Speaker 1: Ye. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane
Speaker 1: Jay Lee. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Tom
Speaker 1: Kane joining me in London today, I'm still in New
Speaker 1: York and joining us around a table in New York
Speaker 1: City is yemen On around here is a Bloomberg senior
Speaker 1: writer and he joined us now in the Bank of
Speaker 1: America results, what do we say, yamen? Um? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: we we're all looking at tax numbers. That's what everybody
Speaker 1: is curious about. So they're the one time charged them
Speaker 1: that they took on three billion roughly UM is in
Speaker 1: line with what they said for so that there was
Speaker 1: no surprise there. We you know, there was some concern
Speaker 1: that they could add more stuff because there's you know,
Speaker 1: repatriation tax as well as d T A s UM,
Speaker 1: so there's no surprise there. UM. I couldn't find the
Speaker 1: number for their effective tax rate going forward UM this
Speaker 1: for this year two thousand eighteen. Most of the banks
Speaker 1: have given that number. UH reporting so far, UM maybe
Speaker 1: they will during the call with analysts and and and
Speaker 1: durals later, But I didn't see quickly when I did
Speaker 1: a search for a tax. So so we're looking for
Speaker 1: that number because that's roughly you know, usually around you know,
Speaker 1: effective tax rates for these banks, the biggest banks have
Speaker 1: been around thirty percent. Uh. They pay much higher than
Speaker 1: most other industries, um, because they don't have as many deductions.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna look for that number that I don't
Speaker 1: see it yet. It's going to be ninety one and
Speaker 1: around there. Um, you know, their fixed income number is
Speaker 1: really good. Um, what I'm looking at the numbers now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: at one point seven one billion dollars the estimate with
Speaker 1: one point six five better and estimates right, so you
Speaker 1: know that's one of the area is trading. Trading is
Speaker 1: important for these big big guys and and um they're
Speaker 1: you know, trading has been has been down um this
Speaker 1: year every quarter almost um so. So Bank of America
Speaker 1: seems to have done better than its rivals in that front,
Speaker 1: um not losing as much. You know, trading revenue on
Speaker 1: fixed income is very important. And and equities same thing.
Speaker 1: It's it's uh um unchanged from a year ago. That's
Speaker 1: really that's really good. So they're so they're doing better
Speaker 1: on that. UM. I was looking at their loans. Loans
Speaker 1: are growing still, UM and that's you know, that's very important.
Speaker 1: They growing loans constantly. It's slowed down, it's not as
Speaker 1: fast as it used to be, but but it's growing.
Speaker 1: So they're they're doing and their net income numbers really good. Tom.
Speaker 1: The numbers coming through from Bank America looking pretty solid,
Speaker 1: inline with estimates. Some single name issues stein Off popping
Speaker 1: up once again. But the tanks impact is something that
Speaker 1: we're all kind of sort of trying to filter through
Speaker 1: and understand. Going through into I'd say, to me, it's
Speaker 1: almost old news now. It's like a kitchen sind quarter
Speaker 1: and the unions come out, folks, and trust me, there's
Speaker 1: pages and pages and even a grizzled pro like Yoman
Speaker 1: Honor in his trouble looking at these things. What's the
Speaker 1: plan Yaman for the first, the second, the third in
Speaker 1: the fourth quarter of two thousand eighteen, what's the strategy
Speaker 1: they're strategizing when they strategize at these big banks. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think after the tax informed that they have to
Speaker 1: think about some of the things that that that they've
Speaker 1: been doing, um constantly. What one of them was, they
Speaker 1: had very strict goals for cutting costs. Um, maybe they
Speaker 1: can relax those some You know, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of banks have come out with saying, you know, we're
Speaker 1: gonna give one time increases to our bonuses to our employees,
Speaker 1: the Bank of America being one of them. And you know,
Speaker 1: so maybe they don't have to cut costs as harshly
Speaker 1: because oh, look they have this wonderful tax bonus which
Speaker 1: is going to really help the bottom line. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: as I said, if you go down from twenty nine
Speaker 1: percent effective rate to nineteen percent effect the rate, that's great.
Speaker 1: You know you chopped off one third of your or
Speaker 1: if your tax so you can keep that, which means
Speaker 1: you can you don't have to cut costs as harshly.
Speaker 1: You know, you can actually relax a little bit and say, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: we we you know, we can actually make more profit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and thank you for telling me to buy shares at
Speaker 1: thirteen dollars. Bank of America moonshot out of this fourth
Speaker 1: of July cash leverage DTS. I am in the double
Speaker 1: leverage all cash from trust me y'a. I'm an honoring
Speaker 1: with us and he will return for Golden Sachs Drama
Speaker 1: at seven thirty this morning, right now in the global
Speaker 1: drama of our global economy, Jennet Henry with us. So
Speaker 1: they just bc joining us in our London studio for
Speaker 1: too short visit house Investment. We were talking about consumption
Speaker 1: earlier in that with the tax legislation in the United States,
Speaker 1: with the effervescence we're seeing out there every day, do
Speaker 1: you actually see capital investment nation to nation? Jenna, We
Speaker 1: do you see some improvement in investment? I mean, there
Speaker 1: has been some pick up already in two thousand and seventeen,
Speaker 1: but it's been a familiar story. It's been energy and
Speaker 1: tech investment. There is a bit more incentive now to
Speaker 1: invest more, both with the repatriation and with the tax cuts,
Speaker 1: but most likely a lot of the games from that
Speaker 1: will as is often the case, I mean, the money's
Speaker 1: shareholders or to M and A UM and any improvement
Speaker 1: and fixed investment is likely to be relatively modest. Janne
Speaker 1: Henry Larry Fink. Running to some of the world's biggest
Speaker 1: CEO is of course to boss over a black rock
Speaker 1: and pushing them to invest more in the future, Can
Speaker 1: the like Selary think, really push these CEOs to do
Speaker 1: something they haven't done in a material way over the
Speaker 1: last couple of years. Uh No. I mean the biggest
Speaker 1: determinant of investment spending is expected future demand. And I
Speaker 1: think also the outlook for investment will depend on what
Speaker 1: happens to labor. Now, you know, we can talk about
Speaker 1: Philip's curve, but the fact is this has been a
Speaker 1: very job rich recovery, arguably because labor has been so cheap.
Speaker 1: If we see some signs that wage growth is picking
Speaker 1: up a little a bit more, if companies are getting
Speaker 1: more confident about the outlook for future demand, that's likely
Speaker 1: to be the bigger driver of future investment spending and
Speaker 1: hopefully stronger productivity growth because we've seen such low investment
Speaker 1: growth rather than being told to invest more or necessarily
Speaker 1: given tax incentives, which may as I say, just go
Speaker 1: into M and A or or ento higher dividends. So, Jannet,
Speaker 1: you raise a really important point. If the investment prospects
Speaker 1: for the CEOs are based on future demand, then what
Speaker 1: does it say about their belief in future demand that
Speaker 1: they've been choosing a buyback stock and increased dividends and
Speaker 1: not invest for the future. World shareholders haven't necessarily punished
Speaker 1: them for that, but for not investing for the longer term.
Speaker 1: And there have been a series of uncertainties over the
Speaker 1: last few years politically, um and you know, in terms
Speaker 1: of monetary tightening and and various other factors around the world.
Speaker 1: But I would argue that the still relatively low level
Speaker 1: of investment growth relative to GDP growth would suggest that
Speaker 1: they are still or just not more confident enough. But
Speaker 1: growth expectations are being revised, which is why we might
Speaker 1: just see a little bit more dove till your HSBC
Speaker 1: economics was Steve Major's hall where he was brilliant for
Speaker 1: two years or so on low interest rates. And we've
Speaker 1: now come up and Steve has always said we could
Speaker 1: come up and yield, but dovetail that HSBC reticence away
Speaker 1: from higher yields. Do you shift that? Are you? In
Speaker 1: Steven speaking terms? How does that work? Steve's view is
Speaker 1: very has very strong foundations in our economic view and
Speaker 1: has for a very long time. Jenny Tom, he's just
Speaker 1: trying to call problems HSBC. Don't worry, no, it's we've
Speaker 1: very much been in the low inflation Camp and we
Speaker 1: think a lot of these influences are structural. I think
Speaker 1: the difficulty with markets is that their mind set is
Speaker 1: still framed in the views of the nineteen seventies, eighties, nineties,
Speaker 1: and two thousands, where it's all about nominal growth and inflation.
Speaker 1: And actually we had extended periods before that when actually
Speaker 1: long term interest rates for little or no relationship to
Speaker 1: nominal GDP growth. We'd only see high yields if we
Speaker 1: saw much much higher in put and potential very quickly, Janet,
Speaker 1: that goes to potential GDP and productivity. As you just said,
Speaker 1: where's potential GDP in the US sub two percent? Right? Yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I think it is sub just amazing, Jennet, never enough time.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Henry, thank you. With HSBC today
Speaker 1: they're they're head of Global Economics. Wonderful to ever in
Speaker 1: with us. John Farrell, New York. I'm Tom keenan London.
Speaker 1: Of course, everybody looking at the fourteen different stories coming
Speaker 1: out of Washington. Any number of ways to tackle the
Speaker 1: Wednesday events in Washington. John H. Deck is at Brookings
Speaker 1: Institution where he tackles the bigger picture, the longer picture,
Speaker 1: a really interesting book three or four years ago, Presidential Park,
Speaker 1: just about the actual way that money moves around Washington.
Speaker 1: He's been looking recently at how the two parties are
Speaker 1: responding into two thousand eighteen and two thousand and nineteen. John,
Speaker 1: Let's look back quickly here. How did the Democrats lose
Speaker 1: the demock the traditional Democrat voter in states like Michigan
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin. Well, I think what a lot of voters
Speaker 1: in those rust belt states saw was an economy over
Speaker 1: eight years that was recovering but was largely leaving them behind.
Speaker 1: Either they were not getting new jobs, or they were
Speaker 1: not getting jobs that were paying as well, or was
Speaker 1: the stable as the ones that they lost during the
Speaker 1: Great Recession. And that built up some frustration, um from
Speaker 1: some frustration with the Obama administration and with Democrats. And
Speaker 1: Donald Trump very effectively spoke to those voters and told
Speaker 1: them essentially the old Bill Clinton line, I feel your
Speaker 1: pain and I'm going to help you. Well, where are
Speaker 1: those Democrats now? Are they've been pushed about? I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean to go to the stereotypes. Are the progressive
Speaker 1: eastern left coast? Are progressive ultraliberals? Are they going to
Speaker 1: be in charge or can there be not a new
Speaker 1: Democratic party, but maybe one that looks a little bit
Speaker 1: like it look years ago. Well, it's it's an interesting mix, right.
Speaker 1: So you have obviously a Democratic party that's turning, uh
Speaker 1: strongly toward progressivism, and with that comes some social issues
Speaker 1: that can turn off moderate Democrats. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: these progressive Democrats are also talking about issues like healthcare,
Speaker 1: like uh, increasing the minimum wage, like helping retrain workers
Speaker 1: who have had industries sort of taken out from under them.
Speaker 1: And those are the types of messages that those voters
Speaker 1: want to hear ultimately, and if they can convince uh,
Speaker 1: those voters that they're actually going to do something about it,
Speaker 1: they can win them back. I want to go back
Speaker 1: to your wheelhouse book, Presidential Park. Does this president believe
Speaker 1: in pork? Oh? Absolutely, every president believes in pork, but
Speaker 1: that president does as well. Um, this president does as well.
Speaker 1: So we're seeing this not necessarily in the allocation of funds,
Speaker 1: although there is some evidence of that, but in terms
Speaker 1: of how tax policy is playing out, with issues such
Speaker 1: as where to drill offshore in the United States, the
Speaker 1: president is very sensitive to what swing states want and
Speaker 1: to what Republican States want, Well, what's you're reading on infrastructure?
Speaker 1: Brook insist on great work over the years on transportation
Speaker 1: and infrastructure. Is the infrastructure story of the next ninety
Speaker 1: days maybe days? Is it gonna be the same old,
Speaker 1: same old bridges to nowhere? Or can we actually get
Speaker 1: JFK Terminal one fixed? Well? I think the President is
Speaker 1: well positioned to understand that there are a lot of
Speaker 1: needs in this country and he does want by all accounts,
Speaker 1: a pretty comprehensive infrastructure bill. And John, why can't we
Speaker 1: get that done? I get this everywhere I travel, even
Speaker 1: in London. I get this from people in America. Why
Speaker 1: can't we fix this? I mean, it's totally unacceptable. This
Speaker 1: is a situation in which there are conservatives and Congress
Speaker 1: who do not want to spend government funds UM. They
Speaker 1: don't think that there is going to be an economic
Speaker 1: stimulative effect. They didn't think the stimulus had a stimulative
Speaker 1: effect UM, and they just don't buy that that type
Speaker 1: of economics UM works. And the reality as we know
Speaker 1: it does and we know, regardless of how much money
Speaker 1: it pumps into the economy, we also have a crumbling infrastructure.
Speaker 1: So beyond all of the economic arguments. There's just a
Speaker 1: functional argument that we have here, and I think most
Speaker 1: Americans are going to be up in arms, uh if
Speaker 1: something like that doesn't get past, and frankly the president
Speaker 1: should be too. Is something about our history? Is it?
Speaker 1: Is it a legacy of two hundred years or do
Speaker 1: you do you dated at a certain point. I mean
Speaker 1: Eisenhower built the interstate road system. Yeah, I mean we
Speaker 1: obviously have some historical trends in this country that that uh,
Speaker 1: pressure towards less government intrusion, less government spending. But some
Speaker 1: of our biggest spenders, some of our biggest supporters of
Speaker 1: infrastructure in American history have been Republicans, like you said, Eisenhower, Nixon,
Speaker 1: others like that. Um. And so we're just at a
Speaker 1: crossroads in our politics right now where helping rebuild airports
Speaker 1: and roads in bridges is somehow economically bad and politically nuclear.
Speaker 1: It's it's a bizarre situation. We got to do more
Speaker 1: on this. Love having you on. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for the Brookie's institution. Really with an interesting remit in
Speaker 1: the think tanks in at Washington, his performance is not flattened.
Speaker 1: If you go to the Bloomberg and you look at
Speaker 1: fancy pants mutual fund managers. Nobody can touch David Harrow
Speaker 1: for performance. Over the last eighteen months, his international stock
Speaker 1: performance has been truly upper decile. He joins US now
Speaker 1: with Harris Associates. David Harrow, can you keep it going?
Speaker 1: How far into the football game the Green Bay Packers
Speaker 1: playoff green Bay Packers super Bowl bound football game? How
Speaker 1: far into it are we with international stocks? Um, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to wait till next year for the Super Bowl,
Speaker 1: but not for international stocks. Now, I think the good
Speaker 1: news about international stocks there are still decent pockets of value.
Speaker 1: And in particular, if you look at where the European
Speaker 1: equity markets are trading versus the world, you know, there's
Speaker 1: somewhere around thirteen and a half fourteen times next year
Speaker 1: earnings towards and we're towards it. You know, we're just
Speaker 1: coming out of the bottom of the earning cycle, so
Speaker 1: we have rising earnings at relatively low valuations. Um, everywhere
Speaker 1: else it's getting tougher. You just really have to be
Speaker 1: fussy stock by stock by stock. The US of course
Speaker 1: is selling at a premium to the world, but you know,
Speaker 1: I always argue it should trade at some premium to
Speaker 1: the world because it earns the US corporate USA earns
Speaker 1: good returns to our listeners. By Europe, blind I brought
Speaker 1: up Siemens s I e g Y is the euro
Speaker 1: based stock Semens Big Engineering Manufacturing. Maybe it's what Generous
Speaker 1: Electric wants to be. Here's the headline, David Harrowd, I
Speaker 1: got a three percent dividend with minimum dividend growth? Which
Speaker 1: do I want in Europe? Do I want these guys
Speaker 1: to give me more dividend growth or do I just
Speaker 1: take the fat dividend? Well, what we always say about
Speaker 1: capital allocation is we want the management teams to make
Speaker 1: the decision in terms of a capital allocation that leads
Speaker 1: to value creation, and if they can't put the money
Speaker 1: back in their business or make a reasonable acquisition or
Speaker 1: paid on debt, then they should give it back to
Speaker 1: the owners. But they could give it back to the
Speaker 1: owners whether it be in the form of a dividend
Speaker 1: or a stock buy back, depending on the stock valuation.
Speaker 1: UH is really the variable that determines which of those
Speaker 1: to use. So just pain dividends itself isn't good. For instance,
Speaker 1: if the company has a payout ratio, that is, if
Speaker 1: they're paying out more than they earn. Perhaps they shouldn't
Speaker 1: be pain such high dividends. That dividend is unsustainable. So
Speaker 1: there's so many factors, there's so many fascists. John Ferrell,
Speaker 1: BMP Perry Bob Paris has a four point one percent
Speaker 1: yield and the equity is performed well as well. I
Speaker 1: think what strikes me as an incredible um looking at
Speaker 1: David Harrow's portfolio is not just the performance last year,
Speaker 1: but the minimal exposure you have. David tooned States, and
Speaker 1: I want to get fussy with you and talk about
Speaker 1: some some single name issues. You've been in Glencore for
Speaker 1: a long time. You start with Glencore when the stock
Speaker 1: was rolled it over in a really aggressive way. Now
Speaker 1: it's delivered, some people would say that it's still trading
Speaker 1: at a discount versus a b HP and a Rio.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that is? And it's there still
Speaker 1: space for this to rewrite. There is still space for
Speaker 1: glen corter re rate. And really if you look at
Speaker 1: the situation of Glencore today, you know, very very low
Speaker 1: dealt levels. Again, don't forget unlike those other mining companies
Speaker 1: you mentioned, over a third of glen Course profitability comes
Speaker 1: from a very profitable and probably the best commodities trading
Speaker 1: business in the world. And then if you look at
Speaker 1: the extraction the minerals and metals that Glencore extracts and
Speaker 1: minds verse b HP. For instance, UM you see copper
Speaker 1: and nickel and you don't see iron ore UM iron
Speaker 1: or is something with an extremely flat cost curve. So
Speaker 1: if prices go up, supply could expand greatly. This is
Speaker 1: not something you really want to be exposed to. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, b HPS had a very very sour
Speaker 1: record of capital allocation. Now they have a new chairman
Speaker 1: who's quite good, but I mean they really made some
Speaker 1: big mistakes, whether it's being potash or u S energy.
Speaker 1: We've got to leave it there, David Harrow, too short
Speaker 1: of visit today. We look forward to a longer conversation
Speaker 1: with you in London, in New York or at the
Speaker 1: Super Bowl when the Packers play next. David Harrow, So
Speaker 1: the Harris Associates in Chicago. He is a citizen of
Speaker 1: the nation known as Wisconsin. Is the market really inured
Speaker 1: or desensitized to anything negative? Let's find out from our
Speaker 1: next guest, Christina Hooper, is invest goos chief, a global
Speaker 1: market strategist, and she joins us here in our eleven
Speaker 1: three oh studios. Christina, thank you for being here. So
Speaker 1: are the markets completely desensitized to negative news? Well? I
Speaker 1: think they certainly have become desensitized to a certain extent,
Speaker 1: although every now and then a whiff of reality hits
Speaker 1: markets and they react. And we saw that yesterday with
Speaker 1: concerns about a government shutdown. And what about animal spirits?
Speaker 1: Do you think that there's still a lot of excitement
Speaker 1: left over tax reform or tax overhaul and could we
Speaker 1: see some infrastructure spending If we talk about that, maybe
Speaker 1: it will happen and people get excited there too. They're
Speaker 1: definitely animal spirits about tax reform still. Um, I'm surprised
Speaker 1: to see just how excited many companies are, just how
Speaker 1: generous they've been in terms of giveaways to employees either
Speaker 1: increases in in pay, one time bonuses. And I do
Speaker 1: believe that the prospect for infrastructure will keep some level
Speaker 1: of excitement and markets going forward. Christina, we just see
Speaker 1: with the production industrial production number is pretty good. The
Speaker 1: two year yield really break out to new levels almost
Speaker 1: to two point zero four percent up up, We go
Speaker 1: with that yield grinding up, but other yields really not
Speaker 1: participating as much as that center tendency to year yield.
Speaker 1: To an equity person like yourself, what does it signal
Speaker 1: when we see a two year yield have a life
Speaker 1: of its own, Well, what it suggests. I mean, usually
Speaker 1: the two year hughes pretty closely to where we see
Speaker 1: the FED funds rate moving and where a monetary policy
Speaker 1: is going. So, um, what we're likely to see is
Speaker 1: is um, you know, rate hikes in the future, which
Speaker 1: we knew would happen. We're gonna make some news here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna see something January thirty one. I mean, you
Speaker 1: want to surprise as best as you can. That's the
Speaker 1: time to do it. Right. Well, I don't think we'll
Speaker 1: see something January thirty one. We just haven't seen enough
Speaker 1: data that suggests that, um, we're going to see higher
Speaker 1: inflation UM by the time the f O m C meets.
Speaker 1: But having said that, we could certainly see the Fed
Speaker 1: rays rates more than expected in we have an entirely
Speaker 1: new Fed. UM. We also have to be prepared as
Speaker 1: equity investors for the potential for a flattening yield curve
Speaker 1: and all the implications that that has for the stock market.
Speaker 1: Do you assume And this is really interesting, folks, because
Speaker 1: Christina is with invest Goo, an investment house where she's
Speaker 1: not really trying to game the forecasting game day to day.
Speaker 1: But part of your discussion there is a presume good
Speaker 1: g d P? How good is good? I mean, do
Speaker 1: we need to get used to two point four or
Speaker 1: two point six percent is good g d P? Or
Speaker 1: can we actually do a lot better than that is
Speaker 1: indicated by the two year yield? We could certainly see
Speaker 1: three percent GDP. We're an environment of global growth and
Speaker 1: it doesn't look like there will be a slowing of
Speaker 1: that growth based on where we're standing today. Having said that, though,
Speaker 1: our greatest risk, I would argue is central bank tightening
Speaker 1: and the potential for central banks to tighten more than expected.
Speaker 1: We've got the ECB starting to taper, so it's not
Speaker 1: just a FED story, but I think the FED is
Speaker 1: front and center in terms of risks UM for markets.
Speaker 1: In what would cause them to tighten more than expected?
Speaker 1: I think largely it would be based on data that
Speaker 1: suggests higher inflation than expected. The FED is certainly concerned
Speaker 1: about overheating UM, but they're always concerned about overheating, They're
Speaker 1: always concerned about underheating. They're always concerned about something. What
Speaker 1: event would take place or what number or economic metric
Speaker 1: would cause the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates more
Speaker 1: than people have estimated. Well, I think, quite frankly, it's
Speaker 1: a lot to do with what tax reform might mean
Speaker 1: for the economy. So we saw some contemplation about the
Speaker 1: tax reform legislation in the December f O MC minutes,
Speaker 1: and so certainly there's higher sensitivity to um what tax
Speaker 1: reform could do to an economy that's already accelerating. But
Speaker 1: tax reform in terms of what bringing the money back
Speaker 1: overseas or reducing the corporate income tax while the economy
Speaker 1: is three quarters the consumer, Well, I think what we
Speaker 1: may see going forward is that companies shouldering more of
Speaker 1: the growth. We've certainly seen corporate spending that has been
Speaker 1: fairly anemic since the global financial crisis. Now capex spending
Speaker 1: has picked up, but we could see a big boost
Speaker 1: of capex spending because the tax law incentivizes it. You
Speaker 1: don't believe that they will be spending that on dividends
Speaker 1: and share buy backs. I think to a certain extent,
Speaker 1: they'll be spending it on dividends, but they're incentivized to
Speaker 1: be spending it on capex. And quite frankly, what we
Speaker 1: do see, what we've seen historically, at least by companies,
Speaker 1: is they've been pretty good at timing share buy backs.
Speaker 1: They don't do it when markets are arguably more expensive,
Speaker 1: or at least when their stock is arguably more expensive.
Speaker 1: So I don't think we'll see a lot of share
Speaker 1: buybacks in two thousand eighteen, especially with valuations where they
Speaker 1: are today. All right, Christina Hooper invest Goes a chief
Speaker 1: a global market strategist. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio