Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene Jay Lee.
Speaker 1: 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. I
Speaker 1: want to bring in Peter Hoop at Deutsche Bank Securities
Speaker 1: Global head of Economic Research. Here's its tape from Morgan Stanley.
Speaker 1: The Fetes reaction function means riskskew asymmetrically to rate cuts
Speaker 1: over rate hikes in the next couple of years. Peter
Speaker 1: is that the Deutsche Bank take too absolutely. My My,
Speaker 1: my colleague Mattelzettie put a very nice report over the
Speaker 1: weekend um the we we expect the FED to be
Speaker 1: on hold for the year ahead. We expect a key
Speaker 1: change mid year. J Palisman telling us expect us to
Speaker 1: give us give you the result of our year of
Speaker 1: policy review here. The major factor in that report will
Speaker 1: be a strengthening of the symmetric inflation target, recognizing that
Speaker 1: they've been below two percent for the last decade, that
Speaker 1: we're gonna be above two percent. We're gonna aim to
Speaker 1: overshoot a bit on inflation. We're gonna have a makeup strategy.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have some inflation averaging here. The problem is
Speaker 1: inflation is not going to be cooperating yet. We see
Speaker 1: inflation remaining below two percent over the year ahead. Um,
Speaker 1: many in the FED do as well. Uh, and certainly
Speaker 1: that seems to be the consensus. Phillips curve is still
Speaker 1: very flat. FED has some work to do. We think
Speaker 1: with the announcement in June, they will, they will bring
Speaker 1: down the dots right now. They're expecting rate increases in
Speaker 1: twenty two. Those will come down. They're not going to
Speaker 1: cut rates this year. They we think they'll be patient.
Speaker 1: They'll they'll they'll let the things play out a while,
Speaker 1: get after they get past the election, get past the politics, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Early first half of one, we're expecting a fifty basis
Speaker 1: point rate cut in order to get inflation finally above
Speaker 1: two percent, just to jump in pizza. Why White, until
Speaker 1: the month your policy review is complete. Don't you get
Speaker 1: the sense that even as this monity policy review is ongoing,
Speaker 1: that it's already become a part of the decision making
Speaker 1: process on the f MC. Well, you know, so, why
Speaker 1: did why did we get a set of dots in
Speaker 1: the December meeting that had rate increases in twenty two.
Speaker 1: So it's not there yet. Okay, Pal has said very
Speaker 1: clearly we'll give you the results middle of next year.
Speaker 1: We're not there yet. We're still assessing. So, yes, it
Speaker 1: may be working its way in and you are hearing
Speaker 1: people you are here increasingly various FED members say I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprised as the inflation go above two percent,
Speaker 1: you know, So you're you're hearing it, but it's not
Speaker 1: there yet in the policy setting. I don't I don't
Speaker 1: think they want to cut rates this year. Eight years,
Speaker 1: nine years ago, Dr Hooper Olivia Olivier Blanchard's leadership at
Speaker 1: the i m F. This is March of two thousand
Speaker 1: and eleven conference. Uh, there's a conference on jump starting inflation.
Speaker 1: I'm looking for the title of it right now. You
Speaker 1: were probably at the conference. I wish i'd been there,
Speaker 1: A conference on macro and growth policies in the wake
Speaker 1: of the crisis. We're still talking now what Olivia Blanchard
Speaker 1: was leading on in two thousand eleven. Is there any
Speaker 1: evidence institutions can jump start reflation? You know? Uh, the
Speaker 1: Phillips curve is not totally dead. We did a lot
Speaker 1: of research earlier this year. Come on, you got the embalming.
Speaker 1: Is the cremation or are we going to go with
Speaker 1: a full beak? It's it's dead at the national level
Speaker 1: because the FETE is basically killed it The FETE has
Speaker 1: over The FETE has been over emphasizing any time we
Speaker 1: get toward a tight labor market, it doesn't allow us
Speaker 1: to go there. Prior to nineteen eighty, the average unemployment
Speaker 1: rate was was well below NEHRU. The average the labor
Speaker 1: market was tight. Since nineteen eighty ridge unemployment rate, it's
Speaker 1: been a close to one. It's been a loose, loose
Speaker 1: labor market situation. I think we need to get the
Speaker 1: unemployer rates significantly below the natural rate. And the natural
Speaker 1: rate the NEHRU has been climbing down. It's it's four
Speaker 1: percent or less. Now we need to get into something.
