Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller. Every business day we bring
Speaker 1: you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along
Speaker 1: with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets Podcast
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. We had some Peco
Speaker 1: data today. Of the story of the day is the
Speaker 1: inflation came in really much hotter than expected, pretty much
Speaker 1: across the board, and we're seeing reflected here in the markets. Today.
Speaker 1: Let's bring in our expert in all things on interest rates,
Speaker 1: in the curve and all that kind of good stuff.
Speaker 1: Iro Jersey, chief US interest rate strategist and chief soccer
Speaker 1: strategist for Bloomberg Intelligence. I are a big print here today.
Speaker 1: What's your takeaway as as to how we'll see the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve react next week? Yea, So, our our focus
Speaker 1: really has been on the core services numbers UM, and
Speaker 1: those continue to accelerate across the board. Like you said, Matt, uh,
Speaker 1: you know that the the issue is if core inflation
Speaker 1: really takes hold UM, it tends to trend for a
Speaker 1: very long period of time. So, um so, given that
Speaker 1: you have wages continuing to go up, you still have
Speaker 1: very significant um, you know or very tight labor markets
Speaker 1: in general that should help, you know, cause wages to
Speaker 1: continue to climb. Um. You know that those two things
Speaker 1: wanted to increase costs and therefore um therefore prices for
Speaker 1: for goods and services. But but too, and I think
Speaker 1: this is important. Um, those higher wages allow the consumer
Speaker 1: to be able to absorb at least a portion of
Speaker 1: those higher higher prices. So um so that that's how
Speaker 1: this becomes sustainable and why inflation being you know, going
Speaker 1: up is a real worry for the Fed, it is,
Speaker 1: and they've been very clear, iras as you've been explaining
Speaker 1: to us over the last several weeks and months about
Speaker 1: their focus on inflation. Here when we do here from
Speaker 1: the Fed next week, given this print we just had,
Speaker 1: will we get any body language, any inkling of what
Speaker 1: they may want to do going forward, Because you could
Speaker 1: look at these numbers today and say, hey, maybe they
Speaker 1: don't pause here in September. What do you think? Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: so I think you know, seventy five is a given
Speaker 1: we were actually pricing some uh, you know, modest chance
Speaker 1: of even a hundred basis point increased. Although I don't
Speaker 1: think that they they'll take go that route and increase
Speaker 1: a hundred. I think they're more likely to do seventy
Speaker 1: five followed by another seventy five if the September number
Speaker 1: is uh is you know, as bad as this one
Speaker 1: was in terms of inflation going up um so so
Speaker 1: so I don't think that they'll do a hundred. But
Speaker 1: but but I think importantly, you know, we do get
Speaker 1: the top plot. I know that some people don't like
Speaker 1: the top plot, but I think it is in terms of,
Speaker 1: you know, what a lot of the members are thinking
Speaker 1: is how far will they go into three? So we've
Speaker 1: we've been pretty consistent in our view that there would
Speaker 1: be a couple of hikes into three, um, you know,
Speaker 1: after a number like this, which was even higher than
Speaker 1: what we thought quite frankly, and we were above consensus
Speaker 1: in terms of of how how what the number would
Speaker 1: be UM. But the the idea that that the Fed is,
Speaker 1: you know, basically firstly going to high ease interest rates
Speaker 1: anytime in has I think has to be taken off
Speaker 1: the table. Although the markets still pricing for a cut
Speaker 1: late in the year. Um, so it's number one and
Speaker 1: the number two we still have to find what is
Speaker 1: the terminal rate? Right? Do do they go to Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Economics five percent? They go higher than that even and
Speaker 1: with a number like this, if you get another another
Speaker 1: number two like this, I think two things happened. I
Speaker 1: think one, the Fed is going to go higher than
Speaker 1: to inflation. Expectations in the market are gonna wind up
Speaker 1: shooting significantly higher, which is what you're seeing today with
Speaker 1: two year yields up fifteen basis for that's where I
Speaker 1: wanted to go next, Ira, kind of just looking at
Speaker 1: the yield curve as people like you and Lisa Bramwins
Speaker 1: has been schooling me over the years to focus on
Speaker 1: this yield curve. I've got a thirty basis point in
Speaker 1: version between a two year and tenure, not quite the
Speaker 1: fifty basis points we had recently, but still notably inverted. Here.
Speaker 1: What's your takeaway what we're seeing the price action today? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I do think that we'll continue what we'll retest.
Speaker 1: I think that negative fifty basis point level on the
Speaker 1: two's tense curve and driven primarily by two year yields
Speaker 1: going up significantly faster than than ten year yields. You know,
Speaker 1: ten year yields are going to take into account, you know,
Speaker 1: the coming recession. We will have a recession, right, it's
Speaker 1: a matter of of how deep and how long it lasts, right,
Speaker 1: So those are the kind of the two factors in it.
Speaker 1: And when it starts. Obviously um so so so the
Speaker 1: ten year yield. I think, well, ultimately what we'll retest
Speaker 1: the three and a half percent level, but but might
Speaker 1: actually hover somewhere in that range where you can see
Speaker 1: two year yields um. Even though our forecast is for
Speaker 1: for three ninety as the peak and two year yields,
Speaker 1: there's the possibility that it could go significantly higher, and
Speaker 1: particularly with UM, with with data like we had today,
Speaker 1: if if we continue to get another one or two
Speaker 1: UM inflation prints that are as strong as today is,
Speaker 1: and then we definitely have to rethink, uh, you know
Speaker 1: where we think two year yields can go. I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about the timeline here. If we're talking
Speaker 1: about inflation that we think has peaked and it's in
Speaker 1: the rare view mirror, the deceleration seems to be taking
Speaker 1: way longer than expected, what does that mean for break
Speaker 1: events and for inflation expectations. Uh yeah, so so the
Speaker 1: uh so firstly, it's it's things are actually playing out
Speaker 1: the way that we thought because the market we we
Speaker 1: had always thought, had um expected the inflation to decelerate
Speaker 1: too quickly. And and you know again I I point
Speaker 1: to the core inflation measures that we look at, which
Speaker 1: are of the of the uh C, p I and
Speaker 1: the PC and and those data continue to climb right
Speaker 1: And and even though oil and gasoline prices have come
Speaker 1: down quite significantly, um, even if they come down further,
Speaker 1: it'll still be more elevated than than the Fed wants.
Speaker 1: In fact, we put out a piece yesterday that's available
Speaker 1: on the on the terminal UM noting that if you
Speaker 1: just exclude energy prices from inflation of two year inflation
Speaker 1: brake even you'll see that that UM that x energy.
Speaker 1: We're still talking about cornflation being at over four percent
Speaker 1: in a year. And you know that's way higher than
Speaker 1: than what the Fed really wants. All right, I read
Speaker 1: great stuff as always, always appreciate getting your perspective. Here.
Speaker 1: I our Jersey chief US interest rate strategist for Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 1: He's based down in Princeton, New Jersey. The rough rough
Speaker 1: day in the markets, no doubt. Let's check in with
Speaker 1: Shaun Cruz, Senior Manager, Trade Services and Client Advocacy for
Speaker 1: td A Merrit Trade. The good folks at td A
Speaker 1: Merrit Trade. They have their investor Movement Index and we
Speaker 1: always like to check in with them to get a
Speaker 1: sense of kind of what the TD and Merrit Trade
Speaker 1: customers out there, the individual traders and investors out there,
Speaker 1: what are they saying about these markets? Sean, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining us here. What's your i MX index
Speaker 1: really kind of showing us these days? So you know what,
Speaker 1: Actually it was interesting was the iMX index, which is
Speaker 1: sort of gives us the relative sentiment of how investors
Speaker 1: are are putting their money to work work whenever they
Speaker 1: make a trading decision, had been trending down pretty much
Speaker 1: since the last November. This past month in August was
Speaker 1: the first time we actually saw it tick up and
Speaker 1: move higher. So I think that to me shows that,
Speaker 1: you know, the negative sentiment or just some of that
Speaker 1: cautious behavior as markets sort of mark lower and lower
Speaker 1: throughout the year, UM finally started to reverse itself and
Speaker 1: we saw some some inflows in some pretty interesting areas
Speaker 1: of the market. Are people worried? Are they taking their cash,
Speaker 1: stuffing it on their mattress, running towards buying more dollars?
Speaker 1: Are people worried right now? Where do you think there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a change in sentiment UM. I
Speaker 1: think there's there's still some some cautiousness, but I think
Speaker 1: that sentiment is starting to shift. So although it did
Speaker 1: kick higher, I would say just where the index reading
Speaker 1: came out was still a little bit at the lower
Speaker 1: end of where we had seen it compared to previous
Speaker 1: periods where they were very bullish and very optimistic. So
Speaker 1: I think they're I don't think they're they're necessarily stuffing
Speaker 1: cash in their matches. They're finding opportunities. But I would
Speaker 1: say the the other interesting data point that's out there,
Speaker 1: and this is put out by Center for the Industry
Speaker 1: at Large, is that you're still seeing the use of
Speaker 1: leverage UM fairly low. So they're not necessarily stuffing cash
Speaker 1: and their mattresses, but they're also not levering up to
Speaker 1: get market exposure. Sean, you guys at t D and
Speaker 1: Merritrade have a great, great vantage point to see what
Speaker 1: you know retail investors they're buying, they're selling. What are
Speaker 1: some of the names that they were buying during this period,
Speaker 1: Because a lot of folks are aren't sure that boy,
Speaker 1: if this is kind of the bottom and I want
Speaker 1: to mix some some stock purchase, I'm not sure whether
Speaker 1: good to might tried and true tech names or maybe
Speaker 1: go more cyclical. What did you guys see? So there
Speaker 1: was you know, if you look, there was consumer discretionary.
Speaker 1: Was had a pretty strong um influence into that actor,
Speaker 1: and I think a lot of that was primarily driven
Speaker 1: by interest in Amazon, um Shopify. I think some of
Speaker 1: the electric vehicle makers UM Amazon in particular, I think
Speaker 1: they're had a little bit of a breakout above you know,
Speaker 1: what had been a pretty significant residence level, and it
Speaker 1: had some pretty strong upward momentum out of that. But
Speaker 1: that's one thing where Amazon is technically a consumer discretionary company,
Speaker 1: but people looking to get some sort of a tech
Speaker 1: allocation because of the Amazon web servers in their portfolio
Speaker 1: could also be going into Amazon for that reason as well,
Speaker 1: because we also saw them going out their purchasing names
Speaker 1: like Google and uh in meta as well. But on
Speaker 1: that tech trade, I mean, what's interesting to me is
Speaker 1: that I think the story of one that I think
Speaker 1: people still say is seeping into two, although I very
Speaker 1: aggressively disagree, is that tech is only responding to rates,
Speaker 1: and I personally feel that tech has more to do
Speaker 1: with fun flows that you're seeing from around the world
Speaker 1: Asian investors, European investors saying, you know what, we want
Speaker 1: to buy defensive tech that are still, by the way,
Speaker 1: the fastest growing companies in the SMP five hundred. What
Speaker 1: do you think, from a cross asset perspective, is driving
Speaker 1: the trade? Um? I do think it one is there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a rotational trade. Into your point,
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily we're going all in on defensives or
Speaker 1: we're piling the cyclicals. I think the view is just
Speaker 1: looking at companies that maybe have positive earnings, a little
Speaker 1: bit more of a solid fundamental underpinnion in terms of
Speaker 1: they can write out anything that's going to play out
Speaker 1: um here for the remainder of the year and end
Speaker 1: the next year. Those are the kind of companies that
Speaker 1: I think has really been driving the traded and driving
Speaker 1: the investment dollars um, not not necessarily going into the
Speaker 1: you know whatever is the the in vogue as a
Speaker 1: service company that is and expected to be profitable for
Speaker 1: three to five years, shunning those names, but going into
Speaker 1: names like Amazon, who you know, may have some bumps
Speaker 1: along the way, but I don't think anyone is expecting
Speaker 1: the Amazon to go anywhere anytime soon. All right, John,
Speaker 1: that's good stuff. Appreciate it as always. Sean Cruz, he's
Speaker 1: the senior manager of Trader Services and Client Advocacy at
Speaker 1: TD A Merrior Trade. They have their Investor Movement Index,
Speaker 1: gets a good sense of kind of what the average
Speaker 1: retail trader out there for TD and merrit Trade, how
Speaker 1: they're feeling about the markets where they're putting money to work.
Speaker 1: So it's always good checking in with Shawn to get
Speaker 1: a good sense of what's going on there. Pretty one
Speaker 1: of my first jobs in equity research on wallst it
Speaker 1: was covering the transportation sector, the railroads, the trucking stocks. UM,
Speaker 1: good stuff. Um. There's a few of them left actually
Speaker 1: in the public market's Norfolk, Southern, CSX, Union Pacific for
Speaker 1: the US, they're all down about nine to sevent year
Speaker 1: to date. This is an industry that's really really consolidate
Speaker 1: into just a handful of names, But the big issue
Speaker 1: for them is a potential strike coming up, and that
Speaker 1: can't be good for the old supply chain and the
Speaker 1: economy in general. Let's get the latest. We can do
Speaker 1: that with Bloomberg laws. Rebecca Rainey, Rebecca, where are we
Speaker 1: in this process? Just frame out for me what the
Speaker 1: issues are between the railroads and and some of these
Speaker 1: unions and kind of how it might play out. Are
Speaker 1: we gonna have a strike? Are we are we gonna
Speaker 1: have a strike? And what's it about? Yeah, so the
Speaker 1: chances of us seeing a strike on Friday are much
Speaker 1: higher than they were last week. UM. You know, when
Speaker 1: we were coming into Monday, we had you heard that
Speaker 1: most of the twelve railroad unions who were involved in
Speaker 1: the dispute, how reached over close to UM, you know
Speaker 1: what is known as a tenative agreement UM with these
Speaker 1: brake carriers. UM. So you know, as of last night
Speaker 1: there was one union that said, you know, that kind
Speaker 1: of agreement we had, we don't think we can bring
Speaker 1: it to our members for ratification. I think that's another
Speaker 1: piece we need to talk about here too. Even though
Speaker 1: these agreements are you know, kind of said for UM,
Speaker 1: it's still requires the membership of the unions to vote
Speaker 1: to ratify them. So with that change late last night,
Speaker 1: and then the two uh largest unions involved in this
Speaker 1: dispute still not at a deal yet. Um, I think
Speaker 1: it's safe to say the chances are rather you know,
Speaker 1: concerning that there may be um a strike this So
Speaker 1: would that mean all the freight railroads in this country
Speaker 1: will just stop on Friday? What does that actually mean
Speaker 1: if they go on strike? Yes? So, while not again
Speaker 1: as I mentioned earlier, you know, while not all of
Speaker 1: these twelve unions involved in this dispute have reached an agreement,
Speaker 1: all of the unions have agreed to honor the strike line.
Speaker 1: If you know, the remaining unions that haven't reached a
Speaker 1: deal don't reach it you all by Friday. So that means,
Speaker 1: you know, roughly a hundred and twenty five thousand rail
Speaker 1: works could be on strike as soon as Friday, UM,
Speaker 1: And that would you know their industry leaders are warning,
Speaker 1: you know, shut down the entire system. You know, Rebecca, Um,
Speaker 1: I'm reading about this right now, trying to figure out
Speaker 1: how we're going to be covering this later in the week.
Speaker 1: And some of the issues here are really crucial. It's
Speaker 1: not just about pay and the wage increases, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, uh, the agreement on the table, get this
Speaker 1: call increase by that is a huge alley. It's the
Speaker 1: biggest wage increase I believe in about forty years according
Speaker 1: to some analyst notes that I'm reading Rebecca. But that's
Speaker 1: not the only issue on the table here. It's also
Speaker 1: about sick days, medical leaf, health coverage. Talk to us
Speaker 1: about that aspect, yeah, yeah, And you know, in regards
Speaker 1: to the wage increases as well, I know the unions
Speaker 1: would say a lot of these workers haven't seen increases,
Speaker 1: haven't seen any radis is over the past couple of years,
Speaker 1: especially through the pandemic. So you know, they say this
Speaker 1: is a long time coming. Um. But when it comes
Speaker 1: to sick leave, um. You know, these two major unions
Speaker 1: say that whenever, even when it comes to taking time
Speaker 1: off routine medical appointments, they can receive you know, kind
Speaker 1: of uh negative points or um get you know, negative
Speaker 1: demerits towards their their scheduling. UM. So it's really important,
Speaker 1: they say, for their workers to be able to take
Speaker 1: time off without you know, fear of getting in trouble
Speaker 1: at work or with their standing, um, with their employer.
Speaker 1: You know, the train companies say that rail employees get
Speaker 1: you know, five weeks of vacation in addition to fourteen
Speaker 1: paid holidays. UM. But you know, union members say that's
Speaker 1: not enough. They want you know, dedicated sick time. UM.
Speaker 1: As part of this you know emergency board that came
Speaker 1: up with recommendations to kind of help resolve this UM,
Speaker 1: they had initially asked for fifteen days of paid sick
Speaker 1: leave each year. You know, if I'm just thinking of
Speaker 1: you know, we're just starting to try to get out
Speaker 1: from the supply chain issues throughout the U. S economy
Speaker 1: and the global economy quite quite frankly, and there's still
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, kind of challenges out there
Speaker 1: as it relates to the transportation system. I think arguably
Speaker 1: the last thing, uh, this country, this economy needs is
Speaker 1: a railroad strike. So given that background, what's the White
Speaker 1: House said? What is their position? Because you know, you
Speaker 1: see in past the White House would maybe uh kind
Speaker 1: of step in and try to, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: help get things moving, whether it's the airline industry, the
Speaker 1: railroad industry, the shipping industry. What's the White House position? Definitely?
Speaker 1: And you know, um My colleagues are at Bloomberg did
Speaker 1: report yesterday that Biden and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh have
Speaker 1: been in contact with the parties UM in this dispute.
Speaker 1: And you know, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh was supposed to
Speaker 1: travel to Ireland this week, UM, and he postponed that
Speaker 1: trip to help gave full attention to this issue. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, we've been hearing that the White House is
Speaker 1: emphasizing that a shutdown of the freight rail system is
Speaker 1: just not an acceptable option at this time. So it's
Speaker 1: very interesting because we have a very pro labor administration
Speaker 1: that is unabashedly pro union and nearly all of the
Speaker 1: policies it proposes. UM. But it would be very UM.
Speaker 1: It would put the White House in a tough position
Speaker 1: to have to go against these two unions who are saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we want some more stick time. But for you know,
Speaker 1: the White House or President Biden to say, hey, you
Speaker 1: need to accept what we have on the table now. UM.
Speaker 1: It's going to be very interesting to see if this
Speaker 1: White House and the Biden administration will have to kind
Speaker 1: of stand up to unions UM in in this juncture.
Speaker 1: You Know what's interesting to me is also the regionality
Speaker 1: of this. Yere, you mentioned a hundred and fifteen thousand
Speaker 1: potentially going on strike. Where in the country are we
Speaker 1: going to see the biggest effects? Um? I think you
Speaker 1: can definitely. I know there's a lot of concern among
Speaker 1: agricultural employers about how this will affect their shipments ahead
Speaker 1: of harvest season. So if you look in those areas,
Speaker 1: you know, the bread basket areas, I would say they're
Speaker 1: going to be feeling this more acutely. Um, when you're
Speaker 1: thinking too, just about the broader economy. You know, officials
Speaker 1: and rail executives are warning that this could touch every
Speaker 1: piece of our economy. Um. You know, if shippers aren't
Speaker 1: able to get products out, this is also going to
Speaker 1: lead to even bottlenecks or delays that could last, you know,
Speaker 1: for weeks. Um. We're especially ahead of you know, the
Speaker 1: retail holiday season and harvest season. Right, All right, good stuff,
Speaker 1: Rebecca Rainey, thank you so much for bringing us up
Speaker 1: to date. Rebecca Rainy from Bloomberg Law giving us an
Speaker 1: update on what could become a big economic issue. Again,
Speaker 1: I guess the drop dead date in terms of getting
Speaker 1: a negotiation done and setting a strike this coming Friday railroads.
Speaker 1: Many of the unions have some issues with the big
Speaker 1: railroads in this country and again threatening to strike Friday. Hopefully,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll get some type of resolution before them,
Speaker 1: because that would just be another challenge for this economy
Speaker 1: in terms of supply chain challenges. Brent Donley, he's a
Speaker 1: president of Spectr Markets. He's been doing this currency thing
Speaker 1: on the street for a long time, so he knows
Speaker 1: what's going on. Brand I'm just gonna start off with
Speaker 1: my kind of my stock f X question, which is
Speaker 1: is there a bear case for the green back. Well,
Speaker 1: the funny thing is we had a bear case for
Speaker 1: the last week or two. We had PBOC and the
Speaker 1: Bank of Japan pushing back on dollar strength. He had
Speaker 1: some good news out of Ukraine. You had the ECB
Speaker 1: kind of stepping up a little bit, and then you
Speaker 1: had like a big pocket of demand for euros around
Speaker 1: one double o. And then today just everything onlines in
Speaker 1: two seconds. Because the problem is so b O J
Speaker 1: and p BOC can push back all they want, but
Speaker 1: they're running the loosest monetary policy in the world, so
Speaker 1: they need help from the data and they're just not
Speaker 1: getting it. So now again, if b o J is
Speaker 1: peggy yields at twenty five basis points in the tenure.
Speaker 1: You know, Delian is just gonna go up. They can
Speaker 1: say whatever they want, Delian is just gonna keep on
Speaker 1: going up. But how long does that last? Because it
Speaker 1: feels like the bear case for the dollar that you
Speaker 1: just reference, a lot of that came from interest rate differentials,
Speaker 1: the idea that if the e C b UH surprises
Speaker 1: the market in some way, that ends up creating a
Speaker 1: bowl case for the euro, and therefore you sell the
Speaker 1: dollar off the back of that. But even that was
Speaker 1: a temporary scenario. So how long does the bear case
Speaker 1: for the dollar really last? Well, that's kind of my
Speaker 1: point is that it doesn't last very long. We get
Speaker 1: these quick little moves for maybe a week or two
Speaker 1: and there's a ray of hope for dollar bears, but
Speaker 1: then then you know, one other one side, either on
Speaker 1: the energy side in Europe or on the right side
Speaker 1: in the US, the hammer just comes down again on
Speaker 1: the euro. And that's what we're seeing again today. So
Speaker 1: to me, it's very reminiscent of two thousand, two thousand one,
Speaker 1: where it's just an impulsive move and really nothing's going
Speaker 1: to stand in the way until you get like a
Speaker 1: fundamental turn in US rates, which obviously we keep waiting
Speaker 1: for and sometimes pricing but never actually is delivered. So
Speaker 1: it's you know, Tom Keane and the surveillance, radio and
Speaker 1: TV team. They're over in London covering the Queen's upcoming funerals,
Speaker 1: so they're benefiting from this strong dollar. But dos you
Speaker 1: think about the euro at parody the pound at once
Speaker 1: about one five? Do you just trade those things or
Speaker 1: do you just stay away from European currencies? Well, I
Speaker 1: mean the trend is still intact, so I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people have just been playing the trend all year.
Speaker 1: Really that has been the play is just that's been
Speaker 1: the right playbook, has been selling rallies in euro and Sterling.
Speaker 1: Of course, now we're in an in territory where valuation
Speaker 1: starts to come into play. You start to see changes
Speaker 1: of behavior like m and A cross border m and
Speaker 1: A starts to change, Americans start going to Europe more.
Speaker 1: But all that stuff just takes forever to bleed through.
Speaker 1: So um, I mean, for me, I've had a couple
Speaker 1: of brief forays being barised dollars, but it's just never fun.
Speaker 1: The fun is always selling rallies and euro and you
Speaker 1: know the d x y went much higher than this
Speaker 1: in in two thousand, two thousand one, and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of parallels to that period. So you know, any
Speaker 1: any long earros of a rental and but you can
Speaker 1: own the short earros for a while. One about the
Speaker 1: pound here, because it feels like now that we've I
Speaker 1: want to say, talked about your dollar parody, it's in
Speaker 1: the rare view mirror some extent, really just hovering. It's
Speaker 1: actually literally at one point zero zero zero nine at
Speaker 1: the moment. But the pound here we're looking at one
Speaker 1: spot one five. I'm curious if pound parody is realistic
Speaker 1: by the end of the year. So I'm less pessimistic
Speaker 1: on then than many people. But there is a scenario
Speaker 1: where they're issuing so many guilts to finance the the
Speaker 1: energy subsidies, and um, you know, they're also not doing
Speaker 1: quantitative easing in the UK anymore, so there is a
Speaker 1: scenario where there's a buyer strike and guilts creator and
Speaker 1: and sterling creaters. I'm not a huge believer in that,
Speaker 1: just because I find in G ten usually eventually higher
Speaker 1: rates just attract capital. So at some point, real money,
Speaker 1: we'll just want to buy guilts because the yields are
Speaker 1: high enough. But there definitely is a more emerging markets
Speaker 1: type of scenario where you get the bond sell off
Speaker 1: and the currency sell off. Like I said, that's not
Speaker 1: my base case, but I mean there's a lot of
Speaker 1: strategists are calling for that, and that kind of scenario
Speaker 1: would take us to one double O and sterling. Brent,
Speaker 1: what's the your FX market telling you about this Feder reserve?
Speaker 1: I mean it's had a you know, kind of a
Speaker 1: tag around its neck of being behind the curve. But
Speaker 1: if we get a third semi five basis point rate
Speaker 1: increase next week, is that still a fair character the
Speaker 1: characterization of the U S FED Reserve? I mean I
Speaker 1: would still argue yes, because we're just getting to neutral
Speaker 1: still and we've been you know, above five percent inflation
Speaker 1: for more than a year, so you know, the FED
Speaker 1: should have been I think by most measures in restrictive
Speaker 1: territory months and months ago. So I would say yes
Speaker 1: because the size of the rate hikes is just commensurate
Speaker 1: with how loose they were. What are you buying today
Speaker 1: and you're if you're trading today and I'm assume you're
Speaker 1: going to trade a gazillion times today, What what are
Speaker 1: you buying? Dollien? Now, I think now that the boj
Speaker 1: is coming up, and I don't think that they're going
Speaker 1: to do anything, and that just opens the door for
Speaker 1: one yen front very quickly. Is currency intervention a logical
Speaker 1: thing to be considering right now when it comes to
Speaker 1: dollar yen? No, because usually the framework is monetary policy
Speaker 1: and currency intervention have to be aligned. So if you're
Speaker 1: pegging rates at twenty five basis points, selling dolly and
Speaker 1: isn't going to do anything. So when they get to
Speaker 1: the point of actual pain for Coroda, so the Ministry
Speaker 1: of Finance is already in pain, but Coroda is sort
Speaker 1: of kind of trying to hold off as long as
Speaker 1: possible because he's out in March. So what you need
Speaker 1: for intervention to work is coordinated monetary policy. So they
Speaker 1: would have to raise the yield curve, raise the yield target,
Speaker 1: and then intervene and that would work. But I don't
Speaker 1: think we're there yet. All right, Brent, good stuff. You're
Speaker 1: a go to guy on all things currencies and big
Speaker 1: big moves here Again, I can't think of a bare
Speaker 1: dollar case, I'll just keep buying the dollars I got
Speaker 1: but dollars in my pocket literally, so that's appreciated. Paul
Speaker 1: has one of those old like cash wad holders. I
Speaker 1: do money clip. I haven't seen uh really outside of
Speaker 1: the National History Museum. Yes, thank you very much. Brent Downland,
Speaker 1: he's a president of Spector Markets, He's our go to
Speaker 1: person when we talk currencies. Here and again. D x
Speaker 1: Y index one spot I'm sorry, one zero nine spot
Speaker 1: five five, that's up one percent today, big, big moves
Speaker 1: in these markets? Is it an overreactions? Checking with the
Speaker 1: Ellis Piffer, Managing director Fixed Income Capital Markets for Raymond
Speaker 1: James Ellis, when you take a look at the equity markets,
Speaker 1: when you take a look at the treasury markets, big
Speaker 1: moves in the short end of the curve here, what
Speaker 1: do you make of these moves were seeing in the
Speaker 1: risk assets today on the back of that higher than
Speaker 1: expected inflation print. Good morning. Um, Yeah, I think it's
Speaker 1: it's pretty much a knee jerk reaction that's um, probably
Speaker 1: a little bit overdone. I mean, the equity markets obviously
Speaker 1: have a little bit more to contend with because they've
Speaker 1: got not only the inflation issue, but potentially you know,
Speaker 1: the FED tightening us into a softening economy, bringing us
Speaker 1: forward into a recession. So there's a little bit more
Speaker 1: issue there on the bond market side. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: obviously the move up is a bit of reaction to
Speaker 1: it as well, but you know, the numbers underneath are
Speaker 1: a little bit more predictable than than what maybe the
Speaker 1: markets should have thought about. UM. And I think it
Speaker 1: is a little bit bit overreaction on the bond markets are,
Speaker 1: for sure. So given kind of the backdrop of again,
Speaker 1: the data we we've seen over the last few weeks,
Speaker 1: including most notably today, what do you expect our freder
Speaker 1: reserved to do next week? Not so much, I guess
Speaker 1: the rate increase because the market seems to be fully
Speaker 1: discounting in a semi five basis point increase, but maybe
Speaker 1: some shading around the edges in terms of kind of
Speaker 1: how they make view the next couple of meetings. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they're gonna you know, they're gonna continue to
Speaker 1: talk tough. I mean, their their biggest concern is the
Speaker 1: consumer's behavior. You know, they don't want to file let
Speaker 1: the inflation expectations get un anchored as they like to
Speaker 1: call it, so people to behave differently and start acting
Speaker 1: like there's price increases and start rushing to buy things
Speaker 1: to sort of become some of somewhat of a spiral
Speaker 1: with rates higher, so that their job this became a
Speaker 1: little bit harder today and trying to contain that inflation behavior.
Speaker 1: And so I think they're going to try, you know,
Speaker 1: continue to talk tough and let the data speak. And
Speaker 1: you know, this month and next month of the easiest
Speaker 1: months for the CPI data to actually beat on the upside,
Speaker 1: you surprise on a negative basis, you know, when it
Speaker 1: goes higher than expected, UM. And then in starting in October,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a little tougher for it to beat.
Speaker 1: The base effect comes back into play. Uh, and so
Speaker 1: it maybe a little bit easier for them at that point,
Speaker 1: UM to maintain that behavior. What does that mean for
Speaker 1: the federal reserves credibility? Though? I mean the deceleration here
Speaker 1: when you're looking at some of the CPI data is
Speaker 1: not as fast as I think the market was expecting
Speaker 1: or really hoping for. A hundred basis points of a
Speaker 1: hike would come with a lot of questions around UM,
Speaker 1: is the federal reserve panicking. What else can they possibly
Speaker 1: do here? I think that just it is very difficult
Speaker 1: again for them to to try to contain this behavior,
Speaker 1: and it is tough talk. Um. You know, the policy
Speaker 1: error to hold off is in hiking to be again
Speaker 1: with has being compounded now um, and now they they
Speaker 1: are in somewhat of a I don't want to call
Speaker 1: it a panic mode, but they obviously haven't to talk
Speaker 1: a little bit tougher than they expected. I mean, this,
Speaker 1: this we haven't seen in so long. This this this
Speaker 1: type of inflation. People just aren't used to it. And
Speaker 1: and there their biggest concern again is containing those expectations
Speaker 1: and trying to keep them anchored, so to speak. Um,
Speaker 1: And the bond market is is hasn't become un anchored. Um,
Speaker 1: the consumers what they're really concerned about, and so um,
Speaker 1: if that begins to become an anchor, then that they
Speaker 1: will have to panic. I mean, that's that's a full
Speaker 1: you know, full on vulk or type mode. Um. But
Speaker 1: I don't see that happening. I think, you know, I
Speaker 1: think they're looking ahead of the data and saying this
Speaker 1: and these numbers are gonna be tougher to beat and
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna be you know, we're gonna just
Speaker 1: continue to talk tough and let the data kind of
Speaker 1: kind of come here. UM. And yeah, the SETI card
Speaker 1: basis points, like I said, is fully baked in, and
Speaker 1: I expect that to happen as well. Alas what are
Speaker 1: you seeing on the RIM and James desk here the
Speaker 1: Capital markets desk? What are your clients telling you about
Speaker 1: kind of their base case? Are they baking in recession scenarios?
Speaker 1: Are they rushing to show up their balance sheets? What
Speaker 1: do you what are you hear from your corporate clients. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's you know, there's still good demand for loans. UM.
Speaker 1: There's there's still good activity if it could be had. UM.
Speaker 1: The problem is there's a lack of liquidity in the
Speaker 1: in the depository system. So you know, we're seeing you know,
Speaker 1: consumers taking out more money to pay for the goods
Speaker 1: because their wages aren't you know, maintaining UM. And so
Speaker 1: the banks and depositors also seeing the potential recessions, they
Speaker 1: are kind of viewing that UM and so we're seeing
Speaker 1: some tightening of lending standards. So you have to be
Speaker 1: more cautious, uh, in the loans that you are making
Speaker 1: so but you know, with all of that comes this um,
Speaker 1: you know, drain of liquidity that they're not actually spending
Speaker 1: much money on the bond market either. So there's there's
Speaker 1: you know, they've been one of the big guerrillas. You know,
Speaker 1: when the Fed step back from buying bonds, the banks
Speaker 1: were there to buy them, and there they are they
Speaker 1: have had to pull back as well. So what's what's
Speaker 1: the sector that you're seeing the most interest in right
Speaker 1: now as you as you kind of think about your
Speaker 1: capital markets activity. Yeah, we um, We've been talking to
Speaker 1: a lot of clients about buying uh, adding some duration
Speaker 1: to the portfolio. That's that's probably seeing a little bit
Speaker 1: more reluctance than anything. UM. But you know, adding in
Speaker 1: a in a form of deeply discounted collables and mortgages
Speaker 1: are probably a very good play at these levels. Um.
Speaker 1: You know that there's a risk reward that has drastically
Speaker 1: changed in those two sectors in favor of the investor. Alright,
Speaker 1: good stuff. L. S. Phiffer, Managing director Fixed income Capital
Speaker 1: Markets for Raymond James, joining us talking to us about
Speaker 1: kind of what he's seeing out there in these markets.
Speaker 1: It's chicken with a professional economists, Simona Mokuda, chief economists
Speaker 1: at State Street. Simona, thanks so much for joining us here,
Speaker 1: chief economist at State Street. That means a lot. You've
Speaker 1: got a big sway on the portfolio manager's at State
Speaker 1: Street who run a lot of money. What's your takeaway
Speaker 1: from the print we saw today? Well, I will say
Speaker 1: it was a bit of a punch to the gut
Speaker 1: right when the data first came out, and you've seen
Speaker 1: the acute market reaction. But if you're willing to take
Speaker 1: a step back from from the initial shock, I think
Speaker 1: I would describe this as a stumble, but not a fall,
Speaker 1: on the path towards disinflation. I think the next story
Speaker 1: in the US inflation picture, and frankly, not just duus
Speaker 1: but globally, is a fairly powerful disinflationary episode that's ahead
Speaker 1: of us. Well, what I'm curious about, though, is the
Speaker 1: pace of the deceleration. I've been asking every guests, uh,
Speaker 1: since since since since the show began today, Simona walk
Speaker 1: us through the timeline that we get inflation back to
Speaker 1: even four percent? Yeah, I think. Um, Well, let's first
Speaker 1: of all, are we talking about headline? Are we talking
Speaker 1: about corners? About headline. I think headline you're looking, frankly,
Speaker 1: second quarter of next year, you could be in that range.
Speaker 1: It's hard to you know, picture that perhaps right now,
Speaker 1: but we are having some very very powerful base effects
Speaker 1: that come into play here. And more importantly, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of the indicators that a year ago we're
Speaker 1: signaling that we have an inflation problem on our hands
Speaker 1: have now turned much more encouraging, whether you're looking at
Speaker 1: pricing intentions, whether that's in manufacturing, whether that's the small
Speaker 1: business surveys, or even you know, even today we got
Speaker 1: the nfib UM survey, and the price plan measure in
Speaker 1: that survey is now at the lowest level it's been
Speaker 1: since January. Um It's going to take time for these
Speaker 1: things to feed through into the CPI number, but they
Speaker 1: will eventually make their way there. What's the risk in
Speaker 1: your mind and your model, Simona, of the FED pushing
Speaker 1: this economy into a recession? Um I. I you know, frankly,
Speaker 1: whether it is a recession already or not is not
Speaker 1: the even the most important question. I think it's undeniable
Speaker 1: that we are in a meaningful slowdown episode. Of the
Speaker 1: way I would rephrase the question is whether the FED
Speaker 1: is making this slowdown worse than it needs to be.
Speaker 1: I think the risk of that is fairly high. Actually, um,
Speaker 1: I do believe that we are seeing substantial improvement on
Speaker 1: supply chains, but the FED is no longer in a
Speaker 1: place where it can you know, act on hope and
Speaker 1: expectations and even perhaps their own forecast, but rather they
Speaker 1: have to respond to the data in hand, and that's
Speaker 1: not providing much really leave so far. So I think, um,
Speaker 1: you know, we are probably going to end up tightening
Speaker 1: a little too much and be forced to unwind that.
Speaker 1: Um that will hurt the economy a little bit more
Speaker 1: than otherwise would be the case. But I don't think
Speaker 1: in any of these scenarios we are really talking about
Speaker 1: a genuine crisis, right, So that's the silver lining in
Speaker 1: this cloud. I'm wondering about the liquidity picture here, because
Speaker 1: we talked about all the time from a market's perspective,
Speaker 1: how that could actually crunch financial conditions, But from an
Speaker 1: economic perspective, quantitative tightening is something that the FED hasn't
Speaker 1: really undertaken in this size and in full, even going
Speaker 1: back to the last tightening cycle. Your take on the
Speaker 1: success rate of this operation well, that's another reason why
Speaker 1: I think perhaps there is some wisdom in being a
Speaker 1: little more careful on the right side itself, because you
Speaker 1: do want to be able to continue this process. In
Speaker 1: the background, you'd do want to reduce the balance sheet,
Speaker 1: and you might not. You're probably trying to avoid the
Speaker 1: situation where you're being forced into ending this process prematurely.
Speaker 1: So we are watching that, we are thinking about that
Speaker 1: as a you know, as a market functioning liquidity risk.
Speaker 1: I think it just adds to our viewpoint that you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's some cautional rates is warranted, especially the further
Speaker 1: you go beyond neutral, and for sure we'll be quite
Speaker 1: a bit beyond neutral after the September meeting. Alright, Simona,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. We appreciate getting your thoughts and perspective.
Speaker 1: Simona Mokuta, Chief economist for States three. Uh, definitely seeing
Speaker 1: maybe some disinflation still in the picture, which I would
Speaker 1: say that doesn't feel like it's again census. Bringing our
Speaker 1: next guest, Ed Rosenberg, Senior VP and head of e
Speaker 1: t S for American Century Investments in American Century Folks
Speaker 1: is a huge money management outfit out there in Kansas City.
Speaker 1: When your cell side analysts. You had to go out
Speaker 1: there at least once, usually went out there twice a
Speaker 1: year to get their vote. That's how big they are,
Speaker 1: and they're now big in the e t F business.
Speaker 1: At Rosenberg joins us here in studio. He has a
Speaker 1: graduate of Muhlenberg College and an m b a From
Speaker 1: Penn State University. I am wearing my Penn State little
Speaker 1: hoodie here today. Um I wrote a lot of tuition
Speaker 1: checks to Penn State, so I get this little shirt here.
Speaker 1: Ed talked to us about the e t F business.
Speaker 1: Ever since I've really kind of followed e t f s,
Speaker 1: the story has just been funds flowing to ets. Is
Speaker 1: that's still the case and what's driving it? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's it's actually more so the case than ever before.
Speaker 1: There was a period in time like through two thousand
Speaker 1: and fourteen that's it was a lot of individual stock
Speaker 1: traders shifted over to e t f s first. But
Speaker 1: for the last eight nine years it's strictly been right
Speaker 1: for mutual funds for the most part. And there's a
Speaker 1: ton of reasons, but the first one is U E
Speaker 1: t F s. I don't want to hear more tax
Speaker 1: efficient because mutual funds can be, but e t F
Speaker 1: s history, they have not paid a lot of capital
Speaker 1: gains distribution, so it's made them more tax efficient. And
Speaker 1: in years like we have today where the markets down right,
Speaker 1: it's the worst thing for an adviser to say, oh,
Speaker 1: your funds down and it pays a ten percent capital gain.
Speaker 1: That's just a hard story. And going into e t
Speaker 1: F s helps eliminate that conversation. Can you talk to
Speaker 1: us a little bit about here and now the markets
Speaker 1: are tanking here, the SPI down three percent, the NASDAC
Speaker 1: Paul down four oh my gosh um, and the dollar
Speaker 1: continues to be a session high fields as well. Walk
Speaker 1: us through the impact that you foresee on the e
Speaker 1: t F world. So I actually think days like this
Speaker 1: and months that we've had the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: I'll say, so I'm going to call it a month
Speaker 1: including today, can be really advantageous d t F flows.
Speaker 1: We're kicking off what I like to call it e
Speaker 1: t F season. So you'll see this is the largest
Speaker 1: quarter when we hit the fourth quarter for et F
Speaker 1: flows every year, and a lot of that has to
Speaker 1: do with the tax lost harvesting from other portfolio. And
Speaker 1: if you've owned a mutual fund, let's say for ten years, right,
Speaker 1: you put ten thousand in. Its total value is twenty,
Speaker 1: but your real gain if you sold it today is
Speaker 1: only a thousand because of the market pullback and all
Speaker 1: the games it paid. It's an easy solution to sell
Speaker 1: that and go into something more tax efficient. Or if
Speaker 1: now you're at a loss because quite frankly, it paid
Speaker 1: so many games over the years. It might have you
Speaker 1: still might be up on a total return perspective, but
Speaker 1: it's an easy time to sell that. And so across
Speaker 1: the board, Muni struggled this year, right, so another fixed
Speaker 1: income instruments struggled. You're not alone. You can do this
Speaker 1: in equities. You can do an international anything that's owned
Speaker 1: em has really struggled this year, especially if you had
Speaker 1: exposure to China. And then once you get into fixed
Speaker 1: income and just regular equities, there's so many places you
Speaker 1: can start to do this with. And who wants a
Speaker 1: tax bill at the end of the year, especially in
Speaker 1: this year. I mean when you normally have a good year,
Speaker 1: frustrated paying taxes, but in a bad year and you're like,
Speaker 1: that's my bill, that's a much bigger discussion, and you
Speaker 1: can avoid a lot of that by law taking losses
Speaker 1: moving in d t S, what's the what are some
Speaker 1: of the hot areas? And E t F because it
Speaker 1: just seems to me as I read the headlines, there's
Speaker 1: just an e t F for every shiny object out there.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if that's good or bad for the space.
Speaker 1: But where's the real money going? Well, my joke is
Speaker 1: not everything, because I was joking there should be a
Speaker 1: baseball card TF that hasn't happened yet. But I mean,
Speaker 1: if you look at this year, flows are a little
Speaker 1: bit pale in comparison to last year. A lot of
Speaker 1: the money has gone into just large cap us right,
Speaker 1: it stayed away. There's some international flow in a sense,
Speaker 1: but it's it's significantly less than it previous was. You're
Speaker 1: talking a third. It's only about you to date it's
Speaker 1: fifty billion. But if you look at just US it's
Speaker 1: a eighties seven billion and flows through the end of
Speaker 1: August that's tremendous. And fixed income right guields rose. Money
Speaker 1: went into government's early, you've seen money flowing to muni's,
Speaker 1: You've seen money throwing to like agg products throughout the year,
Speaker 1: and the other thing investors were kind of smart about
Speaker 1: how they did it. When you're talking about this all
Speaker 1: the majority of the fixed income exposure, about a hundred
Speaker 1: eleven billion went into short term and another went into intermediate,
Speaker 1: and so the investors knew that rates were going to
Speaker 1: go up and it's gonna be a tough year. So
Speaker 1: let's get short and let's be realistic. We haven't had
Speaker 1: these types of rates on funds UH in fifteen years
Speaker 1: fourteen years, right, So there is some type of yield
Speaker 1: to be had that investors finally get going forward. The
Speaker 1: other place that a lot of money has gone into
Speaker 1: is value, but it's a specific portion of value where
Speaker 1: it's dived end fifty billion dollars in the US and
Speaker 1: it was again it was that search for yield for
Speaker 1: so long. So take this US cross acid here you
Speaker 1: talked about the stock picture a little bit. Walk us
Speaker 1: through things like appetite for bond ETFs, appetite for even
Speaker 1: commodity e t F is. Given this kind of obsession
Speaker 1: with inflation hedges in the last year or so, currency
Speaker 1: ETFs are more complicated. So I'll leave spare our radio
Speaker 1: audience for that, But walk us through the cross ass story. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so fixed income has been popular. As I said, it's
Speaker 1: about a hundred eleven billion, and there's been a lot
Speaker 1: of investors moving in now tax lost harvesting from funds
Speaker 1: into e t f to take advantage of one the
Speaker 1: yield and get that tax loss. But other areas of
Speaker 1: the t F market, the niche products, some of those
Speaker 1: have taken off. But you mentioned commodities. Commodities this year
Speaker 1: have been muted. You're only talking about five six billion
Speaker 1: flows last month was negative. And it's interesting because you
Speaker 1: get the one educational piece you have to remember is
Speaker 1: when we talk about a t f s, they're really
Speaker 1: exchange traded products. And there's several different structures out there right.
Speaker 1: Some are under the forty Act. They they're regular E
Speaker 1: t f s. They behave and and pay taxes similar
Speaker 1: to like your mutual funds would. But then you get
Speaker 1: into things registered on the thirty three at thirty four Act.
Speaker 1: When you go into gold, they're collectible as you could
Speaker 1: be in a partnership. What can you be in you
Speaker 1: get a K one. So a lot of people have
Speaker 1: struggled with some of those. And if it's all futures,
Speaker 1: you have to look how it's set up, and so
Speaker 1: while money has gone into those, there's been more straight
Speaker 1: into gold than anything in this type of environment. But
Speaker 1: it's also the structure. Advisors have to be leary, investors
Speaker 1: have to be leary of what the consequences of that structure.
Speaker 1: It's not bad if you know what it is, but
Speaker 1: just understanding that about the structure of the entire market,
Speaker 1: it's based effectively a DWOPPO, a State Street and Vanguard.
Speaker 1: That's not good. Well, it's a little more than that,
Speaker 1: but um, you know the top five makeup of all
Speaker 1: the assets. But those are the basic products and if
Speaker 1: you look at how the market is starting to shift, right,
Speaker 1: those products have been around for a long time and
Speaker 1: they're in a lot of models. So as you put
Speaker 1: money into a model, whether it's through a wire house
Speaker 1: or through an independent broken dealer or even are a
Speaker 1: may have access to it, they're just in there. But
Speaker 1: if you look at the active et F landscape, six
Speaker 1: of all launches this year have been active. Scent last
Speaker 1: year were active, and in the year before it was
Speaker 1: about fifty one. It was the first year that active dominated.
Speaker 1: The growth inactive has been tremendous you're talking at fifty
Speaker 1: year over year, three year growth rate, and beyond that,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll say, three years ago it was a
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollar marketplace was equity. Now you're talking it's
Speaker 1: four and fifty billion active and it's you know, almost
Speaker 1: getting closer to So it's not just all you know,
Speaker 1: fixed income anymore, it's equity as well. All right, good
Speaker 1: stuff at Rosenberg, Senior vice president. He's head of E
Speaker 1: t S at American Century Investments. Uh, they're based in
Speaker 1: Kansas City, Edge based in New York, and he joined
Speaker 1: us here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio, So we
Speaker 1: appreciate him taking the walk across the street here. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Markets podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to interviews with Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm Matt Miller. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Matt Miller. Yet on bal Swhee, I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: pt Sweeney. Before the podcast, you can always catch us
Speaker 1: worldwide at Bloomberg Radio