Speaker 1: China dominates the global shipbuilding industry, controlling more than seventy
Speaker 1: percent of the audiobook for key segments like container ships
Speaker 1: and tankers. The US is far behind, constructing less than
Speaker 1: one percent of global commercial ships, and that gap is
Speaker 1: raising concerns in Washington about competitiveness and national security.
Speaker 2: President Trump has pledged to revive the industry. As part
Speaker 2: of that goal, he's proposed fees on Chinese built ships
Speaker 2: entering US sports. The critics say these measures are far
Speaker 2: from enough to challenge China's dominance in the sector. So
Speaker 2: what else could the government do? What role could South
Speaker 2: Korea and Japan play?
Speaker 3: And in the.
Speaker 2: Meantime, how will these new fees impact the global shipping industry.
Speaker 2: You're listening to Asia Centric from Bloomberg Intelligence. I'm Katy
Speaker 2: Dmitrieva in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: And I'm John Lee, also in Hong Kong. Here to
Speaker 1: discuss these issues is Adam Ferer. He is the senior
Speaker 1: geoeconomics analyst for Asia Pacific at Bloomberg Economics based in Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: and Kenneth Low shipping and logistics analysts but Bloomberg Intelligence
Speaker 1: dialing in from Singapore. Adam and Kenneth, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 4: Great to be here.
Speaker 2: You just to set the scene. Adam wondering if you
Speaker 2: can tell us why we're even talking about shipbuilding, Why,
Speaker 2: why is it so important? Why is Trump focusing on
Speaker 2: trying to get the US more dominant in this space?
Speaker 4: So, to start with, as you led in the intro,
Speaker 4: the United States has fallen significantly behind in shipbuilding since
Speaker 4: basically the end of World War Two. The United States
Speaker 4: has progressively lost its footing as a primary builder of
Speaker 4: commercial ships in the world, forfeiting that position to emerging
Speaker 4: powers in the Indo Pacific, in particular Japan and Korea,
Speaker 4: initially but eventually China, which has increasingly risen as the
Speaker 4: primary point of production for both commercial ships and arguably
Speaker 4: the fastest producers of naval vessels now on Earth, almost
Speaker 4: entirely for the People's Liberation Army Navy. Now, the concerns
Speaker 4: about shipping our bipartisan here in the United States and
Speaker 4: are long running, but it is clear that President Trump
Speaker 4: has somewhat been bitten by the shipping bug and has
Speaker 4: taken this issue head on and is trying to use
Speaker 4: the power of the office to force the industry to
Speaker 4: change significantly and drive investment in the United States to
Speaker 4: push out both commercial shipping developments and potentially naval developments
Speaker 4: as well. And that's really where it comes down to
Speaker 4: this core question of the US national security and how
Speaker 4: shipbuilding kind of relates to it. Overall, you have this
Speaker 4: question of the commercial benefits of a ship being built
Speaker 4: in the United States, jobs and technology development, all of
Speaker 4: those things. But for Trump and for this administration, it's
Speaker 4: all about national security and ensuring that the United States
Speaker 4: has the tools it needs in a crisis scenario. So
Speaker 4: on one front, it is the tangible question of military construction.
Speaker 4: For those who follow any of this closely, we all
Speaker 4: know that the United States is struggling to meet the
Speaker 4: demands of the United States Navy and has progressively been
Speaker 4: seeing its dominance on the seas questioned, and that has
Speaker 4: been partially due to the fact that it simply cannot
Speaker 4: move and build ships as fast as it wants to
Speaker 4: and is unable to actually expand the size of the
Speaker 4: Navy as they see it today. The delays right now
Speaker 4: on major shipping could range between twelve and thirty six
Speaker 4: months on major production, all because the US shipbuilding facilities
Speaker 4: lack kind of basic infrastructure are dated in their technology
Speaker 4: and are unable to compete. And with that as well,
Speaker 4: you have this question of merchant ships and the need
Speaker 4: to be able to marshal a large number of merchant
Speaker 4: ships in the event of a crisis, particularly one as
Speaker 4: far away as as something in the Indo Pacific, maybe
Speaker 4: a Taiwan contingency or a North Korean contingency where you're
Speaker 4: going to need to move large number of troops and
Speaker 4: equipment quickly. But if the United States does not have
Speaker 4: enough ships that it owns and operates and can build,
Speaker 4: it feels that it could be at a disadvantage, and
Speaker 4: particularly in a China scenario, that the Chinese could use
Speaker 4: that against them.
Speaker 2: So if Americans aren't building ships, then who's making the
Speaker 2: ships for the US right now?
Speaker 4: So naval vessels are still produced in the United States,
Speaker 4: They're just produced slowly and at a rate that not
Speaker 4: meeting needs merchant ships. Though while the US does have
Speaker 4: a very small production capability, we're talking about the production
Speaker 4: of about five large ocean going vessels a year, which
Speaker 4: is ministry compared to other producers. When we compare that
Speaker 4: just to one of China's major shipping organizations. They produced
Speaker 4: over two hundred and fifty vessels in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 4: which just for context, is more than the United States
Speaker 4: produced in all of World War Two by tonnage, and
Speaker 4: so the numbers are not even close. When it comes
Speaker 4: to ships that enter and exit the United States bring
Speaker 4: all the goods the US consumes. Those ships are made
Speaker 4: all around the world, but particularly in Korea, Japan and
Speaker 4: now increasingly China.
Speaker 1: Asia Centric is produced by Bloomberg Intelligence. We're more than
Speaker 1: five hundred experienced analysts and strategists work around the clock
Speaker 1: to bring you timely, world class research. Our coverage spans
Speaker 1: two hundred market industries, currencies, commodities, and industries, as well
Speaker 1: as over two thousand equities and credits. To learn more
Speaker 1: about Bloomberg Intelligence, visit BI go on the Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 1: If you like what you're hear, don't forget to subscribe.
Speaker 1: And Shair Adam, do you need a strong commercial shipbuilding
Speaker 1: industry to also have a strong navy? Are they complementary
Speaker 1: to each other?
Speaker 4: So they absolutely are complementary, and you know, as we've
Speaker 4: seen over the past several decades, the answer at the
Speaker 4: core is no. You can build out a navy and
Speaker 4: a quite advanced one without a significant commercial ship industry,
Speaker 4: but you lose those complementary benefits that you were alluding
Speaker 4: to at the beginning, without the ability to build out
Speaker 4: a large workforce, to leverage the acquisition of large amounts
Speaker 4: of supplies, expand production facilities. All of these things are
Speaker 4: benefits that the Chinese benefit from on a day to
Speaker 4: day basis and the United States does not. For example,
Speaker 4: many Chinese shipyards produce both commercial and naval ships right
Speaker 4: next to each other, with individual experts moving between ships
Speaker 4: day to day. And that's something the United States simply
Speaker 4: can't do.
Speaker 2: So, Kenneth, maybe i'll bring you in here. The Trump
Speaker 2: administration has tried to target this issue of the lack
Speaker 2: of shipbuilding within the US by adding fees onto Chinese
Speaker 2: built ships that enter the US. So what do you
Speaker 2: see will be the impact of that on shipping? And
Speaker 2: you know, you look at logistics for example, how is
Speaker 2: this going to impact people's ability to get their goods
Speaker 2: in the US.
Speaker 3: You know, the proposed US levees that's going to be
Speaker 3: put in place by the US TRIDE Representative and the USTR,
Speaker 3: and the target date for implementation is October this year.
Speaker 3: You know, Bi, we have developed our own in house
Speaker 3: on the dative model to project the impact of these
Speaker 3: levees on the shipping and ship building industries. So based
Speaker 3: on our calculations, we estimate that the US levees should
Speaker 3: sum up to somewhere around ten billion dollars annually. And
Speaker 3: what's notable is more than forty percent of that amount
Speaker 3: comes from Chinese Costco Group alone. That is not surprising
Speaker 3: given that the levees are aimed squarely at leveling the
Speaker 3: playing field between the US and Chinese shipping players and shipbuilders.
Speaker 3: Perhaps what's more surprising or less obvious to people outside
Speaker 3: of the industry is that the levees are set to
Speaker 3: penalize shipping companies outside of China as well. So based
Speaker 3: on our calculations, actually Switzerland's MS Mediterranean shipping company, they
Speaker 3: are second in place, right behind Costco in terms of
Speaker 3: the expected levees to be paid in total per year.
Speaker 3: So you know, this shows that while the proposal aims
Speaker 3: to punish or you know, in a way imposed a
Speaker 3: levee on Chinese shipping and stribulers, they do go much
Speaker 3: further than that, and everyone in the industry in consumers
Speaker 3: will feel the impact as well. However, our model also
Speaker 3: suggests that it's not the end of the world for
Speaker 3: shipping companies and consumers, So even Costco group themselves, they
Speaker 3: could potentially reduce the impact of the proposed levees significantly
Speaker 3: by basically spreading out the levees that they aim to
Speaker 3: recoup across all container cargoes that they transport globally, rather
Speaker 3: than just those bounds for US pots, which would you know,
Speaker 3: attract the levees in the first place. We submit that
Speaker 3: the percentage incremental cost per container is actually somewhere around
Speaker 3: one hundred dollars per teu, just north of that figure,
Speaker 3: and in percentage terms, you know, if I compare to
Speaker 3: average prevailing phavores, that's only just under six percent. It's
Speaker 3: not insignificant, but not quite what you would expect to
Speaker 3: see in terms of the hum done to consumers and inflation.
Speaker 2: Basically, it sounds like the US is trying to target
Speaker 2: China with this, but there are all these kind of
Speaker 2: side effects because other countries are using Chinese built ships
Speaker 2: as well, right, so other countries will also face issues.
Speaker 2: So are there other moves that the Trump administration can
Speaker 2: take to short up US shipbuilding.
Speaker 4: I think we should definitely see these fees as the
Speaker 4: initial shot across the bow of Chinese shipbuilding. I think,
Speaker 4: as we've seen so far from the Trump administration, they
Speaker 4: are focused and willing to escalate to achieve their objectives.
Speaker 4: Now I can't say whether they will, but nonetheless I
Speaker 4: think once they've got a better sense for how these
Speaker 4: fees are working, I think there's certainly a chance that
Speaker 4: we could see these fees increase and other efforts evolve
Speaker 4: based on how effective they think they are. Another thing
Speaker 4: I'd point out is that there are several pieces of
Speaker 4: legislation in moving around Congress right now that relate to this.
Speaker 4: There's a specifically a shipbuilding they'll call the Shipbuilding and
Speaker 4: Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity Act, otherwise known as SHIPS. It's
Speaker 4: the Ships Act, and it's a bipartisan arrangement that is
Speaker 4: designed to address many of the core issues that we've
Speaker 4: already started to discuss. It includes tax credits, loans, guarantees,
Speaker 4: all designed to push for more commercial shipping to be
Speaker 4: produced in the United States to help build out and
Speaker 4: expand commercial shipyards. As we've seen in doing so, help
Speaker 4: with naval construction as well. Specifically, an interesting part of
Speaker 4: that is also the establishment of something they called the
Speaker 4: Strategic Commercial Fleet, which would be two hundred and fifty
Speaker 4: US built vessels that would serve that purpose of being
Speaker 4: in reserve an event of a US crisis, and the
Speaker 4: orders that the United States puts in and pays for
Speaker 4: that would come out and hopefully revitalize commercial shipping. But
Speaker 4: none of that is guaranteed. We haven't seen that move
Speaker 4: through Congress yet, and it is a lot of money
Speaker 4: that would be required there, and given increasing concerns about
Speaker 4: the debt, notwithstanding the passage of the most recent budget bill,
Speaker 4: I think there are questions on whether that will actually
Speaker 4: move forward.
Speaker 1: Adam, it seems to me that it's a very indirect
Speaker 1: way of trying to revive US shipbuilding by taxing Chinese
Speaker 1: built ships entering into the US. Like, why wouldn't a
Speaker 1: Shuman company say just buy a ship or order a
Speaker 1: ship from Career or Japan. It doesn't necessarily mean that
Speaker 1: they're going to buy a US built ship.
Speaker 4: Right now, what we are seeing is exactly what you said,
Speaker 4: is the movement of orders partially out of China into
Speaker 4: Korea and Japan. And not into the United States because
Speaker 4: of the way the fees are currently constructed, they don't
Speaker 4: penalize vessels constructed elsewhere, and as a result, the most
Speaker 4: capable and potent shipping industry available on Earth right now
Speaker 4: outside of China is Korea in Japan. But maybe Kenneth
Speaker 4: can talk a little bit about how they had hoped
Speaker 4: to incentivize the construction of US Belt vessels.
Speaker 3: Oh, so where do we begin. This is a very
Speaker 3: interesting and huge topic. So for starters, simply put, why
Speaker 3: the shipping companies are turning to South Coin and Japanese shipyards.
Speaker 3: There are multiple aspects to this problem. Number one is
Speaker 3: of course cost generally speaking, an average large ocean going
Speaker 3: container vessel, that's going to cost you probably five times
Speaker 3: as much to order that from Ubers shipyard compared to
Speaker 3: a self Coin shipyard. And the second aspect is in
Speaker 3: terms of the delivery timeline, it's just going to be
Speaker 3: a lot more efficient to order from a shipyard that
Speaker 3: you know could deliver in three to four years time
Speaker 3: with certainty, because you know there's economies of scale and
Speaker 3: expertise that's required to service the needs of global shipping
Speaker 3: companies in South COREA and Japan. And we are not
Speaker 3: talking about China here because we're talking about the impact
Speaker 3: of the levees targeted at the Chinese industry peers. But
Speaker 3: you know, if you consider time and cost, it definitely
Speaker 3: makes sense to order from the South Covins and the
Speaker 3: Japanese rather than the American shipyards. And the levees are
Speaker 3: not here to while they would like to see orders
Speaker 3: that US shipyards increase as a reason of the levees,
Speaker 3: they're not here solely to drive orders towards UB shipyards.
Speaker 3: So under the proposal, there are conditions that incentivize new
Speaker 3: orders from US shipyards. For instance, if you currently operate
Speaker 3: Chinese built but you put in a new order with
Speaker 3: the US shipyard, under certain conditions, there will be exemptions
Speaker 3: available to you as a shipping company. So if you
Speaker 3: place a new order with the US shipyard within the
Speaker 3: next three to five years, for instance, then that might
Speaker 3: basically reduce the amount of levies you will pay over
Speaker 3: that same period until you take delivery of the US
Speaker 3: ship But there's nothing actually stopping shipping companies from pivoting
Speaker 3: toward the South Kurrerents and the Japanese instate, So essentially
Speaker 3: the proposal is here to stop shipping companies from going
Speaker 3: straight to the Chinese. You know, in the long run,
Speaker 3: that is done with the intention of basically funneling orders
Speaker 3: away from the Chinese shipyards and reducing their dominance in
Speaker 3: the industry, which, as John mentioned at the beginning of
Speaker 3: the podcast, they control more than seventy percent of critical
Speaker 3: segments such as containerships and tanker vessels.
Speaker 2: So the fees that are going to be implemented for
Speaker 2: Chinese built ships, they're not going to actually slow the
Speaker 2: number or the amount of goods coming into the US. Basically,
Speaker 2: you have one hundreds of thousands of container ships going
Speaker 2: into the US each year delivering everything from car parts
Speaker 2: to consumer goods. Suddenly, if they have a Chinese built ship,
Speaker 2: they're going to have to pay a fee. Is that
Speaker 2: going to make these shipping companies think twice about potentially
Speaker 2: sending those goods over into the US? Is there potentially
Speaker 2: going to be more air shipping for example, could there
Speaker 2: be more goods coming through Mexico? Like, how would it
Speaker 2: impact the shipping routes themselves.
Speaker 3: Thankfully, there are multiple options for companies such as even
Speaker 3: China's cost Group Group to reduce the impact of these levees.
Speaker 3: As I mentioned earlier, one is what be for them
Speaker 3: to try to recoop the levees that they incur by
Speaker 3: collecting a search charge a form of search charge across
Speaker 3: all container volumes transport globally rather than just those bound
Speaker 3: for the US. Another way is they could work with
Speaker 3: their alliance partners, so in container shipping, you know the
Speaker 3: three larger shipping alliances at the moment, and for Costco Group,
Speaker 3: they could potentially work with their alliance partners ever Green
Speaker 3: from Taiwan and CMAC GM from France, and what they
Speaker 3: could do between the two of them would be too
Speaker 3: deferred or re deploy the Chinese build vessels on two
Speaker 3: routes that do not involve US podcorns, and that would
Speaker 3: effectively reduce the total levees incurred by Chinese Cosscoal Group annually.
Speaker 3: And also they could potentially reduce the levees further by
Speaker 3: just adding a certain number of orders with the US
Speaker 3: shipyards as intended. So there are multiple options of the
Speaker 3: vary in terms of viability and commercial value, but there
Speaker 3: are multiple options available and exemptions as well under this
Speaker 3: proposal that they could leverach.
Speaker 4: So one thing I would just add is that at
Speaker 4: Bloomberg Economics we also ask the question, what does this
Speaker 4: look like if they don't get around it and they
Speaker 4: have to pay everything, right, and we see almost ten
Speaker 4: billion dollars and increasing year by years the fees actually
Speaker 4: go up on a fee schedule, what's the impact? And
Speaker 4: what we actually found was that when you look at
Speaker 4: the value of the goods that are actually being transported
Speaker 4: and look at that in comparison to the fee, you're
Speaker 4: actually talking about only a point seven percent increase in
Speaker 4: total costs, or, if you want to think about it
Speaker 4: from a tariff perspective, because that's what we do, a
Speaker 4: point seven percent tariff, and given where we are in
Speaker 4: the tariff picture today with over forty percent tariffs currently
Speaker 4: on Chinese goods, zero point seven percent just really doesn't
Speaker 4: change calculus. So we very well might see our drop
Speaker 4: in shipments to the United States, but that's going to
Speaker 4: be driven by those broader trade talks with China and
Speaker 4: the tariff rates that exist, rather than the fees themselves.
Speaker 4: And so you know, certainly an individual company, as our
Speaker 4: reporting indicates, if Costco paid the full fee, they would
Speaker 4: actually take a large hit on their profits, but they
Speaker 4: have the ability likely to pass that on to a
Speaker 4: variety of different entities within the supply chain or the process,
Speaker 4: the logistics process of shipping in a manner that most
Speaker 4: folks will be willing to pay. And you know you
Speaker 4: mentioned airshipping, but the costs are so drastically different between
Speaker 4: the two, with ship bound goods being just so much
Speaker 4: cheaper that it just won't make a big difference.
Speaker 2: So not a huge impact, especially when we look at
Speaker 2: the comparison with tariffs and the huge impact that that'll have.
Speaker 2: So consumers shouldn't be too worried I guess come October
Speaker 2: at least about these shipping.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would like to just chooin youm figure for
Speaker 3: comparison for context, So if we're talking about Chinese Costco Group,
Speaker 3: which would be the one attracting the largest levies under
Speaker 3: the proposal, but it's on our calculations that's only going
Speaker 3: to come up to one hundred and eighteen dollars per
Speaker 3: TEU per twenty foot equivalent unit. You know these standard
Speaker 3: containers that you see, and for context, you could stuff
Speaker 3: anywhere between one hundred and fifty to three hundred thousand
Speaker 3: T shirts in such a container. So that's one hundred
Speaker 3: and eighteen dollars divided by two hundred thousand T shirts.
Speaker 3: It's not even going to show up as a decimal point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, some good context, Adam.
Speaker 1: I wanted to just take a broader view on America's
Speaker 1: efforts to revive its super building sector. Now, you alluded
Speaker 1: to the fact that America really hasn't been competitive in
Speaker 1: this space since did you say World War Two?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 1: How difficult? And I know we've touched on it, but
Speaker 1: how difficult will it be for America to really start
Speaker 1: challenging China's dominance in this sector?
Speaker 4: To be frank, I don't think anybody's talking about the
Speaker 4: United States challenging China's dominance in this sector, but rather
Speaker 4: America significantly improving its ability to produce ships and put
Speaker 4: itself in a position where it is a competitor at
Speaker 4: all in the space, and moreover, where it could reach
Speaker 4: the economies of scale that would allow it to produce
Speaker 4: ships more efficiently, build out a workforce that is capable
Speaker 4: of doing so, and again leverage that to improve its
Speaker 4: naval capacity. The United States, there's a big deal right now.
Speaker 4: During the Biden administration, there was a deal to work
Speaker 4: with Australia and the United Kingdom on the construction of
Speaker 4: nuclear submarines under something called Aucus. And this is all
Speaker 4: built around the Virginia class nuclear submarine. And the entire
Speaker 4: premise of this agreement was that by increasing the order
Speaker 4: book for this submarine and increasing the amount of funds
Speaker 4: flowing into the program, with Australia buying in and potentially
Speaker 4: the United Kingdom as well, that the United States would
Speaker 4: be able to improve its ability to produce ships because
Speaker 4: it is falling woefully behind in producing these advanced submarines
Speaker 4: that it needs for its strategic position in the Indo Pacific.
Speaker 4: So the US is looking in every place to do this,
Speaker 4: and the idea here is to just give even more
Speaker 4: support and funding to drive that development.
Speaker 2: We talked a bit about it earlier, but the role
Speaker 2: of South Korea, Japan, sort of America's allies in Asia,
Speaker 2: how could they help with this US effort.
Speaker 4: So they're actually competing priorities here. If we're looking at
Speaker 4: simply trying to improve US shipbuilding, we want to push
Speaker 4: as much money and as many contracts as possible to
Speaker 4: US shipbuilders and encourage foreign firms like those in Korea
Speaker 4: and Japan to invest in the United States as they've
Speaker 4: started to do. However, if the competing priority here is
Speaker 4: to increase the size and efficiency of the US Navy
Speaker 4: as fast as possible, and to do that, we actually need,
Speaker 4: or at least folks are considering actually using the shipyards
Speaker 4: in Korea and Japan to both do maintenance on our
Speaker 4: current fleet and potentially actually construct elements of our current fleet,
Speaker 4: and so there is this tension that exists between the
Speaker 4: two objectives. Both Korea and Japan are very much aware
Speaker 4: of how focused the United States is on this issue
Speaker 4: and have already made large proposals in regards to how
Speaker 4: they could help the United States build out and improve
Speaker 4: the shipbuilding industry as part of these trade or tariff
Speaker 4: negotiations that are ongoing.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: We obviously haven't seen either of those come to fruition yet,
Speaker 4: so we don't know what that looks like, but that
Speaker 4: is absolutely on the table, and both sides hope that
Speaker 4: that will be enough to help get them some reprieve
Speaker 4: on reciprocal tariffs.
Speaker 3: So, from my perspective of revitalizing the US shipbuilding industry,
Speaker 3: that's going to take much more, much more than just
Speaker 3: the proposed levees targeting China. Again, China holds about sixty
Speaker 3: four percent of the world's vessel or the book if
Speaker 3: we look across all vessel types. This compares with less
Speaker 3: than one percent of our market share that the US holds.
Speaker 3: And the problem is constructing the shipyard, staffing with skilled workers,
Speaker 3: and producing ships on a commercially viable skill. All these
Speaker 3: things could easily take more than ten years. So while
Speaker 3: the proposal by the US here they aim to finance
Speaker 3: these investments using the levees collected, that still leaves the
Speaker 3: issue of rapidly raising a huge pool of trained workers,
Speaker 3: as Adam mentioned earlier, and this is something that's unlikely
Speaker 3: to be accomplished under the proposal alone. So this is
Speaker 3: where we think shipbuilders in South Korea and Japan they
Speaker 3: are well positioned to come to the aid of the
Speaker 3: US so to speak, since these two countries are in
Speaker 3: the world's number two and number three largest shipbuilders after China.
Speaker 3: And one way this could be done is to bring
Speaker 3: in these shipbuilders to invest in US ship yards, such
Speaker 3: as Hanwa Ocean, which invested one hundred million dollars into
Speaker 3: Philly Shipyard. This was sometime last year twenty twenty four,
Speaker 3: and you know, bringing these experts in they could help
Speaker 3: make US shipyards commercially viable again, which also could be
Speaker 3: very lucrative undertaking for these companies themselves. But yes, I
Speaker 3: agree completely with Adam that you know, no one's really
Speaker 3: looking to make the US one of the worst leading shipbuilders.
Speaker 3: The idea is really to narrow the gap between China
Speaker 3: and the rest of the world, so US and its allies,
Speaker 3: and also to blunt the dominance of China shipbuilding industry
Speaker 3: so that the entire world doesn't become so reliant on
Speaker 3: the Chinese that they hold sway over what happens in
Speaker 3: the industry, especially when due economic tensions on the rise.
Speaker 2: Kenneth Adam, thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 4: Thank you appreciate it. Thank you for having us.
Speaker 2: You've been listening to Centric from Bloomberg Intelligence. I'm Carti
Speaker 2: Dmitrieva Hong Kong, and I'm.
Speaker 1: John Lee, also in Hong Kong. You can listen to
Speaker 1: all our episodes on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or where you
Speaker 1: listen and this podcast was also produced and edited by
Speaker 1: Clara Chen. Thanks for listening.