Speaker 1: We need to get into a two handle of unemployment
Speaker 1: before we're going to see inflation. Do we have a
Speaker 1: negative unemployment rate, Well, this is a negative negative unemployer.
Speaker 1: I think that this academic discussion of is inflation dead
Speaker 1: has a very real underpinning of the existential crisis right
Speaker 1: now markets and guess I use the word existential this morning. Uh.
Speaker 1: And this is that is this sort of low inflation rate,
Speaker 1: the low growth rate, fundamentally inconsistent with the risk price asset.
Speaker 1: That the sort of risk rally that we have seen
Speaker 1: over the past few years. How much further can it
Speaker 1: go on the heels of low inflation, low rates if
Speaker 1: there is something fundamentally broken with the inflation and the
Speaker 1: wage growth kind of bleed through, well, that is the
Speaker 1: one risk in this in this this picture and a
Speaker 1: very interesting uh talk that Eric Rosen grand Bossom PET
Speaker 1: president gave in New York yesterday where he said, look,
Speaker 1: this this is a risk we need we need to
Speaker 1: do some counter some uh, we need to control things
Speaker 1: a little bit. Let's raise uh the countercyclically capital buffers
Speaker 1: of the banking system. Okay, there are some things we
Speaker 1: could be doing to reduce some of this risk, this
Speaker 1: financial risk. Yes, evaluations are looking a little high. Yes,
Speaker 1: corporate credit growth has been a little lofty. We're nowhere
Speaker 1: near the level of financial risk we had in the
Speaker 1: late nineties, for example, that we're not there. I think
Speaker 1: we can push push further to get the unemployee right
Speaker 1: down further to begin to get inflation up. But we
Speaker 1: have to be a little bit of cost, a little
Speaker 1: bit cautious with what's happening on the financial side. No
Speaker 1: question paid a funnal question for you, just to tap
Speaker 1: in some of the research. I know you in the
Speaker 1: team have been working on a lot of people looking
Speaker 1: at the data worldwide in Q fourto Q one twenty,
Speaker 1: looking for stabilization in the global economy. I don't know
Speaker 1: if the recovery is you shaped. I have no idea
Speaker 1: if it's l shaped. I'm trying to work out whether,
Speaker 1: to your point, is it green shoots or a false dawn?
Speaker 1: Which one is it? That was record cliche. You eight
Speaker 1: cliches in there. It's the front page of them. He's
Speaker 1: trying to trying to banks special growth green shoots, So
Speaker 1: false dawn, false dawn. Let's let's think green shoots. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe there's a little bit of false dawn still in Europe,
Speaker 1: there's some question marks there. But we think China is
Speaker 1: going to be looking a little stronger than people expecting.
Speaker 1: There's a there is there is a consumer cycle in China.
Speaker 1: I mean, as we go from four D to five D,
Speaker 1: there're gonna be a lot more purchases of cell phones
Speaker 1: coming up. They're also in the middle of an auto cycle,
Speaker 1: so we're sinking China's gross above six percent next year,
Speaker 1: um all at six percent, least US is looking better
Speaker 1: to certainly certainly fed. Being in in accommodative territory is
Speaker 1: helpful and with on the whole, on the whole, the
Speaker 1: risk situation improving a bit on balance. Remember v shaped bottom.
Speaker 1: You can have apologized to from Matlozetti. I mean we've
Speaker 1: we've staggered since August of two thousand and seven, from
Speaker 1: cliche to cliche to cliche, and we're just I think
Speaker 1: you nailed it, frankly with this whole thing of Candy's institutions.
Speaker 1: Reflect it's a huge Yeah, I'll give you distract and
Speaker 1: thank you Pa, Thank you Bank Security Static head of
Speaker 1: economic research John bringing the col of my And this
Speaker 1: is on the Pimco view which I think a lot
Speaker 1: of our listeners viscerally feel a more conservative. You going
Speaker 1: into Nicola might joining us now. Pimco portfolio manager, suffering
Speaker 1: credit analyst, Nicola, what me through what you see global growth,
Speaker 1: global inflation, US growth, US inflation, the kind of numbers
Speaker 1: you're looking for sure. Um, well, I would say that,
Speaker 1: you know, concerns about recession in twenty have definitely been
Speaker 1: temperate because of a few positive developments. I mean, we
Speaker 1: have a trade deal between the U S and China.
Speaker 1: It's a limited one, but still you know, not for
Speaker 1: further escalation for now in terms of the trade war.
Speaker 1: We have monetary policy in the U S which is
Speaker 1: getting some traction, especially in the housing market. Worksit risks
Speaker 1: have been reduced, and you know, there are some tentative
Speaker 1: signs of spottoming out in the manufacturing sector. So what
Speaker 1: we expect essentially is a gradual reacceleration and growth um
Speaker 1: the global economy the skirts the recession. I mean, the
Speaker 1: only thing I would say is that, you know, even
Speaker 1: though recession risks are lower, monetary policy is basically out
Speaker 1: of bullets. So if we do end up having a
Speaker 1: recession at some point, the loss given recession could actually
Speaker 1: be higher. Nicola a lot of people because on the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve and the ECB. Here at Bloomberg Surveillance, we're
Speaker 1: focus on Sweden's rix ricks Bank, which is going to
Speaker 1: be potentially raising rates out of negative territory tomorrow and
Speaker 1: they're doing it as a quote philosophical rate cut rate hike,
Speaker 1: as one person said, because they just don't think that
Speaker 1: negative yields are working. How closely are you watching that? Well,
Speaker 1: we think the one is interesting. I mean, we've we've
Speaker 1: been writing about this. We think that negative interest rates
Speaker 1: have been kind of working so far in terms of
Speaker 1: like bank bank lending rates falling in terms of credit
Speaker 1: growth act actually accelerating at the margin. But there is
Speaker 1: some significant damage that is being inflicted by the negative
Speaker 1: rates on bank balance sheets, pension fund balance sheets, insurance
Speaker 1: companies balance sheets. So we don't think negative rates have
Speaker 1: much further to run, and actually the longer they persist,
Speaker 1: the more damaging they might become. So in this context,
Speaker 1: I think the Ricks bank is one of those institutions
Speaker 1: that is becoming, you know, particularly worried about it. So
Speaker 1: I think the rate hike should be seen in that context. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And a lot of investors are eerily watching this, and
Speaker 1: certainly banks are excited about this because negative rates has
Speaker 1: certainly hurt their bottom line. How closely is the e
Speaker 1: c B watching though, I mean in order to figure
Speaker 1: out what their exit strategy could potentially be, So I
Speaker 1: I think if you look at the ECB rhetoric, I
Speaker 1: think it's it's become more conscious of the fact of
Speaker 1: the side effects of the negative interest rates. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you think about the tearing, the introduction of tearing,
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's a reflection of that as well.
Speaker 1: I think in terms of actually getting out of negative
Speaker 1: rate policy, I think it's gonna be really hard for
Speaker 1: the ECB for now because if the c B were
Speaker 1: to start to high rate in back to zero, I
Speaker 1: think the implications in terms of the currency could be significant,
Speaker 1: and in turn that would have impl issues for inflation
Speaker 1: and growth. So at the moment, I think there will
Speaker 1: be steady at this level. If they have to do
Speaker 1: more easing, our sences that they will focus more on
Speaker 1: quantitative easing, liquidity operations and forward guidance rather than bringing
Speaker 1: the rates further into negative territory. Nicola, the ECB has
Speaker 1: lost a lot of experience in the last twelve months,
Speaker 1: lost the chief economist Peter Pray, lost the e CP
Speaker 1: president Manua drag and it's about to lose ben Wa
Speaker 1: Kure of the e CP Executive Board as well. He
Speaker 1: had a fairwell speech in the last twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: and the following quote is something that he delivered and
Speaker 1: everyone's jumping on. It was time to dismantle the absurd
Speaker 1: idea of an omnipposent central bank that can mechanically steer inflation.
Speaker 1: Do you think those thoughts will be a part of
Speaker 1: the monetary policy the strategic review that the CP and
Speaker 1: Christine Legand is undertaking. Yeah, I mean, it's it's gonna
Speaker 1: definitely gonna be an interesting review. Um. I think monetary uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I think the ECB and several money street
Speaker 1: policy makers are realizing that it's actually very hard to
Speaker 1: lift inflation because of secular forces like globalization and technology
Speaker 1: keeping inflation low. Um. But you know, if I were
Speaker 1: to guess, I think the review, you know, what they
Speaker 1: might do is actually change the target a little bit
Speaker 1: from below but close to percent, to something a bit
Speaker 1: more symmetric, maybe just call it two. I think if
Speaker 1: they were to actually give up on the inflation amandin
Speaker 1: or on the supercent that that would, you know, would
Speaker 1: be quite damaging potentially, especially given how high that levels are.
Speaker 1: So if you give up on inflation, you're you're probably
Speaker 1: going to create quite a bit of trouble. Bank of
Speaker 1: American Marylynch did a recent credit survey of investors in
Speaker 1: Europe and one theme was the sort of Barbel approach
Speaker 1: that people seem to be taking, or they go into
Speaker 1: highlight one bonds but then also going on cash. And
Speaker 1: one of the big fears has been that inflation risks
Speaker 1: are under a appreciated in markets. Do you feel like
Speaker 1: that consensus view heading into next year is accurate and
Speaker 1: and coheres with where PIMCO is at To be honest,
Speaker 1: I'm not too worried about inflation. As I mentioned. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, like there are these secular forces that are
Speaker 1: keeping inflation low. Phillips curves continues to look pretty flat,
Speaker 1: and in the current kind of early weak course environment,
Speaker 1: I don't really see corporate pricing becoming aggressive, and you know,
Speaker 1: I don't see significant increases in inflation. I mean, over
Speaker 1: the long run, there could be forces that lead inflation higher,
Speaker 1: including protectionism, UM and UH and that that could limit
Speaker 1: supply and and eventually raise inflation. But I think these
Speaker 1: are longer term phenomena. NICOLEA, Thank you so much. Nicole.
Speaker 1: Am I with us with pim coke seriously economic data,
Speaker 1: big time economic data. The next two days Thomas for
Speaker 1: Sally with US now with RBC Capital Markets time, have
Speaker 1: you marked down Q one because of the Boeing effect? No,
Speaker 1: we haven't yet. Um. I mean we obviously are as
Speaker 1: most others are fully aware that there is some potential
Speaker 1: hit there. Um. But you know, whatever the hit is
Speaker 1: going to be, I you know, it's just it's so
Speaker 1: ridiculously academic. I mean whatever what you know, whatever they take,
Speaker 1: they're going to give back. Um, So you know, whatever
Speaker 1: it is worth. I think people have to recognize, you know,
Speaker 1: just just to use a you know, fed lingo it
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a transitory effect. Is our is, our
Speaker 1: audience are public. They have to get used to sub
Speaker 1: two percent GDP or near two percent GDP. That's unacceptable,
Speaker 1: it's un American. Well, but the reality is, but that's
Speaker 1: that's what we've been doing, right. Uh. You know, there's
Speaker 1: there there's no escaping from from that reality. I mean,
Speaker 1: it almost doesn't matter how you want to look at it.
Speaker 1: But you know, on a year of a year basis,
Speaker 1: I mean we've been sort of you know, hugging you know,
Speaker 1: over slightly over slightly under the two percent line for
Speaker 1: what the better part of the entire cycle. Um. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's obviously been periods where we've sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: gotten close to four percent, But then there has also
Speaker 1: been periods over the course of the cycle, you know,
Speaker 1: where we've gotten close to one and a half percent.
Speaker 1: But you know that again, we're hugging the two percent line.
Speaker 1: And that's been true for the vast majority of this expansion.
Speaker 1: And Tom, a lot of people would say that's just
Speaker 1: fine as long as nothing goes wrong, and I guess
Speaker 1: the margin of error gets a lot narrower when you
Speaker 1: get closer to that stall speed. I'm just wondering, how
Speaker 1: close are we to a place that is unsustainable for
Speaker 1: an economic expansion? How far away? Yeah, at least I
Speaker 1: think it's it's it's it's a great question. And I
Speaker 1: think the way that you need to think of it is,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of, what is the wherewithal for the
Speaker 1: consumer to continue to propel economic activity? And the reality
Speaker 1: is the U s consumers And I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I hate to use, you know, sort of very fluffy words,
Speaker 1: but you know they are in utterly fantastic shape. I mean,
Speaker 1: it almost doesn't matter how you want to look at it. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's the level of savings, whether it's
Speaker 1: you know, sort of their their debt service ratios. I mean,
Speaker 1: by almost any measure, the consumer has the ability to
Speaker 1: continue to propel consumption to around this this you know,
Speaker 1: sort of two percent page. So, you know, this idea
Speaker 1: of recession is funny. We're in the midst of writing
Speaker 1: our year ahead. Uh and and and the one thing
Speaker 1: that we said about the year that was was that,
Speaker 1: you know, despite the fact that it was actually a
Speaker 1: pretty good year, people were overwhelmed by negativity. Right. It
Speaker 1: was like everyone kept on saying, the recession is here,
Speaker 1: their sessions here. Yet here we are at much of
Speaker 1: the conversation, we're having a moment ago chugging along at
Speaker 1: a at a two percent page. So you know, I
Speaker 1: think what people have to do is they have to
Speaker 1: keep their eye on this. You know, a really important idea,
Speaker 1: and that is labor backdrop is really tight. Wage pressures
Speaker 1: are probably going to continue. The consumer as a result,
Speaker 1: will be able to um really support a two percent
Speaker 1: profile from a growth perspective in the coming year. I
Speaker 1: just think it's great that obviously White until the end
Speaker 1: of the years put out the year ahead. You know
Speaker 1: how some people write this thing in October going into November.
Speaker 1: I'm very happy to do that. Tome just quickly, your
Speaker 1: assessment of the labor market, with confusing so many different terms,
Speaker 1: full employment, a cyclical, bacon labor market conditions than the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve chairman talking about slack, what's your assessment of
Speaker 1: the American labor market. The labor market is tight. I
Speaker 1: mean there that is. That is an inexcapable truth. Um.
Speaker 1: I mean there's countless ways of driving that point home.
Speaker 1: You know. One of the ways that I think you
Speaker 1: can do is look at the number of people that
Speaker 1: are not in the labor force. This economy has done
Speaker 1: a phenomenal job of pulling people that we're not in
Speaker 1: the labor force back into the labor force. I mean
Speaker 1: we are now back down to um sort of previous
Speaker 1: cycle levels from a not in the labor force perspective.
Speaker 1: In fact, we would say that we've probably pulled all
Speaker 1: the people we can um from from the backdrop. And Jonathan,
Speaker 1: you've set me up nicely. Just to make with this
Speaker 1: one really important point, I think people have to get
Speaker 1: comfortable with this idea that job growth is going to
Speaker 1: slow down. Now again, you're hearing this from someone who
Speaker 1: actually has a pretty constructive view in the backdrop. But
Speaker 1: the reality is, we've pulled so many people from the sidelines.
Speaker 1: There's there's there's only so many additional people we can pull.
Speaker 1: Break even from a job growth perspective is about a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand jobs. So even if you slow down to
Speaker 1: a hundred jobs on average per month, which is what
Speaker 1: we expect, you're still above break even. Um, that's still
Speaker 1: enough to keep the unemployment rate at a minimum steady
Speaker 1: and even push pushed down the unemployment rate to some extent.
Speaker 1: So I think we have to reorientate our thinking. We
Speaker 1: got to re orient ourselves to a discussion on wage
Speaker 1: growth with you down the road, Tom PERCELLI, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. With RBC Markets, Paul. We look over at
Speaker 1: our screens here. We got like forty two TV screens
Speaker 1: in the studio to keep us on and we're beginning
Speaker 1: like six hours, which you know is going to be
Speaker 1: seven or eight, right, I mean, it's just gonna go
Speaker 1: of this really historic moment. Whatever your policy, let's trying
Speaker 1: to get the politics out of it right now and
Speaker 1: just talk about the the tenor of the day. We
Speaker 1: can do that with Emily Wilkins joining us now from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News in Washington. Emily, I speak of the tenor
Speaker 1: of the day. Is there is it like excitement over this?
Speaker 1: Is there a sadness over this? What's the actual mood
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill? Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said throughout this
Speaker 1: process that this is a somber move. She has, you know,
Speaker 1: tried to do this without you know, excitement, without a
Speaker 1: sense of you know, she's not trying to portray this
Speaker 1: as some sort of victory for Democrats to do this.
Speaker 1: She's tried to keep it somber and solemn throughout. Prayerful
Speaker 1: is a word that she's used a lot. But right now,
Speaker 1: I mean, everyone's just sort of gearing up, as you said,
Speaker 1: for what is expected to be a very long day.
Speaker 1: At this point, we're not expecting to see votes on
Speaker 1: engachment until around seven thirty this evening, So Emily, give
Speaker 1: us a sense of what actually is going to happen
Speaker 1: today in the House of Representatives. So the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives are going to spend about the next six hours
Speaker 1: debating the rules for the articles of impeachment, and through
Speaker 1: that we're going to expect to see Republicans try to
Speaker 1: do certain things to delay this process. We've already seen
Speaker 1: this morning them call for a vote on a motion
Speaker 1: to adjourn and everyone leave. Um. Of course, because Republicans
Speaker 1: do not have the majority, none of these attempts are
Speaker 1: expected to actually proceed, but they could slow things down
Speaker 1: a little bit. But because the rule is structured, there
Speaker 1: isn't a lot of little room and so we definitely
Speaker 1: expect to see votes this seavening so emily. Will there
Speaker 1: be any kind of witnesses today? We was just just
Speaker 1: representatives going back and forth against each other, kind of
Speaker 1: pleading their side. This is just this is just the representatives.
Speaker 1: This is to give lawmakers a time to come to
Speaker 1: the floor to speak to make their case. We're going
Speaker 1: to be seen perhaps witnesses over in the Senate. But
Speaker 1: the rules for how the Senate debate is going to
Speaker 1: go are still under discussion. That's going to be in
Speaker 1: in January, and that's something that people are looking to
Speaker 1: uh Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: to see how they wind up working that out. What
Speaker 1: are you looking for after this vote? I mean to
Speaker 1: be clear here, there's a vote tonight we're done right
Speaker 1: in the House. Okay, then what happens next? What exactly
Speaker 1: happens next? So what happens next is that the House
Speaker 1: is going to take the articles of impeachment and bring
Speaker 1: them over to the Senate. And what they did? They
Speaker 1: do that on a silver platter. I mean, how do
Speaker 1: you actually do this? Does anyone you tweeted over? I
Speaker 1: think you actually have someone physically walk over between um,
Speaker 1: walk over between the chambers and actually go ahead and
Speaker 1: announced to the Senate these articles of impeachment. I know
Speaker 1: that's the way they've done it for previous bolts. Interesting
Speaker 1: and then, Emily, so give us a sense of what
Speaker 1: let me get to the Senate that is actually going
Speaker 1: to be a trial. So I'll go back to my
Speaker 1: previous question. Will I know there's a discussion point between
Speaker 1: Senator Schumer and McConnell about whether there will be witnesses called.
Speaker 1: How how do you think that's going to play out?
Speaker 1: I mean, right now, Republicans do have the majority over there,
Speaker 1: so they do have something of an edge, but things
Speaker 1: need to be done consent. Uh. Schumer has certainly asked
Speaker 1: for witnesses to come. The White House has wanted to
Speaker 1: witnesses to come they've wanted to present their case, but
Speaker 1: there's also been discussion in Bloomberg's reported that there's some
Speaker 1: hope that this will be a pretty short process, that
Speaker 1: they can have the individuals from the House and present
Speaker 1: the case, will have Democrats present the case, who have
Speaker 1: Republicans present the case, and that they can move pretty
Speaker 1: quickly after that. Thank you so much, Emi will Coin's
Speaker 1: greatly appreciate what it will be certainly a long day
Speaker 1: for heard on all of our Bloomberg News team in Washington.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before
Speaker 1: the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio