Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
Speaker 2: with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day
Speaker 2: for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics
Speaker 2: from our global headquarters in New York City. We are
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine
Speaker 2: am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or
Speaker 2: anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: Tim joins us Now. Tim, wonderful to see you.
Speaker 3: Good war and good to see you.
Speaker 1: You know, it was really interesting when I was reading
Speaker 1: your notes. You talk about how usually it's something of
Speaker 1: a sleepy affair, people kind of get together. Yeah, some
Speaker 1: dude bureaucratic kinds of you know, hubbub. This is different
Speaker 1: why geo political risks.
Speaker 4: People are concerned at war in Europe, war in the
Speaker 4: Middle East, which could grow tensions in the Asia Pacific.
Speaker 4: So it feels like a very dangerous world. We'll keep
Speaker 4: making illusions to the nineteen thirties. I think that's probably overdone,
Speaker 4: but so certainly something we should consider.
Speaker 3: Part of the.
Speaker 1: Problem with some of these discussions is it's very hard
Speaker 1: to know how to prepare for something where it's a
Speaker 1: very bipolar kind of outcome. Are people actually hedging that
Speaker 1: kind of risk, particularly with the respect of the areas
Speaker 1: that might get hit hardest in the economy as a results.
Speaker 4: Yeah, everyone's preparing because you just don't know. The uncertainty
Speaker 4: just overwhelms all calculations. You know, the economy is good,
Speaker 4: as you noted, growth.
Speaker 3: Is exceeding what was expected this year.
Speaker 4: The US economy's humming right along. So from just a
Speaker 4: growth perspective, we're exceeding expectations.
Speaker 3: But people are still nervous.
Speaker 5: Is the US economy too good in terms of it's
Speaker 5: so good here that it's dealing with some pretty frock
Speaker 5: consequences around the world.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think it ever be too good.
Speaker 3: I think there is other.
Speaker 4: Countries looking at saying how can we replicate that?
Speaker 3: Why aren't we doing what the US is doing?
Speaker 4: The US consumer continues to power aheads, so I think
Speaker 4: there's something to be.
Speaker 3: Said for that.
Speaker 4: Maybe lessons be drawn from the US.
Speaker 5: The US is doing more of industrial policy, especially fiscal policy,
Speaker 5: lose fiscal policy. The IMF report has talked about this.
Speaker 5: Do you hear other countries saying, well, if we're not
Speaker 5: going to have as robust global free trade, that's the
Speaker 5: direction we need to lean into.
Speaker 4: Well, I would hope we go back to a robust
Speaker 4: global free trade.
Speaker 3: I think that's the right answer.
Speaker 4: The fiscal deficit six percent GDP is not sustainable. There
Speaker 4: is a lot of fiscal support. Debt and deficits are
Speaker 4: part of the conversation this week. I think there's a
Speaker 4: lot of concern about where we're going to be and
Speaker 4: the sustainability. I don't think it's sustainable, but right now
Speaker 4: it's providing a real pulse to the economy.
Speaker 1: So let's take a step back and talk about what
Speaker 1: the main issues are the financial firms are looking at
Speaker 1: and actually trying to hedge against as they prepare for
Speaker 1: this more dangerous world in a whole host of different ways.
Speaker 1: You point to oil in particular and saying that it
Speaker 1: could surge forty percent globally next year or even this year.
Speaker 1: If you start to see a protracted and escalating conflict
Speaker 1: to the Middle East, do you see firms actually preparing
Speaker 1: for that or do you see them as incredibly vulnerable
Speaker 1: to a situation like that.
Speaker 4: Now our business, our firms are in the risk management business.
Speaker 4: They're all looking at different scenarios and have for some time.
Speaker 4: It's not a surprise that oil prices could surge, but
Speaker 4: it's energy prices generally, And that goes back to industrial policy.
Speaker 4: If you want to support manufacturing, energy price is one
Speaker 4: of the most important component input to manufacturing. So it's
Speaker 4: not just throwing more fiscal dollars at a certain sector.
Speaker 4: Is how do you get energy prices at appropriate level.
Speaker 1: I hear you talking about how they're prepared for it.
Speaker 1: They're the risk mitigation business. We hear that in a
Speaker 1: host of different ways. Does that mean that you don't
Speaker 1: see the likelihood of some sort of banking crisis or
Speaker 1: some sort of banking kerfuffle, whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 1: akin to what we saw even last March, just simply
Speaker 1: because they are prepared for higher interest rates, they are
Speaker 1: prepared for higher oil prices, they are prepared for a
Speaker 1: potential slowdown.
Speaker 4: Now, the system is highly capitalized, you have tremendous amount liquidy,
Speaker 4: very good risk management systems. What we saw a year
Speaker 4: ago is pretty idiosyncratic. So I feel pretty good where
Speaker 4: the industry is. But we're all every day, we're spent
Speaker 4: an entire week scenarioing out different risks. So we are
Speaker 4: trying to think through what are the array of possible
Speaker 4: downside outcomes.
Speaker 1: One risk that you mentioned when you talk about geopol
Speaker 1: politics that I thought was fascinating you talked about the
Speaker 1: US election and that that was actually one of the
Speaker 1: geopolitical risks that a lot of people were looking at.
Speaker 1: What are people expecting from a Trump presidency two point
Speaker 1: zero in terms of either deregulation? Is that really the case?
Speaker 3: Can you game that out?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 4: I just did a nine city, seventeen day tour across
Speaker 4: Europe's the first question out of everyone's mouth what's going
Speaker 4: to happen in November fifth, two hundred and one days
Speaker 4: from today, And the concern is what is a Trump administration?
Speaker 4: I think actually it'll be business friendly. I do think
Speaker 4: there's protectionism. I do think we'll see tariffs and non
Speaker 4: tariff barriers. I don't think we'll see deregulation for our industry.
Speaker 3: I think that's coming gone.
Speaker 4: So I think there's a lot of potential chaotic outcomes
Speaker 4: just the uncertainty of what a Trump two point zero
Speaker 4: would look like.
Speaker 5: What kind of tariffs do you actually see potentially happening?
Speaker 5: They talk about a ten percent wall, and all tariffs
Speaker 5: come all imports coming to the United States, and then
Speaker 5: sixty percent on Chinese imports.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I do it.
Speaker 4: I think I think it's a part of a negotiation, right.
Speaker 3: I think that's the opening bid.
Speaker 4: But I do think there's a proclivity to believe that
Speaker 4: somehow The biggest challenge we have in the United States
Speaker 4: is are global imbalance the external imbalance, and we need
Speaker 4: to solve that particular equation. I don't think that's the problem,
Speaker 4: and I think you'd end up doing some really bad
Speaker 4: policy in pursuit of an objective which I think is
Speaker 4: of secondary nature.
Speaker 5: But whether or not it's Trump or Biden, you see
Speaker 5: the direction of travel the same when it comes to
Speaker 5: potentially more tariffs on.
Speaker 3: Certainly on China.
Speaker 4: China is on the ballot your respective of who's elected,
Speaker 4: who's running, Yes, which rais is the.
Speaker 1: Question for banks, and this is something that we've heard
Speaker 1: and seen quite significantly. If you're an international bank, do
Speaker 1: you get into China, do you expand your presence or
Speaker 1: do you really curtail it? A more significant way. So
Speaker 1: yesterday Morgan Stanley pulling out a couple of its bankers
Speaker 1: from the region.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think it depends on the institution.
Speaker 4: You see, some institutions are doubling down in others who
Speaker 4: what d're on. It really depends on your risk profile,
Speaker 4: your appetite for risk, and.
Speaker 3: Where you're located.
Speaker 4: I think I'd be cautious being in China, but certainly
Speaker 4: you can't walk away from the second largest economy in
Speaker 4: the world. You have to be there and your client
Speaker 4: want you there, so I think you.
Speaker 3: Do so cautiously.
Speaker 1: So this raises this question because we keep talking about
Speaker 1: how this is a whole new world and there is
Speaker 1: an increasingly protectionist kind of feel at this IMF meeting,
Speaker 1: and this feeling that free trade isn't as good as
Speaker 1: it really was thought up to be. Is that the
Speaker 1: same tone that you're hearing from the members of the
Speaker 1: If it's.
Speaker 4: A concern that we're hearing, My industry tends to be
Speaker 4: for free trade, flow of capital, free flow of data,
Speaker 4: free ideas, right, we think that's how you optimize growth,
Speaker 4: But we don't hear that coming out.
Speaker 3: Of political capitals.
Speaker 4: Do you hear politicians who think they can micro manage
Speaker 4: their economies into a better outcome.
Speaker 3: I think that's a huge mistake.
Speaker 5: So what's the biggest risk then right now? Is it
Speaker 5: the politicians?
Speaker 4: Well, it's the politician and misallocation of capital which won't
Speaker 4: show up for years, but we can end up wasting
Speaker 4: a lot of capital and pursuing sort of pipe dreams
Speaker 4: of politicians who think they can outsmart the markets.
Speaker 5: So we're here for the IMF's free meetings. How does
Speaker 5: the IMF as an institution do you think really guide
Speaker 5: the global economy and companies that you work with, Well, they.
Speaker 4: Can provide some intellectual framework, analytical framework, which is if
Speaker 4: you choose a this is b happens. So I think
Speaker 4: showing trade offs. I think trying to hold the sector
Speaker 4: the global.
Speaker 3: Economies are honest.
Speaker 4: You've got finance minister, central banker sitting around the table.
Speaker 4: They can be voices of reason, they can talk to
Speaker 4: the political leaders. Ultimately, it's about political leaders taking political
Speaker 4: decisions this morning.
Speaker 1: And I can't let you go without asking this because
Speaker 1: it's something that's very much on my mind. Vanguard came
Speaker 1: out and said, if you see treasure yields go up
Speaker 1: to four seventy five, they'll easily pop to five. We
Speaker 1: have Jonathan Pringle pingle over at UBS saying that the
Speaker 1: FED could hike rates to six and a half percent
Speaker 1: next year. Could banks withstand that?
Speaker 4: I think, well, I don't think we're going to see
Speaker 4: a rate hike, but I don't think rates are going
Speaker 4: down either, and I haven't thought that for some time.
Speaker 4: I think race are going to see where they are.
Speaker 4: You know, the FED has done a really remarkable job
Speaker 4: in inflation.
Speaker 3: But it feels a little sticky.
Speaker 4: We saw Governor Bowman last night talk about the stickiness.
Speaker 3: The last mile was always going to be hard.
Speaker 4: I don't know why it's a surprise, but I think
Speaker 4: we'll get there with time.
Speaker 1: Well, that seems to be the tone that we're hearing
Speaker 1: from the Federal Reserve as well. Tim Adam, CEO of
Speaker 1: the A thank you so much, Dutch Central Bank President,
Speaker 1: EASYB Governing Council member Class Canot joins US now and
Speaker 1: Governor President, all of the different ways that you weigh
Speaker 1: in European central bank policy, what a moment. How much
Speaker 1: are you looking to US policy to determine how far
Speaker 1: the EASYB can go on its own?
Speaker 6: Well, obviously monetary policy always takes place in a global context.
Speaker 6: But at the same time, we're not the thirteenth Federal District.
Speaker 3: We have our own monetary policy.
Speaker 6: We have our own set of outlooks, economic outlook, inflation outlook,
Speaker 6: and as Christine already alluded to, some of the fundamental
Speaker 6: drivers of inflation have developed quite differently in the US
Speaker 6: than in the Euro Area. So we have our own
Speaker 6: monetary policy to do that. Monetary policy, I think is
Speaker 6: testimony of the fact that we're increasingly confident with the
Speaker 6: disentflation process that we have been seeing and that we
Speaker 6: expect to continue. We expect it to become a little
Speaker 6: bit more bumpy also down the road, because of all
Speaker 6: kinds of technical factors that I would want to tire
Speaker 6: you with, but we are confident that the overall picture
Speaker 6: is one of continued disinflation.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned the b word bumps, and this is
Speaker 1: something we hear a lot. What kind of bumps would
Speaker 1: you have to see to not cut rates in June?
Speaker 6: Well, bumps that would lead me to fundamentally change my
Speaker 6: assessment of the ongoing this inflation process. And I think
Speaker 6: the projections that we have are pretty clear that we
Speaker 6: are moving toward reaching our target two percent inflation over
Speaker 6: the medium term in the remainder.
Speaker 3: Of this year course of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 6: But there are risks surrounding such projections, but increasingly these
Speaker 6: risks are becoming more balanced.
Speaker 3: Upside risks, I think, em.
Speaker 6: Andate predominantly from the labor market, and then it's not
Speaker 6: just about wages.
Speaker 3: It's about wages.
Speaker 6: In combination with very slow productivity growth. So a major
Speaker 6: difference with the US and the question about the capacity
Speaker 6: of firms profit margins to absorb any increase in unit
Speaker 6: labor costs that might come from this combination of wage
Speaker 6: wages and productivity growth. That's the assessment we need to make.
Speaker 6: That's a risk on the upside. At the same time,
Speaker 6: we also don't want to undershoot our inflation target. We
Speaker 6: have a two percent symmetric target. We are zooming in
Speaker 6: on it, and let's make sure that we continue to
Speaker 6: do so.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: Right now, the market's pricing in twenty five basis point
Speaker 1: cut in June and then two more of the range
Speaker 1: of the year.
Speaker 3: You're basically on board with that.
Speaker 6: If everything stays the same, well, I'm not uncomfortable with
Speaker 6: such market pricing, but At the same time, we don't
Speaker 6: pre commit where data depend that we go meeting by meeting.
Speaker 6: We of course we have a picture of where we
Speaker 6: think the underlying movement is within the data. But we
Speaker 6: will have new data points well every month on inflation,
Speaker 6: every quarter on the labor market, and that will continue
Speaker 6: to inform our decisions beyond June.
Speaker 5: Well, what would make you rethink what you have right
Speaker 5: now in terms of that path? Is it the geopolitical concerns?
Speaker 5: I'm trying to understand what would make the easy be
Speaker 5: changed path or how would they respond to, say, an
Speaker 5: oil price shock.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, an oil price shock obviously will lift inflation,
Speaker 6: that is absolutely true. But the question for us is
Speaker 6: the oil price shock of enough significance to trigger second
Speaker 6: round of facts? And there's an important difference here today
Speaker 6: with twenty twenty two. In twenty twenty two, all inflation
Speaker 6: items will go up. We're going up, and we had
Speaker 6: the energy price shock as the consequence of Russia's unjustifiable.
Speaker 3: Invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 6: Now, if we have an oil shock, it will be
Speaker 6: against the backdrop of general disinflation in all the other factors.
Speaker 6: So the likelihood of significant second round effects I would
Speaker 6: argue is smaller, but it is clearly something to monitor.
Speaker 3: It's clearly something to keep in mind.
Speaker 5: So you're willing to potentially look through it.
Speaker 6: If it continues to be confined to energy prices only. Yes,
Speaker 6: as soon as I get indication that it broadens into
Speaker 6: the consumer basket into more traditional goods and services inflation,
Speaker 6: then the answer would turn no.
Speaker 1: Something that people have speculated is that the ECB might
Speaker 1: be willing to also look through depreciation of the euro
Speaker 1: in response to recuts at a time where the FED
Speaker 1: is not cutting, as long as there isn't an oil
Speaker 1: price shock. So let's say that there isn't an oil
Speaker 1: price shock, would you be willing to accept parody with
Speaker 1: the euro and the dollar all things being equal, It's fine.
Speaker 6: Well, the exchange right in and of itself is not
Speaker 6: a target of our policy, so I account comment on
Speaker 6: specific levels of the exchange. It's one input into our
Speaker 6: overall assessment of the inflation outlook. It's clearly that a
Speaker 6: depreciating currency would lead to additionally important inflation at the
Speaker 6: same time, if the reason for that is tighter one
Speaker 6: of the policy in the US, higher bond yields in
Speaker 6: the US, that would also spill over to the Euro
Speaker 6: Area and we would have tighter financial conditions in the
Speaker 6: Euro Area as a consequence of that. Which of the
Speaker 6: two effects will dominate It remains to be sy. That's
Speaker 6: very much state contingency, So that's difficult to comment on beforehand.
Speaker 1: A very difficult question. Some people are speculating that high
Speaker 1: rates are actually helping inflation continue because people are earning
Speaker 1: more and then they're able to refuel that into the economy,
Speaker 1: and that low rates actually were depressive of inflation.
Speaker 3: Do you believe that? No, I don't believe that at all.
Speaker 6: I think it runs counter two decades of empirical evidence.
Speaker 6: And if you want to run to see what the
Speaker 6: consequences are of running such an experiment.
Speaker 3: Look at Turkey, right. I mean, that's where the experiment
Speaker 3: was brought to.
Speaker 6: Life, and I don't think that that's seen as a
Speaker 6: paragon of central banking success.
Speaker 1: Central Bank President ECV, Governing Council Member Class Cannod, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with us.
Speaker 3: Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: With the pingle of UBS, he came out with a
Speaker 1: call that was nuanced, and I think that that's the
Speaker 1: important way of putting it, and I want.
Speaker 7: To start there, you talk about how.
Speaker 1: Your base case is two rate cuts, but you made
Speaker 1: headlines by talking about the possibility for the FED to
Speaker 1: raise rates to six.
Speaker 3: And a half percent next year.
Speaker 1: Put those two stories together, please explain, well.
Speaker 7: I mean the stories are I mean, I hate to
Speaker 7: admit that they are somewhat born out of our own
Speaker 7: forecast errors, right right, So I think there's an element
Speaker 7: of needing to be humble here, But I mean, the
Speaker 7: basic fact is growth has surprised persistently, you know, for
Speaker 7: the last year more essentially, And you know, we think
Speaker 7: about the central Bank, we're all focused on inflation. They're
Speaker 7: very focused on inflation. But in the backdrop, they have
Speaker 7: this very strong labor market, strong headline numbers, retail sales,
Speaker 7: and at some point, if that is really what's preventing
Speaker 7: them from achieving their inflation target or making further progress,
Speaker 7: at some point they may need to push back on that.
Speaker 7: And pushing back on that would imply something I think
Speaker 7: a little bit more than just higher for longer, where
Speaker 7: they maintain the same level of rates and hope that
Speaker 7: that slows growth and they make this grinding progress down
Speaker 7: towards two percent. Because if the economy is going to
Speaker 7: remain sufficiently strong. I mean, non farm PAERIL employment three
Speaker 7: hundred and three thousand.
Speaker 3: Extraordinary number.
Speaker 7: But even if it's still running at this two forty
Speaker 7: four average pace, eventually the unemployment rate is going to
Speaker 7: start moving lower. And that seems pretty inconsistent with two
Speaker 7: percent inflation. At some point the Central Bank may think
Speaker 7: they need to do something about it.
Speaker 1: Are you basically saying that if inflation doesn't come under control,
Speaker 1: if that's going to have to break something.
Speaker 7: This isn't even about breaking something. I mean, this is
Speaker 7: like going from two forty four to something closer to trend.
Speaker 7: I mean they it's really an extraordinary pace of growth.
Speaker 3: It's persistent for a.
Speaker 7: While, and they might think that they need to break
Speaker 7: something in order to solve this sort of I've been
Speaker 7: calling a sort of the last half mile problem, like
Speaker 7: if they're stuck at two and a half.
Speaker 3: But I think if growth is going to.
Speaker 7: Be three percent GDP growth and two fifty on payrolls,
Speaker 7: I mean, they're just I think they're going to end
Speaker 7: up coming to the realization that that is not going
Speaker 7: to allow them to achieve price stability.
Speaker 5: We here from Michelle Bowman last night saying keep things
Speaker 5: policy is restrictive, but maybe time will tell if it's
Speaker 5: restrictive enough. When you see these kind of numbers in
Speaker 5: this kind of market and you have a probability, even
Speaker 5: though it's small, you do are putting in probability of
Speaker 5: a hike.
Speaker 3: Do you think the FED is restrictive?
Speaker 7: Well, I do think the FED is restrictive, But I
Speaker 7: have to say I've been thinking the FED is restrictive,
Speaker 7: and at the same time, I'm still not seeing the
Speaker 7: kind of slow down I would have expected. I mean,
Speaker 7: you do see some evidence of restrictiveness. I mean equipment investment,
Speaker 7: I mean a lot of different types of business fixed
Speaker 7: investment have been pretty weak. You know what that looks like.
Speaker 7: It's the effect of higher interest rates restraining that activity.
Speaker 3: But overall, when.
Speaker 7: You're watching consumption growth at the pace we've had, it,
Speaker 7: it's very to cult to think.
Speaker 3: That, well, you know what is is the neutral rate?
Speaker 7: Really the zero point six and the SEP So we've
Speaker 7: started thinking about a short run neutral rate, But I
Speaker 7: will say it's hard to identify these things in models.
Speaker 3: It's hard to come up with a point estimate.
Speaker 7: So the FED and we are really feeling our way forward,
Speaker 7: and I think as we feel our way forward, I mean,
Speaker 7: if growth is just going to remain super strong, at
Speaker 7: some point they might realize they need higher rates to
Speaker 7: kind of you know, tame the economic conditions that would
Speaker 7: engineer a path to two percent.
Speaker 5: But back to your base case, you did push back
Speaker 5: your timing though, the first cut to September.
Speaker 3: A lot of people are saying, siptet right, Yeah, no.
Speaker 7: No, we did, only laughing because we got the CPI
Speaker 7: and I actually published the rate call change faster than
Speaker 7: we published our CPI.
Speaker 1: Right now, Well, why are you even having two cuts
Speaker 1: if this is what you're talking about, Well.
Speaker 7: We're having we have two cuts because we do think
Speaker 7: the economy is going to slow.
Speaker 3: I mean we're.
Speaker 7: Looking at an expansion where the sources of growth have
Speaker 7: been relatively now. So we look at twenty twenty three
Speaker 7: and we think there was a big impetus from fiscal policy,
Speaker 7: and we think we're seeing that fade both in the
Speaker 7: pace of manufacturing plant.
Speaker 3: Construction that was supported by the Chips.
Speaker 7: Act and the IRA, you know, as well as sort
Speaker 7: of what we're seeing in public infrastructure investment for example.
Speaker 7: And we're also seeing a fair amount of hardship in households,
Speaker 7: and we think that that is the recipe for a
Speaker 7: slower second half. But we've been thinking that that's a
Speaker 7: recipe for slowing and the upper twenty percent of the
Speaker 7: income distribution remains a wash in cash, liquid assets and
Speaker 7: high levels of wealth.
Speaker 1: So I think that Emory was going to September and
Speaker 1: this question around.
Speaker 2: Politics, co oh yeah, because.
Speaker 1: So here we are people are saying, you know, can
Speaker 1: we actually get a September rate, given the fact that
Speaker 1: we have one of the more contentious elections that we've
Speaker 1: had in a very long time.
Speaker 3: How do you push back and say.
Speaker 1: Okay, the economic fundamentals determine that this is the way
Speaker 1: to go, the FED will just do it.
Speaker 3: Is that really realistic?
Speaker 1: And the climate we're in.
Speaker 3: I think it is.
Speaker 7: I think it does put the onus on their communications
Speaker 7: to explain why it's unfolding. But when we look back
Speaker 7: at history, you know, we sort of analyze the September moves.
Speaker 7: I mean, we can debate whether or not the start
Speaker 7: of a cycle is different than an ongoing cycle, but
Speaker 7: they do move in plenty of Septembers with it or
Speaker 7: within three months of a presidential election.
Speaker 3: I just think their communications have been.
Speaker 7: Such that they've laid out this plan. They've been telling
Speaker 7: everybody that. I don't think it would be particularly surprising
Speaker 7: if the data started to go their way they're communicating it.
Speaker 7: I think November would be a challenge two days after
Speaker 7: the presidential election. I mean, could you imagine waiting and
Speaker 7: then doing that?
Speaker 3: So I do think the.
Speaker 7: Odds of November should be pretty low to start an
Speaker 7: easing cycle, but I think September is probably okay.
Speaker 1: Jonathan Pingle of UBS, Thank you.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Sevenans podcast, bringing you the best
Speaker 2: in markets, economics, angio politics. You can watch the show
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
Speaker 2: nine a Eastern Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify
Speaker 2: or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the
Speaker 2: bloom Blog terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm