Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Abramowitz. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: To find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com and of course on the Bloomberg terminal at the
Speaker 1: FED and working at the FED with the Board of
Speaker 1: Governors for years with Michael gap and he's Bank of
Speaker 1: America Chief US Economy is truly holistic on our monetary
Speaker 1: and fiscal linkol. Just Michael, thank you for briefing us
Speaker 1: UH this morning. I want to go Michael within a
Speaker 1: swirl of the data right now to what matters for you.
Speaker 1: We go to jobs and we go on, we stagger
Speaker 1: into November. What matters from Michael Gabon honestly only one number,
Speaker 1: and that's the payroll number. I think that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of just doortion in the data, as you know,
Speaker 1: and we've talked about it many times and and it's
Speaker 1: really hard to know, you know, which one do we
Speaker 1: take the right signal from? And so what matters to
Speaker 1: me in terms of the underlying momentum in the economy,
Speaker 1: how far the FED may go, and the near term
Speaker 1: course of the economy. It's it's almost exclusively just payrolls.
Speaker 1: Let's droll into that to payrolls versus the two studies
Speaker 1: that will see on Friday. If I take a three
Speaker 1: month moving average of non farm payrolls, the number of
Speaker 1: folks that comes out at a thirty that everybody reads first,
Speaker 1: what is the appropriate three months moving average for the
Speaker 1: Fed to say all clear, let's change and to slow
Speaker 1: to to move to a slower pace of hikes. You
Speaker 1: probably need that number to drop below two hundred thousand
Speaker 1: to get a soft landing. That number probably needs to
Speaker 1: be about fifty two, maybe seventy. So I think that
Speaker 1: it's to two hundred and seventy five thousand a month.
Speaker 1: Those are still robust numbers. That tells the Fed to
Speaker 1: keep going, so pivot to a slower pace, probably below
Speaker 1: two hundred. But to get the unemployment rate to rise
Speaker 1: gently over a two year period like their forecasting, certainly
Speaker 1: someone and that's something that is going to be hard
Speaker 1: to see. What that's at least based on a lot
Speaker 1: of the projections that we've been seeing. Liz Ane Saunders
Speaker 1: actually put out some interesting charts of Charles Schwab talking
Speaker 1: about how the data is showing peripheral weakness. You're seeing
Speaker 1: more part time jobs appear in some of the anecdotal data.
Speaker 1: Is the headline non farm payrolls number really the one
Speaker 1: that we should be watching for real time changes in
Speaker 1: just how quickly this labor market is softening. No, certainly
Speaker 1: there are there are other data points that are complementary
Speaker 1: to the overall picture. And I would never say we
Speaker 1: shouldn't look at those of the jolts data that we
Speaker 1: received with fewer job openings, the quits rate, um, the
Speaker 1: ratio of openings to the unemployed. I think all those
Speaker 1: are important to provide context. And yes, they do show
Speaker 1: that on the margin, labor demand is softening and the
Speaker 1: labor market is cooling, and that's of course where the
Speaker 1: FED wants to to go. But I just think ultimately
Speaker 1: the Fed's not going to conclude that policy the policy
Speaker 1: setting is right, the outlook for inflation is correct if
Speaker 1: we're still adding two to three thousand jobs a month.
Speaker 1: So at the end, yes, it comes down to where
Speaker 1: payroll growth is, where employment growth is over time, But
Speaker 1: there are certainly other data points that we should be
Speaker 1: looking at to see whether or not are they right
Speaker 1: that we can reduce labor demand without pushing the unemployment
Speaker 1: rate up significantly. Those other data points that you mentioned
Speaker 1: and including the jolts, can help give context around that story. Mike.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people pushing back and saying
Speaker 1: that inflation is actually decelerating pretty dramatically. They point to
Speaker 1: a number of different metrics, and they say that looking
Speaker 1: at the labor market data as it is is not accurate.
Speaker 1: It is a misleading way to create future policy based
Speaker 1: on a lagging indicator. John has talked a lot about this.
Speaker 1: Would you agree in part yes, I think you do
Speaker 1: have to be forward looking in your in your policy settings,
Speaker 1: So only looking at the data under your feet at
Speaker 1: that moment in time may mean that you overcorrect in
Speaker 1: one direction or the other. And there are going to
Speaker 1: be other factors that help bring inflation down, whether it's
Speaker 1: global commodity prices or some reversal and goods prices, So
Speaker 1: wholesale use car prices being down seven of the last
Speaker 1: eight months, according to Mannheim, we should start getting some
Speaker 1: relief from from global supply chains that are going to
Speaker 1: help the FED. So it's not just the labor market,
Speaker 1: uh And, and certainly setting policy on where the labor
Speaker 1: market is today would increase the likelihood that you make
Speaker 1: a mistake. Um. But it's it's you know, it's some
Speaker 1: in some respects. You have what you have, and that's
Speaker 1: the data point that over time is going to tell
Speaker 1: them where is services inflation going to end up? Michael.
Speaker 1: And this is your wheelhouse from from the day's i've
Speaker 1: known you at the FED, and that is the merchandise
Speaker 1: trade statistic of w t O today was absolutely stunning.
Speaker 1: It's a one percent two thousand twenty three growth statistic
Speaker 1: from merchandise trade. Clearly globally, that does not get it done.
Speaker 1: What does that statistic mean for Americans, as you discussed
Speaker 1: in your prior segment, not as much because we're still
Speaker 1: we're a large, relatively closed economy. Strong appreciations in the
Speaker 1: dollar like we have will slow the economy down through
Speaker 1: the trade balance. But that's a relatively narrow channel for us.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not as large as it is for other
Speaker 1: developed economies like Europe, the UK, Australia, uh and and
Speaker 1: so forth. And what I would say is what it
Speaker 1: what it implies is a very weak global growth backdrop,
Speaker 1: including outside the U S, which we all know, and
Speaker 1: that actually tends to help the US because it brings
Speaker 1: lower energy prices on on net and gasoline prices fall,
Speaker 1: so the U S gets a windfall on the con sumerside,
Speaker 1: even though a strong dollar and weak global growth is
Speaker 1: a drag through trade. So it's a more complicated picture
Speaker 1: when it comes to the US. So I might let's
Speaker 1: net this out. You've got a recession call on America,
Speaker 1: on the American economy, can you just tell me on balance?
Speaker 1: Are you moving that forward? You're pushing that out our
Speaker 1: things develop in we uh. We pushed it out to
Speaker 1: begin in Q one. We I originally had things slowing
Speaker 1: down in the fourth quarter of the year as data
Speaker 1: earlier this year we're kind of pointing to that, but
Speaker 1: then things picked up here in the summer in the fall,
Speaker 1: I moved it out to begin in the first half
Speaker 1: of of next year. At the moment, I haven't changed that.
Speaker 1: I think trends in recent weeks the FED shifted being
Speaker 1: serious and lifting its policy rate, and the tightening and
Speaker 1: financial conditions that that's developed. That's that's left me comfortable
Speaker 1: with something around Q one or in the first half
Speaker 1: of next year. But that's when we have it starting
Speaker 1: just around it out. What about duration and depth Mike,
Speaker 1: beyond the start point. I you know, we I spread
Speaker 1: it out over three quarters in part to signal a
Speaker 1: little uncertainty about start depth and in duration. And we
Speaker 1: have the unemployment rate rising, you know, a little above
Speaker 1: five per cent, so a little more than than the
Speaker 1: FED would have it um But I think kind of
Speaker 1: in the first three quarters of next year as when
Speaker 1: we're likely to see our peaks softness and the cut
Speaker 1: stot when Mike, December of This is what's interesting about
Speaker 1: the The reason I'm not I'm not sitting sitting here
Speaker 1: saying you've got a crystal ball. That's not why I've
Speaker 1: asked you those questions. It's interesting to me that you've
Speaker 1: got three quarters of recession and the cuts don't start
Speaker 1: until the very end of the year. Mike, Is that original?
Speaker 1: Because uh so, the the idea behind that is the
Speaker 1: terminal rates about the labor market. But cuts are about inflation,
Speaker 1: and so when do they shift to a more balanced
Speaker 1: reaction function they I think, you know, every time inflation
Speaker 1: comes in higher, it gives them a worse starting point.
Speaker 1: So it just takes a while for for that to
Speaker 1: show through. But yes, but it's consistent with the idea
Speaker 1: that we're going to have to accept some pain in
Speaker 1: the domestic economy to bring inflation down. Um so yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's an odd situation, but it's a FED right
Speaker 1: now that's saying we need the economy to slow to
Speaker 1: help us on the inflation side. So it's a different
Speaker 1: setting for them. Fascinating, Mike, just wonderful. It's been brilliant
Speaker 1: reading your stuff since you've got to be of a
Speaker 1: it's going to have you with us. Sis Mornic, thank you,
Speaker 1: mikeeping their Bank America right now we do better. I
Speaker 1: have no idea why he's not in the OPEC plus meeting.
Speaker 1: At the table. Christian Maylock joins us now from JP Morgan,
Speaker 1: who's really been definitive on the how we get to
Speaker 1: a permanent hundred dollars of barrel plus. We've seen the
Speaker 1: demand questions Ed Morrison's City group gaming out nicely. Christian,
Speaker 1: seventy eight dollars a barrel and suddenly we are higher.
Speaker 1: What is a single distinction that drives us to a
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty dollars a barrel nice vacapacity in short
Speaker 1: turns on. I mean we were seeing being repricing of
Speaker 1: oil to the marginal barrel, and it's away from opec um.
Speaker 1: I know it sounds controversial to say that on a
Speaker 1: day like OPEC meeting, it's away from OPEC and is
Speaker 1: getting back into control of the majors who represent somewhere
Speaker 1: between the world's oil and they're not spending. They're not
Speaker 1: investing at these levels, which then begs the question what
Speaker 1: price will they spend? Will they grow their production um
Speaker 1: and reinvest into those long term projects. And I think
Speaker 1: we're going to move a significantly higher price, which in
Speaker 1: some ways is potentially what is trying to do today.
Speaker 1: They're trying to defend the front end, but the backing,
Speaker 1: the trying of OPEC. I have the memory of six
Speaker 1: oil plunging. Here's my quick mathematics. How close is the
Speaker 1: cartel to a night six? I think in terms of
Speaker 1: how close they are that will all depend on how
Speaker 1: demand responds to the current price. And we know that
Speaker 1: they're arguably looking for a higher price, potentially closer to
Speaker 1: where their fiscal break evens are. Ultimately, it's not just
Speaker 1: the break even of the countries. It's also what they
Speaker 1: want in terms of defending social reform, and we know
Speaker 1: there's a lot of issues at the moment with the
Speaker 1: high energy prices, So that price level versus what the
Speaker 1: US wants suggests there's arguably a price war that's emerging
Speaker 1: between these two continents. But in the end, if demand
Speaker 1: can respond at which is our house view, then I
Speaker 1: don't necessarily see um demand collapsing, and then it's all
Speaker 1: about supply. It's a supply driven crisis, which is ultimately
Speaker 1: where our super cycle thesis projects for the next five
Speaker 1: or seven years. Where are we in terms of the
Speaker 1: US as a swing producer at this point, given the
Speaker 1: lack of investment in the shale patch and just generally
Speaker 1: throughout the energy sector. Shale, it's it's interesting. It's like
Speaker 1: you've sort it's been dismantled, parts of rusted, you put
Speaker 1: it back together again. It's just not as effective in
Speaker 1: terms of productivity, in terms of production volumes. And ultimately
Speaker 1: they've got used to return in cash and getting more
Speaker 1: popular with wall streets, so have to sort of think
Speaker 1: about what price do they need to cover their all
Speaker 1: their capex, all their cash return as well as a
Speaker 1: price they can necessarily see much bigger volumes of growth
Speaker 1: with all the money in the world, and that's much
Speaker 1: higher as closer to So we're not seeing as much
Speaker 1: volume growth this year, close to seven nfousand barrels similar
Speaker 1: to next year, and I think that's the key. So
Speaker 1: right now, if you're not seeing production increase and you're
Speaker 1: actually seeing production cuts at OPEC plus, where does the
Speaker 1: marginal stop gap come in? Right We talked about the
Speaker 1: Strategic Petroleum Reserve and how much the US has already
Speaker 1: drawn down on some of those reserves, the speculation that
Speaker 1: they could tap them yet again during them further in
Speaker 1: response to some sort of two million barrel production cut today,
Speaker 1: is that bullet gone? Is it used? Absolutely? I think
Speaker 1: it's used. And you know, I love to web jewels
Speaker 1: and we all the world is short energy right across
Speaker 1: all fuels. And that's what we've been talking through this
Speaker 1: year and with you, and I think the key here
Speaker 1: is if the marge, your jewel, if you like, is
Speaker 1: is oil. Then so they're like saying to your customers
Speaker 1: a couple of good news and bad news. The good
Speaker 1: news is of good oil, you know, still got some energy,
Speaker 1: and the bad news, you can have to pay a
Speaker 1: lot more for it as a ventured to come down,
Speaker 1: and that silver bullet from the US is done. It
Speaker 1: ultimately becomes who's up for taking those barrels at the
Speaker 1: high price? Christian and your definitive report of I'm gonna
Speaker 1: say seven eight months ago, you give a fair share
Speaker 1: to E s G two synthetics, to the other things
Speaker 1: we're gonna do for energy besides oil. Give us your
Speaker 1: sense of the E s G event given a war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. Is it forever altered? Is it shifted? I
Speaker 1: think what we're going to see is ultimately an upgrade
Speaker 1: of bad code to good code in this sector and alter.
Speaker 1: What I mean by that is the sector. We did
Speaker 1: some work last week and doing a bottom up version
Speaker 1: of that Jewels report for companies and the industry. The
Speaker 1: European US majors represent roughly twenty percent of the world's
Speaker 1: energy and jewels across all fuels, not just oil, gas, hydrogen, etceteran.
Speaker 1: So the key here is I think what the E
Speaker 1: s G event ultimately will revolve to is more of
Speaker 1: a hybrid of recognized position. Is a function of this
Speaker 1: sector delivering energy on a lower carbon footprint. But ultimately
Speaker 1: delivering energy so that we don't compromise security, and I
Speaker 1: think that will change the optics and redefine the sector's role.
Speaker 1: Energy transition is opposed to being simply you know, in
Speaker 1: the penalty ball. Christian May with truly a definitive report,
Speaker 1: controversial report earlier this year advancing a theme to higher
Speaker 1: oil Pricess Nagozia kanjo Iwala is Director General of the
Speaker 1: World Trade Organization. She brings absolutely bulletproof Harvard and m
Speaker 1: I T economics to the massive task of a w
Speaker 1: t O finding a place within international institutions. They founded
Speaker 1: about six months ago with a single best call on
Speaker 1: global slowdown of any of the institutions. All you need
Speaker 1: to know is dr okonjo Iwala and w t O
Speaker 1: was way out front. Director General, thank you for joining
Speaker 1: Bloomberg this morning. I'll get to the headline. You say,
Speaker 1: merchandise trade is going to slow down off the proverbial
Speaker 1: cliff to one percent in two thousand twenty three. What
Speaker 1: does that mean for the developed world? What does it
Speaker 1: mean for your Nigeria and emerging markets? Well, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for having us. Yes, we'll just release that
Speaker 1: podcast and it's looking quite green, a little more green
Speaker 1: than we had thought, a real slowdown. And it's happening
Speaker 1: for several reasons. Of course, the the the higher energy
Speaker 1: prizes in in Europe arising from the war in Ukraine
Speaker 1: a big factor in this, and the squeeze on household spent,
Speaker 1: didn't the monitor policy tightening and various developed countries that
Speaker 1: are happening, and even emergine markets also explaining to this,
Speaker 1: and and so a whole variety of factors. What does
Speaker 1: this mean? It means that we're looking at a situation
Speaker 1: in which global slowdown is going to sweeze ouselves even
Speaker 1: more sweets businesses, and what we may be edging intrough
Speaker 1: a recession, if not globally at the general Because of time,
Speaker 1: I must interrupt and be rude, but I'm going to
Speaker 1: do it because this question is so important. Is J
Speaker 1: Powell is central banker to the world impinging on global slowdown?
Speaker 1: Are the central banks moving in the wrong direction? What's
Speaker 1: your advice? Off the chalkboards at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult. J. Power is in the top position,
Speaker 1: whether to continue tightening, whether you over root if you
Speaker 1: do that because of looking at lagging indicators. Um, it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to give advice to central bankers now, um,
Speaker 1: but there's no doubt that something has to be done
Speaker 1: about inflation. We just have to watch and see. So
Speaker 1: it's not too edging to an overshoot, but probably from
Speaker 1: me to give you all advice on how to run
Speaker 1: monitored policy and go see how much this China factor
Speaker 1: into your outlooks. How much does the potential for them
Speaker 1: to open up from a zero COVID policy or emerge
Speaker 1: from some of the downturn that they've experienced factor in
Speaker 1: or not to this forecast. It factors in considerable Linked
Speaker 1: to the broadcast I've mentioned the one you're doing, had
Speaker 1: mentioned the monetory title about China is another big factor
Speaker 1: of course. Uh, the COVID slowed down and what it means, um,
Speaker 1: whether it's going to continue and we're going to have
Speaker 1: other lockdowns. It's a big factor if China's economy continues
Speaker 1: to slow the way as seeing that will have a
Speaker 1: big impact on what happens to the world economy. As
Speaker 1: you know, and I really here for developing countries and
Speaker 1: imagine Mark go see. Just to sort of broaden out,
Speaker 1: we've been talking about how we're witnessing a sea change
Speaker 1: were suddenly governments cannot finance themselves with deficits the way
Speaker 1: that they have before, particularly developed markets and central bankers
Speaker 1: cannot fuel growth by just lowering rates. How do you
Speaker 1: take that into consideration for not only this year's projection,
Speaker 1: but projection for growth over the next decade. Well, it
Speaker 1: obvious me, it's very very difficult. What we are saying
Speaker 1: we're seeing in our projections is to remend us uncertainty
Speaker 1: that I can I can tell you is what is
Speaker 1: really making it difficult to predict. You've never seen this
Speaker 1: amount of certainty when we do our podcasts before. But
Speaker 1: what we do see is that this so certainty is
Speaker 1: tending to risk on the downside. So that is really
Speaker 1: impacting and we need to look at what what come
Speaker 1: we do to turn things around. How can we slow
Speaker 1: down inflationary prejus whilst looking for truls that can help
Speaker 1: us restore group. So, um, it's very difficult to predict.
Speaker 1: That's too much uncertain in the Director General, thank you
Speaker 1: for being with us today and go see conwell that
Speaker 1: of the WT I have to say that w T
Speaker 1: I came out Yeah, pretty much in front most of
Speaker 1: those organizations. Now there it is, and it's a backdrop
Speaker 1: there one percent again for two thousand twenty three and
Speaker 1: merchandise trade. Toni Caricenzi has these numbers tattooed to his brain.
Speaker 1: He's with PIMCO and his truly expert in the short
Speaker 1: term space in the bond market. What does fixed income due, Tony,
Speaker 1: given a global recession and certainly from w t O
Speaker 1: a trade recession, the BODO market is starting to think
Speaker 1: about that possibility and these yields therefore making a propitious
Speaker 1: time for investors in attractive period bond markets, thinking the
Speaker 1: economies will weaken. They're not sure, so there's some risk premium,
Speaker 1: you could say, in prices of various assets, equities in particular.
Speaker 1: So I think it's just the uncertainty factor that's keeping
Speaker 1: markets on edge, because we're not sure about how inflation
Speaker 1: will evolve in particular. But as long as there's vigilance
Speaker 1: by central banks, and there will be it seems vocal
Speaker 1: arrest style in in the United States, for example, it's
Speaker 1: highly likely that the inflation rate will decline, there will
Speaker 1: be disinflation, the bond market will look increasingly attractive to
Speaker 1: investors especially if the w t O type scenario where
Speaker 1: global trade vines shrink as much as they expect, I
Speaker 1: mean strength relative to well, let's cut to the chase
Speaker 1: as pim Co extending duration or you're loading the boat
Speaker 1: on how yield this morning, Tony, PIMCO has been underweight
Speaker 1: duration for some time. We've been reducing that. We've been
Speaker 1: we'd rather keep it close to neutral. Remember when you're
Speaker 1: thinking about the Asian interest rate sensitivity, you're you're talking
Speaker 1: about a directional strategy. If you open up the Frank
Speaker 1: for Boseige book on bond investing, you see there's a
Speaker 1: lot more to do than simply bet on the direction
Speaker 1: of interest rates. And that's what PAMCO is trying to
Speaker 1: do right now. Just try to stay up in quality
Speaker 1: and try to not make directional best to look for
Speaker 1: assets that we think would bend but not break in
Speaker 1: a time of procession and with stand lots of different
Speaker 1: types of economic outcomes. But all that said, duration underway
Speaker 1: slight underweight given the recent drop and yield slight underweight
Speaker 1: might make sense. But remember Tom the Bloomberg advocate has
Speaker 1: a duration of six point six years, meaning I yields
Speaker 1: moved a percentage point uh that the investor would lose
Speaker 1: six and a half point so slight underweight would it
Speaker 1: be much? You said something interesting, A slight underweight? Does
Speaker 1: that imply, hi, Tony, does that imply from your perspective
Speaker 1: that we have not yet seen peak yields. It's different
Speaker 1: called to say there's a wide range of scenarios, but
Speaker 1: yields today are closer to their long term averages, and
Speaker 1: that makes it a very attractive time to be investing.
Speaker 1: For one. Secondly, the yields and the Bloomberg aggregate today,
Speaker 1: which is a compilation by the way, for those who
Speaker 1: don't know of treasuries, mortgages, corporates, and a bunch of
Speaker 1: other securities. It yields today the yield is four point six. Now,
Speaker 1: how does that compare historically? Very good? It's closer to
Speaker 1: long term averages. That's one reason why bonds look quite
Speaker 1: attractive today. Secondly, where do you think the inflation rates headed?
Speaker 1: Bond market seems to think into the low twos eventually,
Speaker 1: so that yield high fours looks attractive on that basis.
Speaker 1: And finally, this time alluded if economy is weakend there's
Speaker 1: a chance for capital gains in fixed income now, and
Speaker 1: so one doesn't want to miss out on that, And
Speaker 1: so you have to question, are you really interested in
Speaker 1: timing the diversification benefits of bonds, which, of course this
Speaker 1: year haven't been quite apparent, but we think we'll assert
Speaker 1: themselves over time. How much are you seeing, Tony, a
Speaker 1: lot of just mom and pop investors pile into short
Speaker 1: term treasuries for the first time in a long time.
Speaker 1: How much are you seeing those cash investments really balloon
Speaker 1: in a way that feels sticky to you, that will
Speaker 1: transform the rest of the markets, because that is money
Speaker 1: not going to equities, not going to hire your bonds.
Speaker 1: I recently took a trip to Asia, Korea, Singapore, Thailand.
Speaker 1: Lots of investors there. Today I'll travel to San Francisco
Speaker 1: from New York. Been traveling a lot, seeing lots of
Speaker 1: clients talking to him on zoom, etcetera. Seems like the
Speaker 1: wagons are circling, but of course, as you could see
Speaker 1: by the global fund flows, investors are still leering. All
Speaker 1: that said, investors seem to be willing to move into
Speaker 1: the center of what we would call the concentric circle
Speaker 1: for investing. The concentric circle would be would have the
Speaker 1: riskless securities treasuries at the center and the most risky
Speaker 1: securities at the perimeter. So investors are seeming to want
Speaker 1: to move toward the sent of that concentric circle and
Speaker 1: will slowly work their way out when they gain confidence
Speaker 1: and take lots of things and lots of scenarios. Of course,
Speaker 1: you can envision that cause it to occur, but they're
Speaker 1: not in place yet. A Tony echoes some triples, say
Speaker 1: on secure debt for sale, Um, what kind of interest
Speaker 1: would you offer on a triple, say, social media company
Speaker 1: struggling for direction? What do you reckon the cut of
Speaker 1: the areas that bates on the concentric circle. Think of
Speaker 1: a solar system and the concentric circle looks like that.
Speaker 1: That's like going way out to the outer perimeter of
Speaker 1: the system. So and that's a risky gambit right now,
Speaker 1: given the uncertainties about economic growth and cash flows. Because
Speaker 1: at the end, at the end of the day, what
Speaker 1: a bond ofstor cares about is cash flow. Getting is
Speaker 1: a herror, it's money back, and of course in a
Speaker 1: dour economic serials it becomes uncertain. Very diplomatic, Tony, thank you,
Speaker 1: So it was very This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to ten
Speaker 1: am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each
Speaker 1: day from six to nine am for insight from the
Speaker 1: best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And subscribe
Speaker 1: to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: and of course, on the terminal. I'm Tom keene In.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg