right
Speaker 1: now are policy switches of somewhat inconsistent nature that are
Speaker 1: occurring right now. UM. What would be the largest one
Speaker 1: that that that you think people are not paying attention to?
Speaker 1: What would you tell them to focus on? Well, there
Speaker 1: are two right now. One is the tax cut. The
Speaker 1: short term aspects of the shortcut are favorable. We see
Speaker 1: that corporate profits in cash flow or moving up and
Speaker 1: so on. But long term, what that tax cut has
Speaker 1: done has basically been to take away a lot of
Speaker 1: the seed corn that would normally be used for future investment.
Speaker 1: And that's of concern in terms of what this means
Speaker 1: for longer term economic growth. What does it mean in
Speaker 1: terms of increasing the deficit, interest rates, treasury borrowing, and
Speaker 1: so on. The second one, which of course is still
Speaker 1: up in the air because the President's statements are changing, uh,
Speaker 1: literally from hour to hour, is what are we doing
Speaker 1: with regard to trade policy? Uh. Mario Draggy, the US
Speaker 1: Chamber of Commerce, many others just over the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours have said that they believe that this movement
Speaker 1: towards potential movement towards protectionism would endanger global economic growth.
Speaker 1: The United States would not win a trade war. Nobody
Speaker 1: wins a trade war. It basically is not a zero
Speaker 1: sum sort of thing. Uh. Protectionism and trade friction basically
Speaker 1: reduces economic activity globally, as was seen in the nineteen thirties.
Speaker 1: So I think that that is the single biggest concern
Speaker 1: I would have, you know, I take a look at
Speaker 1: the analysis that's being done, because we have to do
Speaker 1: something in terms of working numbers to see, you know,
Speaker 1: on the margin, which industries would be helped, which countries
Speaker 1: might be helped, and so on. That's only part of
Speaker 1: the pictures. Okay, but let let's say, can you just
Speaker 1: give us the global g d P. Can you give
Speaker 1: us worst case scenario for someone or an institution that
Speaker 1: is using an exchange traded fund that invests, say in
Speaker 1: the SMP five worst case scenario for let's go backwards
Speaker 1: to start with trade policy and tax cuts. What happens
Speaker 1: to that SMP five portfolio. Um, the valuation work that
Speaker 1: we do, which assumes a modest rise and interest rates
Speaker 1: and inflation, assumes that the fair value for the SMP
Speaker 1: five hundred is roughly so that's the level which is
Speaker 1: supported by the strong underlying fundamentals right now in the
Speaker 1: United States. Um, what we did see when there was
Speaker 1: the first beginning of talk about trade problems and so on,
Speaker 1: is that we backed off level which is where we
Speaker 1: were a few week weeks ago. And normally, normally volatility
Speaker 1: is typically within the ten percent range. I'm not making
Speaker 1: a forecast. I'm just saying historically that's what it's been.
Speaker 1: But the other thing to look at is risks, potential
Speaker 1: risk to the upside, potential risks to the downside, potential
Speaker 1: risk to the upside. Could the economy be much better
Speaker 1: and corporate performance much better than what's already priced in. Perhaps,
Speaker 1: but it's not a high probability event. Could there be
Speaker 1: these unpleasant policy surprises UM to the downside? Yes, And
Speaker 1: my personal view is we're more skewed to the downside
Speaker 1: at this point than the upside. Well within that caution,
Speaker 1: skewed to the downside. Does that be Joseph Cohen believe
Speaker 1: cash is an asset. When we UM advise institutional clients,
Speaker 1: which again is my primary UH conversation level, we are saying,
Speaker 1: you know, take a look at a little bit of cash,
Speaker 1: a little bit of dry powder, because if we have
Speaker 1: a situation where volatility in the markets just returns to
Speaker 1: normal UH, there could be some interesting opportunities to get
Speaker 1: back into assets which are long term agreeable UM, but
Speaker 1: at lower prices. So the answer is, yes, a little
Speaker 1: bit of cash on the sideline not a bad idea.
Speaker 1: And our biggest concern TOM with regard to valuation is
Speaker 1: not equities, it's really fixed income. UH. Interest rates in
Speaker 1: the United States are likely to rise, we don't think
Speaker 1: very much. On the other hand, inflation we believe has
Speaker 1: bottomed in the United States. The said is likely to
Speaker 1: raise short term rates four times. And we are concerned
Speaker 1: about the demand from foreign investors. You know, at this
Speaker 1: point they have typically owned well more than of U. S. Treasuries.
Speaker 1: If the dollar becomes something that is not needed as
Speaker 1: much because it's no longer as important in trade, that's initiative.
Speaker 1: Correct with the savvy Joseph cohe of golden sacks at
Speaker 1: generous hour, and that's allowed us to go deeper here
Speaker 1: than we usually do. Abby, I interrupted you so rudely
Speaker 1: there as we went to break and Um, we're talking
Speaker 1: about if we get a week dollar, what are those
Speaker 1: ramifications if we get you know, I guess with some
Speaker 1: higher inflation and some dynamics of fiscal policy, the surprise
Speaker 1: of a week dollar, what will that mean for investors?
Speaker 1: That is a whole big area of discussion, Tom, because
Speaker 1: there are also the technical aspects of supply and demand
Speaker 1: for U. S. Treasuries. Um, not that long ago foreign
Speaker 1: investors owned about of the U. S. Treasury market. They're
Speaker 1: down to now. Some of that was a portfolio decision,
Speaker 1: some of the money has gone into higher yielding corporate bonds.
Speaker 1: But we have to keep in mind the following technical aspect.
Speaker 1: Not all trade UH involving dollars involves the United States. Okay, So,
Speaker 1: for example, in Asia, more than half the trade is
Speaker 1: actually denominated in dollars, even though dramatically less than that,
Speaker 1: maybe ten or fift involves the United States. And over
Speaker 1: the last few years, we've seen that the Chinese have
Speaker 1: moved aggressively to try to denominate trade contracts in Redmond
Speaker 1: b rather than dollars. And if that happens, there's less
Speaker 1: foreign demand for U S treasuries. Consider, for example, that
Speaker 1: decomposition of who does China really trade with. What we
Speaker 1: see is that about fifty percent of Chinese exports go
Speaker 1: to the nations of the new Trans Pacific Partnership. This
Speaker 1: is the trading block that the Trump administration pulled us
Speaker 1: out of as one of the very first policy actions
Speaker 1: when they came into office. So fifty of UH Chinese
Speaker 1: exports go to t p P and sixty of Chinese
Speaker 1: imports come from those TPP nations. Almost all of that
Speaker 1: is now denominated in dollars. It's very possible with the
Speaker 1: us not being part of that trade pact, We're going
Speaker 1: to see less demand for the dollar as that denominating
Speaker 1: currency in foreign trade. And of course, if our policy
Speaker 1: becomes increasingly uncertain in the eyes of others around the world,
Speaker 1: the dollar loses some of its aura as a safe haven.
Speaker 1: Our belief at Goldman Sachs is a decline in the dollar,
Speaker 1: which began in the autumn of two thousand and sixteen,
Speaker 1: will continue. That's an interesting uh called pimp. Well, I
Speaker 1: just want to get your thoughts on comment that was
Speaker 1: made by Daniel Pinto. He is the JP Morgan Chase
Speaker 1: executive and he warned that equity markets could fall as
Speaker 1: much as in the next two to three and the
Speaker 1: media picked up on but it was that banned. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: let's say that's still a big, a big gap. Could
Speaker 1: this Do you believe that this deep correction could happen? Um.
Speaker 1: I've had the opportunity to look at least at the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg coverage of his statement, and he said something ahead
Speaker 1: of that possible correction, and that is markets look good
Speaker 1: for the next year or two UM. So that intermediate
Speaker 1: to long term forecast is something that I suspect everyone
Speaker 1: would want to be well, how do the facts on
Speaker 1: the ground actually develop in the meantime and what will
Speaker 1: the valuation look like? UM. If we look at the
Speaker 1: valuation right now, UM, I would say that equities are
Speaker 1: pricing in a realistic positive scenario. UM. And that's why
Speaker 1: our teams think is fair value for the SMP five
Speaker 1: hundreds this year. UM. It is the credit markets UH
Speaker 1: that look overvalued UM. And that is something that we
Speaker 1: probably need to be focused on sooner than that two
Speaker 1: to three year horizon. And let me go back to
Speaker 1: a point PIM that you raised earlier, and that is
Speaker 1: what about individual investors? UM. We have seen over the
Speaker 1: last ten years that individual investors, particularly those who have
Speaker 1: lost their defined benefit pension programs and have gone into
Speaker 1: define contribution and are now running more and more of
Speaker 1: their own retirement money, they have skewed much more towards
Speaker 1: sixth income equity. And I think that there is a
Speaker 1: false sense of security that these are safe investments. If
Speaker 1: interest rates go up, the value of those assets will
Speaker 1: go down. But have you a cardinal rule here that's
Speaker 1: so important to Pim's comments is you can't invest unless
Speaker 1: you're stealed for a twenty five or decline somewhere along
Speaker 1: the road. It's going to happen. And I would suggest
Speaker 1: a generation or two have lost that understanding. They're clearly
Speaker 1: has been in a sense of complacency now with a
Speaker 1: very low volatility, both in equities and fixed income. And
Speaker 1: it's not just in the US, it's around the world. Um.
Speaker 1: And when we take a look at surveys of individual investors,
Speaker 1: they nevertheless believe that fixed income is much safer than equities.
Speaker 1: And I would argue it depends upon the valuation. Um.
Speaker 1: What is priced into bonds to me is unrealistic um
Speaker 1: And and therefore I would be more concerned there. But
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right. We have a generation of investors who
Speaker 1: have been burned by the equity market, not by the
Speaker 1: fixed income market. Bonds have been in the thirty year
Speaker 1: bull market. I believe that that has either ended or
Speaker 1: will soon end. What do you believe will happen with
Speaker 1: digital currencies? Do you foresee a time when all money
Speaker 1: will become digital? No? Why? Um? This is not my
Speaker 1: area of expertise. You know, I do have a lot
Speaker 1: of mathematical and computer training, um. And I'm very impressed
Speaker 1: by things like blockchain and and some of the things
Speaker 1: that underlie cryptocurrency. But as I studied currencies, UM, usually
Speaker 1: the ones that succeed are backed by the full faith
Speaker 1: and credit of a nation, of an economy um and
Speaker 1: UH to quote somebody else, these are backed by the
Speaker 1: full faith and credit of air. I would say, maybe
Speaker 1: the full faith and credit of electrons um and and
Speaker 1: so um. Is there a role for electronic exchanges, absolutely, um,
Speaker 1: But whether it takes the form of a currency per se,
Speaker 1: it's not quite clear. The greatest enthusiasm for using cryptocurrencies
Speaker 1: has been in number one, areas that don't want to
Speaker 1: be tracked um because of perhaps you know, dealings that
Speaker 1: they do not want in uh to be a transparent uh.
Speaker 1: The second possible use has been in nations UH that
Speaker 1: are really undergoing you know, economic herm oil uh and
Speaker 1: therefore the cryptocurrency is not tied to their troubled nation.
Speaker 1: But for cryptocurrencies to become major elements UM for developed
Speaker 1: economies with central banks and so on, I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't see it in the nearer intermediate term, asked me again.
Speaker 1: In a couple of years, as as this developed, as
Speaker 1: we see what the regulatory process is for them and
Speaker 1: also as the exchanges for the cryptocurrency has become more mature.
Speaker 1: Right now they are not mature. Ebbe Joseph Cohen, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your commitment to the show, your
Speaker 1: appearances today with Bloomberg Television and Bloomberg Radio and Bloomberg Surveillance.
Speaker 1: Abbe Joseph Cohen, folks of Golden Sax and I really
Speaker 1: want to say thank you as well to State Global
Speaker 1: Advisors for their commitment to what we're doing here today
Speaker 1: with International Women's Day as well. So thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio