Speaker 1: Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene
Speaker 1: Jay Lee. 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 Villain
Speaker 1: Bouncer joint to us here in New York City, specially
Speaker 1: Economic ad Fighter formerly of the NPC at the Bank
Speaker 1: of England and Money to Villiam. Good morning. We've had
Speaker 1: three growth scares in the last ten years, fifteen sixteen
Speaker 1: and now eighteen nineteen. Each and everyone driven by manufacturing,
Speaker 1: led by manufacturing, and the previous two didn't bleed into
Speaker 1: services in a big way. It was a head fake.
Speaker 1: We got out. Okay, is this any different? Well, I'm
Speaker 1: getting increasingly concerned that in Europe euro areas, actually it
Speaker 1: may be something different that we will get because of
Speaker 1: the extreme weakness of manufacturing. Data and sort of supplementary
Speaker 1: information about global trade coming from Korea that confirms this
Speaker 1: weakness as being more, i think than just manufacturing slow down.
Speaker 1: And I'm afraid this looks like it could really rub
Speaker 1: every part of the economy in the wrong way. For
Speaker 1: anyone tuning in this morning that hasn't seen the data yet.
Speaker 1: Exports out of South Korea down almost the data in Germany,
Speaker 1: the p m I coming in at forty one point four,
Speaker 1: there was a hope that we'd see her pick up
Speaker 1: their villain. Let's talk about the policy response. The e
Speaker 1: CP has thrown everything at it. Is that gonna work. No,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be enough. Central banks in the policity.
Speaker 1: The ECB with a polity ated miners sixty beats are
Speaker 1: effectively pushing on a string, maybe a nice string to
Speaker 1: push on, but it really will not boost activity where
Speaker 1: it needs to be boosted. Only fiscal policy can do that, Professor.
Speaker 1: But I want to get out in front of our
Speaker 1: conversation with William Dudley this morning, and I want to
Speaker 1: give it in a sixty thousand foot view way over
Speaker 1: the topics at hand, negative interest rates, what that does
Speaker 1: to savers and what it does to the incentives in Europe,
Speaker 1: the low rates, the fiscal and financial repression. Rather in
Speaker 1: the United States, have we thought too hard for fourteen years?
Speaker 1: Have we boxed ourselves in to a set of economics
Speaker 1: where we thought, you know, maybe this works, but to
Speaker 1: a lot of people. It's not It may not be
Speaker 1: working for a lot of people, but it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: there's a lot you can do about it. The fact
Speaker 1: that indust rates are negative now for seventeen chillion worth
Speaker 1: of debt outstanding is a larger reflection of a very
Speaker 1: low in the negative neutral global real interest rate, and
Speaker 1: central banks sort of tinker that fundamental reality which is
Speaker 1: driven by demographics, by lack of embodied technical change, and
Speaker 1: by other real economy factors. So central banks are not
Speaker 1: in some sense causing I didn't say they're causing it,
Speaker 1: but they have to deal with this new lower phenomenal GDP.
Speaker 1: You mentioned demographics and such. Do we need to clear
Speaker 1: out the zombie companies, the zombie assets and liabilities that
Speaker 1: have that have persisted through this twelve and fourteen years,
Speaker 1: especially in Europe, there has not been a thorough cleaning
Speaker 1: up with the bank balance sheet and it was always
Speaker 1: a good idea to do that. Of course, timing is
Speaker 1: wouldn't be ideal about determined attempt to clean up the
Speaker 1: balance sheets go be part of the solution to this problem.
Speaker 1: This Manchester United qualifiers as an ambie company join for
Speaker 1: not just yet, though some Manchester United fans might fill
Speaker 1: that way. Villam, I just want to run things out
Speaker 1: on the fiscal policy question. There's a lot of people
Speaker 1: on this side of Atlantic look into Europe just saying
Speaker 1: this has got to be inevitable. Now this is the
Speaker 1: only policy tool left. Surely they're going to use it.
Speaker 1: Madame Legard will make the difference as a European looking
Speaker 1: at the situation play out all of the experience you have.
Speaker 1: Do you see any chance of this happening in the
Speaker 1: next eighteen months. I do. Actually, it's not going to
Speaker 1: be dramatic. You're not going to see the kind of
Speaker 1: Trump style as an eighteen fiscal stimulus. But we could
Speaker 1: get a percent of GDP worth of fiscal relaxation in
Speaker 1: a selected number of countries, the ones with the most
Speaker 1: fiscal elbow room Germany, Netherlands and all that, and some
Speaker 1: smaller fiscal stimulus in in the rest of the euro
Speaker 1: Area where fiscal challenges are greater. If at the same
Speaker 1: time the ECB continues to engage in quantitative easing, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're being business for what looks like a mini helicopter
Speaker 1: money drop. He Philliam going to catch you out with
Speaker 1: the conversation to be continued right now. We like to
Speaker 1: migrate sort of to a October kickoff of American politics.
Speaker 1: We can do that with Wendy Shower. She's a Brown University.
Speaker 1: I like what you say, Wendy, in the beginning of
Speaker 1: your note on the brand of populism, What is the
Speaker 1: brand of populism of Iowa front runner Elizabeth Warren. That's
Speaker 1: truly economic populism. I mean it's almost a blueprint from
Speaker 1: the ten eight nineties start of saying the individual working
Speaker 1: person deserves detection, deserves to make a decent wage. It's
Speaker 1: not sort of this elite tax cut, let's generate jobs
Speaker 1: through corporate America. It's what can we do to the individual.
Speaker 1: And so it's different from the Trump brand. When I
Speaker 1: first met the Senator ages ago, she was a professor
Speaker 1: at Harvard and she was total policy want. I say
Speaker 1: that with all great respect for her public service, and
Speaker 1: she's still that way. Is there any evidence of policy
Speaker 1: want you can get elected? Well, I mean we're seeing
Speaker 1: that in the polls now with her right, and we're
Speaker 1: seeing the response literally if you see the response in
Speaker 1: her rallies and look at the way she sort of
Speaker 1: characterized herself. She dresses pretty simply. I mean, you're not
Speaker 1: supposed to pay attention, but everybody does anyway. She's simple
Speaker 1: in her dress, she's simple in her address to people.
Speaker 1: She you know, runs sprints, she takes pictures with everybody.
Speaker 1: She really is trying working very hard to have come
Speaker 1: down from that Ivory Tower mountains and really relate to
Speaker 1: people one on one and that way, even though she's
Speaker 1: policy focused, she's finding a way to relate what she
Speaker 1: wants to do policy wise to have an effect their
Speaker 1: daily lives and the moment that seems to be resonating.
Speaker 1: Do you see that with the fourteen flavors of Democrats
Speaker 1: in Iowa? Is she at the margin pulling over a
Speaker 1: new constituency or new constituencies plural? I think she's working
Speaker 1: awfully hard at it. And where she's being I think
Speaker 1: strategically smart is talking about trade, figuring out how that
Speaker 1: effects formers. It's so important formers. However, you have to
Speaker 1: brace yourself for Trump to cut a deal with China
Speaker 1: and get this thing off the table by December. So
Speaker 1: she's not focusing all over time on that because you
Speaker 1: realizes that issue might actually go okay. But those are
Speaker 1: economic issues and we're very familiar with, you know, economics first,
Speaker 1: it's the economy stupid. Except last time around there other
Speaker 1: than depressed GDP, that didn't have much to do with
Speaker 1: the election. It was the battle of Mr Trump versus
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State. And I just wonder do we
Speaker 1: actually get back to policy discussions as we go through
Speaker 1: the conventions in the election or do you see a
Speaker 1: redux of the tenor of the tumbra of two thousand
Speaker 1: six team? Well, tomm, you're pointing out something so vitally important,
Speaker 1: which is that you have to break through a TV
Speaker 1: screen or a video screen or a phone screen, whatever
Speaker 1: it is. You have to have a kind of charisma
Speaker 1: that says I'm gonna fight for you. And that's the
Speaker 1: big question mark. Can she break through on the national
Speaker 1: stage in the general And we're seeing her breakthrough a
Speaker 1: little bit so far, but yeah, there's some question marks.
Speaker 1: Other way you can do that, it will be personality
Speaker 1: versus personality, and she will have to look as tough
Speaker 1: as Trump, and that is always more difficult for a
Speaker 1: wan to do than a man. So it's absolutely right
Speaker 1: question mark. However, she is performing better than anybody thought
Speaker 1: she would. What about in the twenty counties that matter.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's thirty, maybe it's ten. I don't know. That's
Speaker 1: not my area of folks. But in the in the
Speaker 1: hyper narrow counties of those five or six key states,
Speaker 1: do they know how to spell W A R R
Speaker 1: E N. I mean, is it working well? I think
Speaker 1: for her, she's gonna have to do a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of recent politics in those areas. You're gonna have to
Speaker 1: get out there and meet and greet people, because that
Speaker 1: seems to be strong as asset Minnesota. You know, Minnesota
Speaker 1: could go either way, Republican or Democrat. You know, how
Speaker 1: does she play in Minnesota. That's the kind of thing
Speaker 1: I don't really start thinking about. Now, is this what
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton didn't do? I think Clinton had so much
Speaker 1: more more baggage than Warren. Warren has ideological baggage. She
Speaker 1: has reputational baggage. For she thinks, however, you can counteract
Speaker 1: that when you meet somebody first you know firsthand, or
Speaker 1: you go to town meetings, their CAUCUSUS and over the
Speaker 1: primary season she can counteract that in some ways. But
Speaker 1: whereas Clinton could not shed the baggage because it was
Speaker 1: twenty years worth of baggage. And that's one thing was
Speaker 1: Warren does not have. Whatever baggage she has, is actually
Speaker 1: fighting for consumers. So I don't see her having to
Speaker 1: lift that kind of heavy load that Clinton had to lift.
Speaker 1: And that's the margin of difference. That would mean, I don't,
Speaker 1: you know, doesn't torpedo her campaign against Trump. It would
Speaker 1: be a tall mountain climb, it would. But I don't
Speaker 1: think he can be labeled the same way Hillary was labeled.
Speaker 1: How do you identify if your folks, if you're just
Speaker 1: joining us Wendy Show or Brown University, we diverge here
Speaker 1: on politics on a Monday morning. Future is a negative one,
Speaker 1: Professor Schiller. And this is a phrase. It was used
Speaker 1: disaffected Democrats at the time of the liberal blow up
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. How do you identify disaffected Republicans, the
Speaker 1: people that do not support the president? How big are
Speaker 1: they and are they identifiable? It's a great question. I
Speaker 1: don't think there are disaffective Republicans at the moment. I
Speaker 1: think the Republicans that are annoyed, but I don't think
Speaker 1: they are they still going to vote for Donald Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I firmly believe that, you know, I do. I don't
Speaker 1: think they're going to cross the aisle to vote for
Speaker 1: our Sanders or Biden or a warrant. The problem is
Speaker 1: they may stay home if Biden's a nominee, and they
Speaker 1: can live with Biden, but they don't want to vote
Speaker 1: for a Democrat and may stay I'll sit this one out.
Speaker 1: And if they sit that one out, it becomes and
Speaker 1: that's the advantage Obama had over me, and that's how
Speaker 1: the Democrats can win. But I don't think anyone's crossing
Speaker 1: the aisle in this day and age. Explain the dynamics
Speaker 1: of one moderate, which is Biden, among the front runners
Speaker 1: of the Democrats. I mean, are there moderates out there
Speaker 1: that can find some masks or we beyond that? No,
Speaker 1: I do think we're beyond that within within the general election.
Speaker 1: Whether we we have it in the Democrat party, it's
Speaker 1: sound clear. But I think there's a lot of fatigue
Speaker 1: with sort of up and down with Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just general fatigue and Biden is sort of a
Speaker 1: calm waters kind of right. This is like the guy
Speaker 1: who will get you there, smooth sailing, no disruption, no uncertainty,
Speaker 1: and there are people who are kind of craving that
Speaker 1: and he's liberal enough. So I think, particularly with men,
Speaker 1: because we white men in the Democrat Party, can Biden
Speaker 1: actually get them out the door, take him away from Sanders.
Speaker 1: That's the only way he wins the nomination. And that's
Speaker 1: what we're looking for right now. Is he resonating with
Speaker 1: that particular group within the party. They tend to be
Speaker 1: more moderate than everybody else in the Democratic Good update,
Speaker 1: Professor Shoulder, Thank you so much, Professor Political Science of
Speaker 1: It Brown. We're thrilled that she could join us. Julia
Speaker 1: Cornado joins us right now, before we get into the
Speaker 1: report discussion, Julia, why are the p M S and
Speaker 1: I S M has become so important? Is it because
Speaker 1: the math is better? Well, I think with the market
Speaker 1: measure that we're going to get this morning, it's useful because,
Speaker 1: as Jonathan mentioned, we get it twice a month. We
Speaker 1: get a preliminary reads and a final read. The other
Speaker 1: thing is that it's a consistent UM survey across country,
Speaker 1: so it's comparable from the US to the Eurozone, to Japan, etcetera.
Speaker 1: So it's a it's a useful timely barometer. Do you
Speaker 1: expect to say the same story that we're seeing in Europe, Julia,
Speaker 1: which is weight manufacturing, but perhaps some small signs that
Speaker 1: is showing up in services, well, that would be very
Speaker 1: important for the US. UM. The consensus is expecting a
Speaker 1: little bit of a bounce in the services measure, and
Speaker 1: we've seen service sector resilience in the US so far,
Speaker 1: and that is absolutely essential because we don't expect to
Speaker 1: me manufacturing sector to be snapping back anytime soon. And
Speaker 1: and really the Senate sector has been carrying the entire
Speaker 1: weight of the economy. Julia Cronado with this macro policy advisers.
Speaker 1: One minute ago, the headline comes out and John, I
Speaker 1: guess we get used to this. New York Fed takes
Speaker 1: sixties six billion of treasuries, securities and repo operations. So, Julia,
Speaker 1: they brought in full faith and credit bills, notes and
Speaker 1: bonds as a general statement, and they pushed out cash
Speaker 1: to whom to a variety of people, to banks, and
Speaker 1: through banks, to other financial intermediaries. UM. So it is
Speaker 1: really um the liquifying the entire financial system through these operations,
Speaker 1: including including foreign demand as well. And then on Friday,
Speaker 1: we had the idea that big banks were reticent to
Speaker 1: do something with their cash or their security is and
Speaker 1: the blame goes back to Bossle is that the only
Speaker 1: way we fix this is to deregulate the regulation. Um
Speaker 1: that would be one road you can go down. But
Speaker 1: the sets certainly knew that these regulations have been in place,
Speaker 1: and they made a decision to sort of explore the
Speaker 1: frontier of how much reserves were needed by the system.
Speaker 1: And they found the frontier. So we had a liquidity
Speaker 1: crunch on one of these periodic moments of elevated demand.
Speaker 1: They're going to act, probably movie move to actually increase
Speaker 1: the level of reserves in the system. I think that's
Speaker 1: we found the frontier. So Julia, ultimately does that mean
Speaker 1: expanding the balance sheet again? And when do you expect
Speaker 1: to see that? Well, they've been very clear signaling that
Speaker 1: this will be part of the October communication that we
Speaker 1: get from them, that they will explore these issues make
Speaker 1: a decision by the October meeting. So that's that's what
Speaker 1: I would expect to see. If the former New York
Speaker 1: Fed president built outly running an all had recently and
Speaker 1: Tom and I are really looking forward to catching up
Speaker 1: with him in about an arrant thirty minutes time that
Speaker 1: Plug thought bloomlet c and for Bloomberg Ready, I, Julia,
Speaker 1: excuse that, but he said that you could focus on
Speaker 1: the bills and not further down the curve, and then
Speaker 1: the optics of it will improve. And that's just one
Speaker 1: way of communicating. This is not que What do you
Speaker 1: what do you think of that, Julia focusing on buying
Speaker 1: treasury bills instead of going further down the curve to
Speaker 1: expand the balance sheet and increase reserves. Well, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that they're going to go that route. When they
Speaker 1: have discussed this at the meetings this year, and they
Speaker 1: have been discussing these issues all year, they've sort of
Speaker 1: tied all of the balance sheet policy together under one
Speaker 1: investment policy, So both the reinvestment the mortgages and treasuries,
Speaker 1: as well as balance sheet expansion would all fall under
Speaker 1: the same policy, which currently is to sort of invest
Speaker 1: across the curve with the issuance pattern. And now folks
Speaker 1: are coronado dumb question of the day. I'm always qualified
Speaker 1: to do that. Does the pile sees this arcane PhD
Speaker 1: trust dynamics of the repo market? Does that mean that
Speaker 1: our listeners see D at their bank is a lower
Speaker 1: yield than it would be otherwise. No, this is unaffected.
Speaker 1: This doesn't affect retail yields. UH. And in fact, one
Speaker 1: of the goals of keeping these markets liquid is that
Speaker 1: these kinds of funding crunches don't affect retail yields. That
Speaker 1: all of this is behind the scenes plumbing in the
Speaker 1: wholesale market. Retail market should be Okay, we're losing Julia
Speaker 1: right now, Julia Coronado, thank you so much for wonderful
Speaker 1: explanations today. We are thrilled to bring you now. James
Speaker 1: Travitas UH, with his public service to the nation in
Speaker 1: the Navy and in course to Supreme Commander NATO as
Speaker 1: well with the Carlisle Group. Ad been wonderful to have
Speaker 1: with you. We could do a two hour conversation. We
Speaker 1: don't have time for that, but I do want to
Speaker 1: go back to a small memo which shows from another
Speaker 1: time and place, business as usual. May six, two thousand ten, Brussels.
Speaker 1: And this is where the Chief of Defense of the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: the Chief of Defense of Turkey, and the Supreme Allied
Speaker 1: Commander of NATO one Admiral James Travitas wandered into a
Speaker 1: room and signed a document to drive forward an ecumenical
Speaker 1: feel about Europe within all the politics of the moment.
Speaker 1: After what you've observed this weekend, has your efforts of
Speaker 1: May six, two thousand and ten been just destroyed by
Speaker 1: this domestic US politics? Certainly it's a setback. Tom. In
Speaker 1: any time UM you allow domestic politics to insert themselves
Speaker 1: in national security international concerns, you run great risk. And
Speaker 1: this is where the old saying comes from that UM
Speaker 1: politics ends at the water's edge. Well not so much anymore.
Speaker 1: And therefore very carefully crafted set of relationships with Ukraine
Speaker 1: are keetering right now. That's bad for US security. Do
Speaker 1: you perceive this is absolutely critical? Speaking with my good
Speaker 1: friend David Gura, who I know had Ambassador Brady on
Speaker 1: Nicholas Brady I believe was on up this weekend. And
Speaker 1: whether it's Nicolas Brady or it's James Travitas, the question
Speaker 1: is the same. Do you perceive this as a one
Speaker 1: off foreign policy domestic politics moment, the unusual nous of
Speaker 1: President Trump's tenor or is there a new permanence here
Speaker 1: to where we take domestic politics abroad. I think there's
Speaker 1: always been a subliminal element of what's going on domestically
Speaker 1: that bleeds into our international stances. Classic example, you and
Speaker 1: I are old enough to remember as the war in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: which eventually was completely driven by domestic politics. But um,
Speaker 1: since the fall of the Cold War, the fall of
Speaker 1: the Berlin Law, we have not seen this level of region.
Speaker 1: And like everybody else, hey, I want to read the
Speaker 1: transcript of that conversation and make a judgment. Does it exist? I? Oh, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I assure you would exists. Every time the President of
Speaker 1: the United States speaks to a foreign leader, it is
Speaker 1: recorded and transcribed. That's a fact. It exists. It's a
Speaker 1: government document, and given all that has happened, I think
Speaker 1: we need to take a look at it and then
Speaker 1: we can make a judgment. And that's a fair statement.
Speaker 1: Are you suggesting then that the uproar over Trump putin
Speaker 1: at Helsinki just with translators their documents to those conversations.
Speaker 1: That's a different, uh environment, when you're over when you're overseas. No,
Speaker 1: this is a phone call he made from the White House,
Speaker 1: and I've seen hundreds of those transcripts over the years.
Speaker 1: Typically they're passed around at the highest level, so is
Speaker 1: Supreme allet Commander at NATO. I would see UH interestments
Speaker 1: and discussion of UH of the President of the United
Speaker 1: States with David Cameron or with Nicholas Sarpos or Angela Merkel,
Speaker 1: because you need that intelligence content for your situational awareness. Um,
Speaker 1: so it exists for sure if you're just joining US
Speaker 1: admirals to Vidis. Of course, you know his book, The
Speaker 1: Leader's Bookshelf was my book of the year here in
Speaker 1: a not too distant pass. I still highly recommend that book.
Speaker 1: It's at least fifty books out there to make you
Speaker 1: wiser and smarter about the path of the nation and
Speaker 1: the future of our foreign and military policy. Can you explain,
Speaker 1: Admiral that I'm sure you aspired to be on the
Speaker 1: Joint Chiefs of Staff at whatever form. I mean, everybody
Speaker 1: does it wears a uniform, how they relate to this president.
Speaker 1: I mean they're all going to be quiet and take
Speaker 1: the maddest stoic line and all that. But what's actually
Speaker 1: going on at the Pentagon among our chiefs that are
Speaker 1: joint first and foremost. I was very lucky because I
Speaker 1: became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. I was also commander
Speaker 1: you a Southern command, Everything South of the United States,
Speaker 1: so I never had to be in Washington in that
Speaker 1: mouth politics. Lucky me exactly my point um. But of
Speaker 1: course these are my friends and contemporaries who have done this,
Speaker 1: and in time, I think you've categorized it exactly right,
Speaker 1: which is all of them are citizens, all of them
Speaker 1: have used but the professionalism at that level has to
Speaker 1: be as solid as a brick wall, and it is.
Speaker 1: There are a few certain chiefs in lifetime, but I
Speaker 1: would bet my life that you will never see a
Speaker 1: member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman of the
Speaker 1: Joint Chiefs out there in a public way involved. And
Speaker 1: how did it happen? How do you do we have
Speaker 1: war plans with Iran? I mean, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: want to give away the family secrets here, Adam get
Speaker 1: you in trouble, but I mean, I know General Dunford
Speaker 1: listens every moment of Bloomberg surveillance. But we have war
Speaker 1: plans with Iran. I get that. Now we're sending troops
Speaker 1: to Saudi Arabia. Is it quit like Gulf War two?
Speaker 1: Gulf War one troops? I mean, what's that deployment signify
Speaker 1: to you? First? We do have war plans for every
Speaker 1: contingency around the world, including war with North Korea, with China,
Speaker 1: with Russia in in this case with Iran, those are
Speaker 1: well built there, well resourced, they're detailed, um and they
Speaker 1: have escalation clauses in the time. So you start at
Speaker 1: the bottom and you probably look at things like cyber attacks.
Speaker 1: That probably what's going to happen next to Iran. But
Speaker 1: the deployment of troops will be part of that war plan,
Speaker 1: contingency plan, operational plan. And no, it will not be
Speaker 1: a hundred fifty thousand troops going to Kuwait. This will
Speaker 1: be uh in the thousand or two at the most.
Speaker 1: Mostly they'll be there to defend US facilities are embassy.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't mean to interrupt. What are two
Speaker 1: thousand troops going to do with the margin anywhere? Whether
Speaker 1: it's midtown it is midtown Manhattan or Riad, I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, it is it will be. To answer your
Speaker 1: fundamental question, yes, this will be deployment of trip Okay, Admiral,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I needed a new book idea
Speaker 1: from you from the leader's bookshelf. I got to get
Speaker 1: back to my core. I'm reading about the Romans now.
Speaker 1: Tom the book coming out on October about character ten
Speaker 1: Admirals and the voyage of characters. You should check it out.
Speaker 1: There we go, it's a book plug by James Trevitas.
Speaker 1: Somehow I think we'll be doing that. We will apples
Speaker 1: to me. Just thank you so much. Here's to the
Speaker 1: Carlisle Group, our former supreme and compender U Nato is well.
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