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, Suncloud, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. A perfect time
Speaker 1: to speak to Laura Roum. She's chief US economist at
Speaker 1: FS Investments. Today's phrase, Laura is crisis tool. Europe is
Speaker 1: in search of a crisis tool. What is the acclaimed
Speaker 1: rom inflation crisis tool looked like. I think that the
Speaker 1: crisis tool is clearly just trying to reclaim some credibility.
Speaker 1: And you know, we've talked about being behind the curve.
Speaker 1: These central banks just have to try to, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: assert control and just calm markets. It's I don't think
Speaker 1: it's even frustration with some of the air getting let
Speaker 1: out of financial conditions, but they want to try to
Speaker 1: calm markets that they are on top of managing inflation
Speaker 1: and managing policy. And I think that is what has
Speaker 1: been so difficult, and that's why we're seeing subtle banks
Speaker 1: around the globe. Really, that's what they struggle with Laura's
Speaker 1: seventy five basis points enough to get the job done.
Speaker 1: I think that the FED, I think it's a step
Speaker 1: in the right direction, because for the FED, it's just
Speaker 1: you know, I think giving that impression that they are
Speaker 1: on it their depend their data dependent. I think that
Speaker 1: they have suffered from this idea that they're gonna wait
Speaker 1: several meetings to see how things flush out. That is gone.
Speaker 1: Um So there's a proactivity there, but I do think
Speaker 1: that we are as we get data that is already
Speaker 1: starting to roll over in several categories, the possible ability
Speaker 1: that they are going to have to, um, you know,
Speaker 1: really tighten into the face of weakening demand, and that
Speaker 1: I think is going to not help them at all. Well,
Speaker 1: this is interesting because it's sort of the opposite of
Speaker 1: Mike McKee and other people have been saying, which is
Speaker 1: it may help the FED to see a cooling in
Speaker 1: the economic data because it indicates that perhaps that at
Speaker 1: this meeting or next meeting, but at the end of
Speaker 1: this year, they'll be looking at inflation trends that are
Speaker 1: more in their favor. What's your pushback to that narrative? So,
Speaker 1: you know, the issue is that federate. Heikes just take
Speaker 1: a really long time to impact the economy. And I
Speaker 1: think the when you think about demand instruction and where
Speaker 1: inflation is really coming from, it's shifted to now coming
Speaker 1: not from uh, you know, auto prices, but really coming
Speaker 1: from rents areas in the economy which are much more sticky.
Speaker 1: And for that reason, you know, you really need to
Speaker 1: get and you know, housing to not only roll over,
Speaker 1: but house prices to moderate more significantly. These are changes
Speaker 1: that don't happen overnight, and there are changes that really
Speaker 1: come with um, you know, a wider implication for growth.
Speaker 1: So we've already got household sentiment under pressure. We've already
Speaker 1: seen households be impacted by inflation very negatively. The demand
Speaker 1: instruction is already here. Well, what's the math here, Laura.
Speaker 1: If we get a beat movies three quarters of a
Speaker 1: percentage point move, does a thirty year mortgage go up
Speaker 1: three quarters of a percentage point? It's actually mortgage rates
Speaker 1: have gone up more than the long end has risen.
Speaker 1: So you know, yeah, I think we continue to see
Speaker 1: UM mortgage rates go higher. We've already seen Mark, you know,
Speaker 1: the housing market cool down. I think what we really
Speaker 1: are talking about is you know, the labor the connection
Speaker 1: between the economy to the labor market, and the fact
Speaker 1: that there's a reason the FED has trouble micro managing demand.
Speaker 1: You know, they are a broadsword, they're not a scalpel.
Speaker 1: So for that reason, I think there's just more. This
Speaker 1: is the tip of the iceberg. When you look at
Speaker 1: UM demand cooling, and I think you could argue that
Speaker 1: demand right now isn't even really cooling because of FED
Speaker 1: rate hikes, it's cooling because of inflation. So you look
Speaker 1: at the right grate heights they're making right now, that's
Speaker 1: going to impact the economy in several quarters. So they're
Speaker 1: they're really tightening aggressively into an economy that's already slowing.
Speaker 1: So what if the confused rhetoric b of this central bank?
Speaker 1: After the press conference today, we've covered confusion and ECB
Speaker 1: today like truly we've never seen. Are we going to
Speaker 1: be as confused? I don't think so, because I don't
Speaker 1: think they're going to change their UM statement very much.
Speaker 1: I do think that in the press conference, pal is
Speaker 1: going to continue to sound very optimistic about the fat's
Speaker 1: ability to create a soft landing UM. But I think
Speaker 1: he wants to really strike a very serious tone on
Speaker 1: the inflation front. I think it be interesting to see, how,
Speaker 1: you know, if we get another month of an upside
Speaker 1: surprise of inflation, what this means for the July meeting.
Speaker 1: You know, these are things that I think, you know
Speaker 1: just how sensitive to month to month data they're going
Speaker 1: to be, because you know, the real I think now
Speaker 1: piece that we're waiting for is to see how the
Speaker 1: employment market responds. That to me, is really going to
Speaker 1: make or break how aggressive the Fed can be in markets.
Speaker 1: Have you know, priced up the whole curve. They're now
Speaker 1: expecting the FED to raise rates up to four percent
Speaker 1: by the beginning of twenty three. Lauren Ryan, thank you
Speaker 1: of FS Investments. Looking ahead to the Federal Reserve. I
Speaker 1: haven't seen many people downrade their earnings estimates. Here's one
Speaker 1: right now. Banky Chatter, the chief global strategist and head
Speaker 1: of asset Allocation at Deutsche Bank. Bank you cray to
Speaker 1: catch up the team at Deutsche Bank first out the
Speaker 1: gate to say recession at the end of next year.
Speaker 1: Talk to me about why you're down grading your earning
Speaker 1: story and why you haven't cut your outlook for the
Speaker 1: smpgs yet in a big white uh So, a couple
Speaker 1: of things. What I would say first is that, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's important to keep in mind the house
Speaker 1: called remains for a recession, you know, at the end
Speaker 1: of next year, but not near term. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: I think the word that everybody is talking about is fluid,
Speaker 1: So things remain pretty fluid. Uh. And and most of
Speaker 1: our downgrade to earnings is about next year, building in
Speaker 1: that slowing in growth and recession later next year. I
Speaker 1: think the bigger issue for the equity market on earnings,
Speaker 1: of course, is, uh, you know, what the bottom up
Speaker 1: consensus is doing and what basically it is building in.
Speaker 1: And what I would argue is that basically, you know,
Speaker 1: the bottom up consensus has ten percent earnings growth for
Speaker 1: this year ten percent earnings growth for next year. On
Speaker 1: the face of it, you know, there's nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 1: Ten per cent earnings growth is actually the average earnings
Speaker 1: growth outside of recession. Some of this and the focus
Speaker 1: land down on your team, Lozetti, whether Social Afternoon folks
Speaker 1: has just been you guys have been just absolutely lights
Speaker 1: out on engaging the conversation. Engage this does profit matter?
Speaker 1: And when you look at earning shortfalls, can you partition
Speaker 1: companies that will still make the bacon from those that
Speaker 1: are really challenged? Yeah, but with the market you know,
Speaker 1: really reacts to. So if you just overlay upgrades, downgrades
Speaker 1: or the change in forward estimates and the SMP five hundred,
Speaker 1: and you'll see these pretty tight fit. Not over the
Speaker 1: last couple of months where the markets you know, way
Speaker 1: lower and and and so earnings estimates do matter. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind that you know, every learning season the SMP
Speaker 1: five hundred, you know, beats on earnings by about five percent.
Speaker 1: So it's you know, not something that the market reacts
Speaker 1: to in a big way, but you know, persistent period
Speaker 1: of sort of downgrades is going to be an overhang
Speaker 1: for the market. And what I would say about the
Speaker 1: bottom up consensus is while the headline numbers you know
Speaker 1: local kay for mid cycle or early cycle, uh, they
Speaker 1: do not look right for late cycle. Our house view,
Speaker 1: the consensus of economists is for growth to slow, and
Speaker 1: as growth slows next year, you know, earnings will come down. Um.
Speaker 1: And in addition, we have you know, sort of the
Speaker 1: pandemic hangover as I would call it, built into consensus
Speaker 1: estimates for megacap growth and tech, you know, which got
Speaker 1: boosted by the pandemic, and the consensus has them rising
Speaker 1: with trend even though they are currently above trend levels
Speaker 1: and staying there would be hard. I'm struggling here with
Speaker 1: this idea that we're going to get earnings down grades.
Speaker 1: We're seeing the end of free money. We're seeing real
Speaker 1: yields on the tenure go up to point eight percent
Speaker 1: after having been deeply negative just three months ago. And
Speaker 1: all of this is going to somehow end the SMP
Speaker 1: at forty seven fifty at the end of the year.
Speaker 1: What gets us there? Yeah, So I think the key
Speaker 1: question is basically, are we going to go into a recession?
Speaker 1: You know, we've been arguing for some time that the
Speaker 1: outlook looks pretty binary. We would get down to about
Speaker 1: thirty six fifty. We are kind of all there already,
Speaker 1: and then it looks pretty binary whether we go into
Speaker 1: a recession or we don't. Recessions are pretty nonlinear events,
Speaker 1: is the way I would talk about I would think
Speaker 1: about them. It is not about temporarily negative growth. It's
Speaker 1: really about corporates becoming risk averse. Not great, you know
Speaker 1: signs yet, But to take a look at CEO confidence. Um,
Speaker 1: it's down. I think the consumer conference numbers get more,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of attention, but corporate CEO conference down
Speaker 1: to just real quick here, Then what's your beer case?
Speaker 1: My bear case is if we go into a recession,
Speaker 1: we have a target of three thousand, which would basically
Speaker 1: be in the upper range of typical recession drawbacks, uh
Speaker 1: or pullbacks. You know, a recession declines in hindsight were
Speaker 1: extremely well explained basically by initial valuations and the severity
Speaker 1: of the recession. So if you use you know, a
Speaker 1: typical recession, you know, a year and year quarterly decline
Speaker 1: in earnings of and where we were valued initially before
Speaker 1: the pullback began, you know, you're talking about thirty, which
Speaker 1: would take us to basically three thousand from the peace.
Speaker 1: So I think it just to be clear, if Matt
Speaker 1: Lasetti is right, it's three k on the SMP. You know,
Speaker 1: if Matt Lsti is right that there is no recession
Speaker 1: right now and that issue gets resolved in the markets
Speaker 1: and the market starts to price that out, then we
Speaker 1: get forty seven fifty by year end. Um, if we
Speaker 1: do slide into a recession, we're talking about three thousand
Speaker 1: on the SMP typical recession, assuming it starts now, is
Speaker 1: about eleven months, so you would get a bottom three
Speaker 1: thousand around November, and you know you would get to
Speaker 1: seven fifty by May of next year, since the market
Speaker 1: typically starts to you know, uh, bottoms basically halfway through. Okay,
Speaker 1: good to clear that up. Thank you, Thank you, Thank
Speaker 1: your chanting with Deutsche Banks. The very very constructive on
Speaker 1: the security market, Peter Cheers joins us right now ahead
Speaker 1: of macro strategy and making it up as you go.
Speaker 1: An academy securities as well. Peter, not a snarky question,
Speaker 1: but a serious one. Is the bond market right now?
Speaker 1: The Central Banker of the United States of America? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think the bond markets really in control of things,
Speaker 1: and I'm increasingly nervous that the lack of liquidity in
Speaker 1: the bond market is letting us move too far too quickly,
Speaker 1: and unless we kind of tame inflation get some of
Speaker 1: this under control, I think we're at a real risk
Speaker 1: of much higher yields, especially with what's going on in
Speaker 1: Europe right The Italian and Spanish yields are leading the
Speaker 1: way there, but that's dragging global yields around too. Does
Speaker 1: it happen quickly or does it happen all at once? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean that we've seen a real quick repricing, But
Speaker 1: do we see something that is a gap higher that
Speaker 1: gets the Feds attention? That driven by low liquidity in
Speaker 1: a sense of uncertainty around both FED policy and how
Speaker 1: high yields could go. Yeah, I would not be surprised
Speaker 1: if you get one of those crazy days where you
Speaker 1: get our two or three point move in the long bond,
Speaker 1: largely due to a lack of liquidity and position, not
Speaker 1: sure which direction it would go. I would have thought
Speaker 1: a month ago was going to be a gap to
Speaker 1: lower yields. Now it feels like if we get a gap,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a dislocation and a know air
Speaker 1: pocket moved to a much higher yield will probably temporary,
Speaker 1: but it will disrupt markets. We haven't talked about bitcoin
Speaker 1: very much in this show, Peter, and that's by design.
Speaker 1: It's something that we don't normally cover. Yet the losses
Speaker 1: have been shocking, and you made a point yesterday Peter
Speaker 1: that really struck me that there is a systemic import
Speaker 1: to the losses in the cryptocurrency complex that it feeds
Speaker 1: into the larger market in a way that perhaps some
Speaker 1: people are not expecting. Do you still think that that's
Speaker 1: the case, that it could be a systemic risk, both
Speaker 1: economically and on a market basis. Yeah, And I've been
Speaker 1: thinking about this a lot, and I think there's kind
Speaker 1: of two main groups of crypto investors. They're a relatively
Speaker 1: small aggressive people who I think may get wiped out.
Speaker 1: I think they were using a lot of margin that
Speaker 1: will have some impacked on the economy, but I don't
Speaker 1: think a huge one. The other part is very wealthy
Speaker 1: people who tended to I think you cryptocurrencies is a
Speaker 1: core part of their asset classes or their asset allocation.
Speaker 1: They also tended to invest heavily and disruptive stocks, and
Speaker 1: then they use some of the big tech almost as
Speaker 1: very equivalent of a bank account. So I think they
Speaker 1: were very aggressively positioned, and that's getting unwound right now.
Speaker 1: So I think there's gonna be a potential for a
Speaker 1: huge wealth effect. And as you start looking at the
Speaker 1: amount of spending that was going on in advertising for crypto,
Speaker 1: the number of conferences, the number of jobs that were created,
Speaker 1: the number of semiconductors that were bought to support crypto.
Speaker 1: If the slowdown is real, and I think it is,
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna hit maybe even ten thousand on bitcoin.
Speaker 1: You could see a knock on effect in the economy
Speaker 1: that we would not have thought about two or three years. Right.
Speaker 1: Why am I going to see a knock on effect
Speaker 1: in the economy, Peter, Because I think this wealth creation
Speaker 1: has hit stocks, disruptive stocks, in particular big tech. There's
Speaker 1: less money these people were spending money. You're gonna see
Speaker 1: a cutdown on princes. You're gonna see less spending on
Speaker 1: the rigs that are required to make, you know, do
Speaker 1: the mining. The one option of this that might be
Speaker 1: good for us is lower energy costs as crypto stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, becomes less of a drain on energy. But
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna be surprised how impactful crypto is,
Speaker 1: especially to the New York area and the California area.
Speaker 1: But the amount of money loss is painful. I mean
Speaker 1: the accounting of this, Peter, I find extraordinary. If we
Speaker 1: go from one thousand down to a Peter Cheer ten thousand,
Speaker 1: or from sixty whatever thousand down to ten thousand, I
Speaker 1: mean that signals the collapse of the scheme. Doesn't it.
Speaker 1: I think to a large degree yes. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think the prior guest you mentioned had um highlighted, oh,
Speaker 1: we're only down a couple of weeks. The reality is
Speaker 1: no one who has bought crypto in the last two
Speaker 1: years and held onto it is now up money. And
Speaker 1: this is almost Yeah. I don't mean to interrupt the folks,
Speaker 1: This is important because I got a lot of shade
Speaker 1: yesterday on David Rubinstein's comments. Lisa, jump in here because
Speaker 1: you you were part of that. To Rubinstein made clear
Speaker 1: original founders of bitcoin still in a profit point and
Speaker 1: Mr cheers saying, yeah, but in the last number of years,
Speaker 1: that's not true. People, you're of huge losses. Well, bitcoin
Speaker 1: is emblematic of the withdrawal of free money, and we
Speaker 1: are seeing the end of a regime, Peter, and it
Speaker 1: will be exemplified by what we here today at two
Speaker 1: thirty pm from FED chair J Powell. What do you
Speaker 1: think that he could do to create some calm, a
Speaker 1: greater backdrop of certainty to a market that has had anything.
Speaker 1: But I think he's going to try and shock the system.
Speaker 1: I now think he's gonna give us seventy bis. I
Speaker 1: think the market will probably react well to that, initially
Speaker 1: on the view that Okay, they're going to try and
Speaker 1: get ahead of this inflation, and then I think over
Speaker 1: the course of the next couple of days, the sad
Speaker 1: reality was thinking is we are going to deal with
Speaker 1: much higher short term rates. That's gonna, you know, slow
Speaker 1: down the economy. And just briefly back to bitcoin. I
Speaker 1: think one thing that's also important is we're starting to
Speaker 1: see the system come up. Right. You had Celsius kind
Speaker 1: of block withdrawals, you have Luna Tera had these problems,
Speaker 1: so you've had this kind of action of networks that
Speaker 1: all kind of work together. I think people are really
Speaker 1: going to question that. And if you go back to
Speaker 1: when Lehman collapse, right, we talked about the Lehman moment,
Speaker 1: it was never a moment, it was just part of
Speaker 1: a process. And I think the coming up of the
Speaker 1: system is going to create a lack of trust and
Speaker 1: a lot of people are sitting out there twenty thousand. Yeah, made,
Speaker 1: they bought up five thousand, but better to get out
Speaker 1: at twenty than ten. So I think that's the problem there.
Speaker 1: And I do think the FEDS message of fighting inflation
Speaker 1: today will push crypto lower as well. Pay one of
Speaker 1: the best. I love hearing from you. Just wonderful to
Speaker 1: catch up Pittchure there of academy. But I can things
Speaker 1: down for us. Let's get to dominic constant show and
Speaker 1: we the had a macro strategy of Missou America's dominic
Speaker 1: straight to you, and let's start with a federal reserve.
Speaker 1: What are you looking for a little bit later, Well,
Speaker 1: we're looking for the fetically very hawkish, which means they'll
Speaker 1: probably do the seventi five and then basically guarantee a
Speaker 1: very quick moved to neutral. They could do more than
Speaker 1: seventy five. I mean that would postibly make more sense
Speaker 1: they do do fifty, which seems unlikely. Now they don't
Speaker 1: have to go out of their way to convince the
Speaker 1: market that they were accelerating rate hikes, and it gets
Speaker 1: that neutral rate. Dominic give pars a distinction between unlikely
Speaker 1: and unnecessary. Is a seventy five beep move unlikely or unnecessary? No?
Speaker 1: I think I think at this stage now, given the
Speaker 1: market reaction, particularly for the long end, it's absolutely necessary
Speaker 1: to to to move to semi five. The problem they've
Speaker 1: got is that even if their forecast is correct that
Speaker 1: there's some kind of soft landing out there and that
Speaker 1: inflation can come down without too much damage to growth.
Speaker 1: The market is tightening financial conditions for them too aggressively,
Speaker 1: both in Europe and and in the US, and that's
Speaker 1: the problem. They have to stabilize long end, so unfortunately
Speaker 1: it's a different game plan for what they had in visage.
Speaker 1: Stabilizing the long end will help them perhaps avoid a
Speaker 1: hard landing. Otherwise we've got bigger problems ahead of us.
Speaker 1: Don what's the bigger risk scenario for markets right now
Speaker 1: that the FED is overly harkish or overly devish in
Speaker 1: this meeting versus market expectation. No, I would say the
Speaker 1: biggest risk is if they try and push back. I mean,
Speaker 1: the poal kind of took Semi five off the table
Speaker 1: last time. If they're trying to stick their guns and
Speaker 1: if you like to a do a b o J
Speaker 1: trying to sort of draw a line in the sand
Speaker 1: and saying we're not going to get pushed around, they're
Speaker 1: going to get into very sticky situation because they're not
Speaker 1: like the b o J that they obviously don't have
Speaker 1: that kind of commitment and on that basis, I would
Speaker 1: think both the bonds and ectaries will sell off hard
Speaker 1: if the FED is too dublish, if they do do
Speaker 1: fifty and they don't convince us that they're going to
Speaker 1: have a super acceleration to neutral. There's another problem that
Speaker 1: people are also beginning to focus on is that their
Speaker 1: measure of neutral may just be too low. No one
Speaker 1: really knows who neutral is. And it's not a question
Speaker 1: that of them going to neutral and then question mark
Speaker 1: how restrictive they might then have to become. The people
Speaker 1: will start to ask the question, maybe inflation is too
Speaker 1: sicky for too long and neutrals up three or three
Speaker 1: and a half that it gives you know, the mother
Speaker 1: of all textbooks and the United Kingdom is the Beg
Speaker 1: John Beg, and as a magisterial one volume first economics textbook,
Speaker 1: all of us is not in bed were an original
Speaker 1: territory and we're all starving for levels. What is the
Speaker 1: level of yen where this unfolds, When dala yen gets
Speaker 1: to such and such weakness, where do the pieces begin
Speaker 1: to fall apart? Well, I think it's specifically for Japan.
Speaker 1: The issue is wage inflation that drives price inflation, and
Speaker 1: in a funny way, it's a similar issue across the
Speaker 1: main economies. The inflation we've got is a very bad inflation.
Speaker 1: Wages they may be going up, but they're barely keeping
Speaker 1: pace with inflation, and so therefore the japan is insane situation.
Speaker 1: They're not going to react to important inflation unless wages
Speaker 1: are going up. So dolly en need so if you like,
Speaker 1: can keep on going down and it may not actually
Speaker 1: affect at least corrodeous view on what should they should
Speaker 1: do for y CC sure they're going to try and
Speaker 1: push back on it. We don't think intervention is really
Speaker 1: necessarily going to work. It's more about stabilizing the global
Speaker 1: bond deals, and that will make the bo j's life
Speaker 1: a lot easier. If you can say by his tenure, yeels,
Speaker 1: there's a limit to how far dolly in will will
Speaker 1: attain your us yells, there's limits and how far dolly
Speaker 1: and will go down, and that will for them at
Speaker 1: least maybe cap some of this important in patient. But
Speaker 1: unless you can get two wages, I don't think the
Speaker 1: Japanese are going to really start to ditch y c
Speaker 1: C or or obviously try and have any kind of
Speaker 1: normalizational policy. And I just want to finish here on
Speaker 1: the federal Reserve. And it's a market's question. A lot
Speaker 1: of people and you've heard this conversation to wondering if
Speaker 1: they should just come out today and go bigger than
Speaker 1: seventy five, get it done, get better neutral, go big.
Speaker 1: Would that restore confidence in this market or would to
Speaker 1: scare this market. I'm trying to understand the tipping point
Speaker 1: between hawkish enough and too hawkish. I think it will
Speaker 1: restore confidence in the back end. To be honest, I
Speaker 1: think you will rally the long end if you go
Speaker 1: big and just get to neutral. I don't think the
Speaker 1: extra market will initially react very well. But I think
Speaker 1: at the end of the day there is a requirement
Speaker 1: for a massive reallocation out of executis into debt and
Speaker 1: the level and that normally happens when debt yields are stabilizing,
Speaker 1: if not rallying. So we have to get to that.
Speaker 1: And it's sort of light at the end of the tunnel.
Speaker 1: We see no lights at the end of tunnel until
Speaker 1: the back end of the bond market stabilizes. When you
Speaker 1: see that light, then you can begin to see away
Speaker 1: in which risk assets can also stabilize. That will come later,
Speaker 1: but right now you're in this void. You don't know
Speaker 1: where this tunnel ends. There's no light, and that's why
Speaker 1: they're going big. Wouldn't be a bad idea, but you know,
Speaker 1: getting semi five and committing to another semi five or
Speaker 1: will will sort of almost get you there. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying thank you, thank you very much down custom that
Speaker 1: of Missouri of America's This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to
Speaker 1: ten AMI Eastern and Bloomberg Radio and Bloomberg Television each
Speaker 1: day from six to nine am for insight from the
Speaker 1: best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And subscribe
Speaker 1: to the Surveillance podcast on Apple, podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: and of course, on the terminal. I'm Tom keene In.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg m