Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust and independent registered investment advisors to the two
Speaker 1: and four trillion dollars. Why learn more and find your
Speaker 1: independent advisor dot com. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and
Speaker 1: of course on the Bloomberg. It's a pleasure to have
Speaker 1: with me in studio Alan Ruskin Cohea of Dutch Banks
Speaker 1: for in Exchange Research team on the morning when there
Speaker 1: is so much to talk about, Alan, let's be begin
Speaker 1: with oil. In your most recently you talk about the
Speaker 1: degree to which this is really the big macro driver
Speaker 1: right now. Yes, it is at the center point. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind that we did obviously see oil four very
Speaker 1: very sharply it was so important for all the other
Speaker 1: macro drivers. And then the rebound now is almost the
Speaker 1: reverse effect. So you know, I think the main channels
Speaker 1: in which this is working is higher all prices, higher
Speaker 1: break even rates, and then expectations that um, the likes
Speaker 1: of Treasury hills and other global bond heills will move higher.
Speaker 1: We've seen that start to quiet and down a little
Speaker 1: bit over the last few days. As the question as
Speaker 1: to whether oil sticks around here or does go up,
Speaker 1: say another ten dollars a barrel. Um, I don't think
Speaker 1: people are thinking much more than ten dollars a barrel
Speaker 1: and giving us some some sense of whether or not
Speaker 1: that might happen. Is this November three meeting in Vienna,
Speaker 1: this this Opeque meeting. From what we've heard today from
Speaker 1: the Saudi oil minister, what we've heard over these last
Speaker 1: few weeks, what's your sense of the likelihood that we
Speaker 1: will get at the very least of freeze and and
Speaker 1: perhaps cuts here in production. Yeah. So look, I'm not
Speaker 1: an oil analyst. It's it's full disclosure here, but I
Speaker 1: think what you have is at least stability with a
Speaker 1: tendency towards moving towards the upper end of the range.
Speaker 1: So you know, if the range is forty dollars a
Speaker 1: barrel to perhaps as high as sixty dollars a barrel,
Speaker 1: then um, you know, I think we edge a little
Speaker 1: bit higher at least. While there's speculation that OPEC and
Speaker 1: some big non OPEC countries really do curtail supply. The
Speaker 1: problem I think they face is really that on the
Speaker 1: non OPEC side, and notably on the U S side,
Speaker 1: supply will kick in again and you'll see those rig
Speaker 1: count numbers going up quite sharply. Really as soon as
Speaker 1: oil does go up. So oil prices do you go up?
Speaker 1: I want to ask you more here about the relationship
Speaker 1: between oil and the dollar. Frustyle. So the Bloomberrick surveillance
Speaker 1: brought to you by invest Goo investing isn't about achieving average,
Speaker 1: It's about achieving goals. Learned how Investco's high conviction approach
Speaker 1: can help investco dot com slash high conviction. I want
Speaker 1: to bring in Francy and Lackworth from London, pulling a
Speaker 1: doing yeoman's work here on the heels of a surveillance
Speaker 1: television joining me from from London's mo Good morning frid
Speaker 1: We sent Tom Holmes because he lost his works, so
Speaker 1: you get me. I'm so sorry out of the building.
Speaker 1: I'm sure Alan, if you look at so we had
Speaker 1: those more Instanley report right, and they cut down in
Speaker 1: trading some unless I guess we'll question whether they cut
Speaker 1: back down too much. Then you have crude as David
Speaker 1: was talking about, and you also have this China story. Again,
Speaker 1: we've seen so many movements from currencies, Brexit non Brexit,
Speaker 1: the US presidential elections. What will be the next impetus
Speaker 1: for for big currency moves? Yes, Um, I think right
Speaker 1: now the focus is really on treasury heels and whether
Speaker 1: we are seeing some sort of shifting regime. As we
Speaker 1: are talking about a little bit earlier. Oil could be
Speaker 1: one of the catalysts for higher interest rates, at least
Speaker 1: at the back and the curve, but there's a greater
Speaker 1: chatter that relates to what central banks actually want for
Speaker 1: the yield curve. So um, it's clear that the Bank
Speaker 1: of Japan and perhaps the e c B certainly wants
Speaker 1: a steeper heeled curve to support the financial sector. Um.
Speaker 1: Whether that translates to the US is another question. A
Speaker 1: little bit more skeptical that it does translate to the US.
Speaker 1: Are we really seeing inflation? And so treasuries gained a
Speaker 1: little bit right we saw a core inflation gauge rising
Speaker 1: less unexpected in September. I can't figure out when we
Speaker 1: see real inflation. I'm not talking about the UK, which
Speaker 1: is a whole other problem with Brexit. No, I think
Speaker 1: inflation has got a lot of global inertia still built
Speaker 1: into a huge amount of spare capacity in the system. Actually,
Speaker 1: not just in the international side of things, but the
Speaker 1: cap you numbers, the capacity utilization numbers in the US
Speaker 1: are very very low, remarkably low in the context of
Speaker 1: central bank that might be tightening. So look, I think
Speaker 1: at least on the goods inflation side, there's very low inflation.
Speaker 1: On the services sector side, there's something there as there's
Speaker 1: definitely been something. There's a little a little bit of
Speaker 1: creep and uh, you know, I think in aggregate, will
Speaker 1: the fair eventually hit their target over there a two
Speaker 1: year period. I think that's there some you know, that's
Speaker 1: what they expect, and I think that's not unreasonable. Let
Speaker 1: me get your sense of what we heard from the
Speaker 1: vice chair at the Federal Reserve on Monday. Maybe put
Speaker 1: that in a continue with what we heard from Janet
Speaker 1: Yellen on Friday. She's talking about running things a bit hard.
Speaker 1: He having what was a fairly academic discussion here about
Speaker 1: productivity and what is driving rates down. What did you
Speaker 1: make of those two speeches in concert with each other. Yeah, Look,
Speaker 1: I think they've got, you know, subtle differences of opinion really,
Speaker 1: insomuch as I think there still is a little bit
Speaker 1: more emphasis on the idea that low for long does
Speaker 1: create some potential financial problems, financial instability in the long
Speaker 1: haul really in a sense, and so nudging rates up
Speaker 1: a little bit won't do much harm. At the same time,
Speaker 1: waiting a little bit won't do too much harm either
Speaker 1: on the goods inflation side and on inflation side as well.
Speaker 1: So it's very subtle really in a way. It's in
Speaker 1: some ways speaks the idea that central banks don't matter
Speaker 1: as much as we might think. What did you make
Speaker 1: of the portion of stand Fishery speech and when he
Speaker 1: talked in which he talked about inflation targeting, he rather
Speaker 1: forcefully addressing critics who say, perhaps it should be re evaluated,
Speaker 1: perhaps it should be brought up. He's saying, you know,
Speaker 1: if we can't get to two, I would be talking
Speaker 1: about three or a number higher. Uh, what do you
Speaker 1: make of that portion? In particularly well, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: for central banks to shift on on on a target
Speaker 1: like this, you know, and it's been entrenched really for
Speaker 1: the better part of really, you know, in the likes
Speaker 1: the United States for what forty yard years. UM. I
Speaker 1: think that would be to really have people rethink that,
Speaker 1: you know, the structure and the model kind of thing.
Speaker 1: So I think that's that's that's one thing. I think
Speaker 1: raising the inflation target also has its problems, although having
Speaker 1: an inflation target it's you know, close to two is
Speaker 1: proving problematic as well in the current environment. And this
Speaker 1: is how markets are interpreting right. A lot of people
Speaker 1: are saying maybe because of what we heard from Janet
Speaker 1: Yellen talking about a high pressure economy and what we
Speaker 1: also heard from Mark Karney, who in the aftermath of
Speaker 1: breggsit is saying he will look through faster price gains,
Speaker 1: means that they're slightly changing their inflation target. Now you
Speaker 1: may think that they should, but are they well, I
Speaker 1: think Karnie is in a special situation. So you've had
Speaker 1: an exchange rate shock, and it's much easier to say,
Speaker 1: look at an exchange rate shock is a one off shock,
Speaker 1: as it were, and it's going to wake work its
Speaker 1: way through the system over the next say eighteen months
Speaker 1: to two or even three years, and uh, we look,
Speaker 1: the markets are probably going to look past that. UM
Speaker 1: and underlying inflation X, the exchange rate shock might well
Speaker 1: be well behaved. So I think Connie is in that
Speaker 1: in that particular situation. The US is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: in a in a very different set of circumstances. I
Speaker 1: think the idea that in the US is, look, if
Speaker 1: we go slightly above the inflation target, that will not
Speaker 1: be you know, too disruptive, is the premise. I think
Speaker 1: they're probably wrong on that to the extent. Well, I
Speaker 1: think if inflations does start to nutche above target and start,
Speaker 1: you know, we start to see the core PC deflator,
Speaker 1: even even in the low twos um, this bond market
Speaker 1: is is not priced for that scenario. And if you
Speaker 1: do see a major bond market sell off, and you know,
Speaker 1: some people think there's a bond bubble there. If you
Speaker 1: see a major bond market sell off, it's going to
Speaker 1: be usually disruptive for the US economy. And yes, real
Speaker 1: rates might not actually go up because they'll just be
Speaker 1: catching up, you know, nominal rates will just be catching
Speaker 1: up with inflation. But nonetheless, nominal rates matter a great deal.
Speaker 1: And if the bond market starts setting off sharply, you
Speaker 1: can rest assured. I think the equity market's gonna have
Speaker 1: a hard time as well, and we've seen the dollar
Speaker 1: weaken a little bit against the ten major currencies. This
Speaker 1: warning when you look at the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index
Speaker 1: that when I was said, I was going to ask
Speaker 1: you here about the role of the dollar and oil
Speaker 1: right now, what are you seeing there? Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it's it's a circular to some extent. So traditionally you
Speaker 1: see a stronger dollar really associated with weaker oil prices
Speaker 1: and weaker commodity prices just because you know these commodity
Speaker 1: prices or priced in dollars, so um. You know, that's
Speaker 1: the sort of traditional one sided relationship. The flip side
Speaker 1: of that, and the one we're kind of focusing on
Speaker 1: a little bit more right now is as oil prices
Speaker 1: go higher, and if they go still higher, um, what
Speaker 1: effect does that have on the bottom market and then
Speaker 1: the knock on effect to obviously the dollar. I think
Speaker 1: the issue here is if treasury hills do bump up significantly,
Speaker 1: say the tenure, he'll goes to two. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: not a huge move, but in the context of where
Speaker 1: we're at, it's a it's a decent sized move. Then
Speaker 1: I think you're in a circumstance where the dollar will
Speaker 1: actually benefit to some degree certainly versus the commodity currencies
Speaker 1: and the e M currencies because we will go a
Speaker 1: little bit risk off until we stabilize. And on the
Speaker 1: bondom market side, David Gurry here in New York with
Speaker 1: Francine Lackwar in London, a transatlantic version of Bloomberg Surveillance
Speaker 1: this morning, recapping the news from Morgan Stanley this morning.
Speaker 1: Third quarter net revenues of eight point nine billion dollars,
Speaker 1: fixed income trading revenue almost tripling from a year ago
Speaker 1: to one point five billion dollars. And that's where I
Speaker 1: want to start with Alison Williams, senior US bank analysts
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg Intelligence, who joins me here, uh in New York. Allison,
Speaker 1: this story, this fixed story continues here with with Morgan Stanley. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we we've had excuse me, uh now, every single
Speaker 1: bank beating and really sort of going out with a
Speaker 1: bank with Morgan Stanley having a huge beat versus the
Speaker 1: one billion estimate and bearing in mind that one billion
Speaker 1: is about in line with management targets. So after they
Speaker 1: restructured the business, the most restructuring, the most recent restructuring
Speaker 1: was in the fourth quarter of last year when they
Speaker 1: cut of the front office staff. They had said that
Speaker 1: they wanted to target roughly four billion annual revenue. That's
Speaker 1: about a billion a quarter. That's about what UM analysts
Speaker 1: surveyed by Bloomberg News had been expecting for Morgan Stanley.
Speaker 1: So obviously this is a very big number. We've been
Speaker 1: talking a lot about restructuring. We certainly talked about it
Speaker 1: in the context of Goldman Sax yesterday, the reduction and
Speaker 1: head count head count that we've seen their Morgan Stanley
Speaker 1: has its project streamline. What we learned today about the
Speaker 1: efficacy of that so far so still going through the numbers,
Speaker 1: but it does look like they are making um progress
Speaker 1: on that. On on the overall basis. Uh. The other
Speaker 1: important pre tax margin is the margin within their wealth
Speaker 1: management business. That's a key metric. Their goal is twenty
Speaker 1: three to twenty five percent margin they got this quarter.
Speaker 1: So we're still going through just to see if there
Speaker 1: were any one timers, if that's a true organic recurring margin,
Speaker 1: but that is another positive for the company. All right, Nelson,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us again here As the bank
Speaker 1: earning season rolls on, that's Alison Williams, their senior US
Speaker 1: bank analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. Fran Yeah, David, we were
Speaker 1: talking a little bit about monetary policy, about inflation targets,
Speaker 1: about what a lot of these central banks are facing.
Speaker 1: We're back with Alan Ruskin from Deutsche Bank. He's global
Speaker 1: co head of Foreign Exchange Research. And you know, Alan,
Speaker 1: I was, I'm torn, I don't know whether Laski abou
Speaker 1: yen because people are concerned about exactly what Governor Kuroda
Speaker 1: is trying to do capping that tenure yield. We had
Speaker 1: the story today about Japan's three largest lenders selling a
Speaker 1: record amount of yen bonds, or whether I should ask
Speaker 1: about China and actually what the endgame for rem NIMBI is.
Speaker 1: Amongst those two stories, what could scupper the markets more
Speaker 1: right now? I think China is still probably more interesting.
Speaker 1: So China I think has been going through something of
Speaker 1: a stealth devaluation, effectively letting its trade weighted index weekend.
Speaker 1: The market I think has taken this on board quite nicely,
Speaker 1: to the relief of everybody, I think, or should be
Speaker 1: to the reef relief of everybody. And we're seeing, you know,
Speaker 1: for example, equity markets not respond in the same way
Speaker 1: to Chinese currency weakness as we've seen before, but I
Speaker 1: think you will see ongoing Chinese currency weakness on an
Speaker 1: opportunistic basis. So when China makes a decision and and
Speaker 1: and and sees that the markets are being well behaved
Speaker 1: in response to a weeker currency, they'll let their currency
Speaker 1: actually weaken. You are halting right this year's longest run
Speaker 1: of losses. Again, as we had data today showing the
Speaker 1: nation's economy stabilizing. Do we believe those figures? Yes, I
Speaker 1: think we do believe. The figure is in a very
Speaker 1: broad sense in terms of you know, his growth got
Speaker 1: a six handle. Well, that's probably as good an estimate
Speaker 1: as any um. I think the issue you have is
Speaker 1: the breakdown behind those numbers. So obviously public investments seems
Speaker 1: to be a main ingredient in terms of keeping growth going.
Speaker 1: And then more recently, of course, you've had this explosion
Speaker 1: of mortgage lending and private related investment has been concentrated
Speaker 1: in things housing related, and I think what you have
Speaker 1: here is the building up of even bigger problems and
Speaker 1: even bigger so called credit gap that I think will
Speaker 1: manifest itself probably more in two thousand and eighteen, Given
Speaker 1: then two thousand and seventeen doesn't really fit with the
Speaker 1: political calendar. Now, I'm going to close here by asking
Speaker 1: you about the dollar. Pas so we're seeing at eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty three, this has been an incredible proxy here for
Speaker 1: what we've been seeing in the US presidential election. Aside
Speaker 1: from that, aside of it being kind of neat to
Speaker 1: watch rise and fall as we see the polling change
Speaker 1: here in the US, what do you what do you
Speaker 1: what can you learn from what the PESO was doing
Speaker 1: at this point? Yeah, we'll just say that the pesso's
Speaker 1: problems are a lot deeper than Donald Trump. That the
Speaker 1: unresponsiveness of the trade balance to the weakness in the
Speaker 1: PESSO is being quite remarkable in that sense. And I
Speaker 1: think what you also seeing in terms of the trading
Speaker 1: is that the PESSO will tend to weaken a lot
Speaker 1: more on say Donald trumpet coming up on the polls,
Speaker 1: and will actually strengthen on say a Hillary victory at
Speaker 1: this point in time. So the upside as far as
Speaker 1: the PESSO is concerned, that means the downside and dollar,
Speaker 1: But the upside as far as the PESSO is concerned
Speaker 1: is quite limited. I think even if the politics works
Speaker 1: in its favor. All right, We'll be watching the debate tonight,
Speaker 1: of course, Alan Ruskin, thank you very much for joining
Speaker 1: us here. Instant Alan Ruskin, head of Foreign Exchange research
Speaker 1: at Deutsche Bank based here in New York. Of course,
Speaker 1: that debate tonight at nine o'clock Wall Street time, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Hillary Clinton taking the stage. Then we will
Speaker 1: have coverage before and after here on Bloomberg Radio, also
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Intelligent. So pleasure to have Sebastian Mallaby here
Speaker 1: in studio with us today. He is a Senior Fellow
Speaker 1: to Counsel on Formulations, author of a new book called
Speaker 1: The Man Who Knew The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan,
Speaker 1: the culmination of five years of research interviews with Alan
Speaker 1: Greenspan and others. And thank you very much for being here.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it really great to be with you. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you first. I was watching the president's news conference
Speaker 1: yesterday and and something that came up was him commenting
Speaker 1: on the limits of monetary policy right now. This is
Speaker 1: a constant through line that we've heard over the last
Speaker 1: many months here um that monetary policy can't do everything.
Speaker 1: There has to be fiscal policy. Uh In answered with it.
Speaker 1: We're hearing that from central bank governors, were hearing that
Speaker 1: from finance chiefs, We're hearing it from from heads of state.
Speaker 1: Looking back at when Alan Greenspan was FED, here was
Speaker 1: just something that he had to reckon with the limits
Speaker 1: of monetary policy. Well, he did have to reckon at
Speaker 1: the beginning, with the limits of the Fed's independence and
Speaker 1: the willingness of politicians to beat up on the FED
Speaker 1: has happened very much in the George H. W. Bush
Speaker 1: administration at the beginning of Greenspan's tenure, to the point
Speaker 1: that actually the budget chief in the White House, Richard Dumman,
Speaker 1: was going around Washington and whispering This FED chief, sixty
Speaker 1: five years old, lives by himself, called his mother every day.
Speaker 1: Doesn't this reminds you of Hitchcock's Psycho So, I mean,
Speaker 1: there was there was nasty pressure on the FED. And
Speaker 1: the fact that then the FED this stopped and the
Speaker 1: FED became independent is a testament to Greenspan's political skills.
Speaker 1: And I think that you know modern day experts who
Speaker 1: are under pressure, whether it's central bankers or other experts
Speaker 1: they need to learn a lesson from Alan Greenspan, which
Speaker 1: is you've got to marry the expertise with political savvy
Speaker 1: and take the fight back to the politicians. Sebashion would
Speaker 1: mean he called his mother every day. He's Italian, right,
Speaker 1: that's the only thing we can take it out. Same thing. Um, Look,
Speaker 1: this is a man that was full of contradiction. First
Speaker 1: of all, congratulations on a really fine biography. He was
Speaker 1: considered a rock star. And yet it's it was under
Speaker 1: his watch almost that you know, the crisis happened, the
Speaker 1: financial crisis. Could he have done anything to avert it? Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean you cannot be the most influential economist in
Speaker 1: the world, presiding over the global financial system have it
Speaker 1: blow up and say sorry, it wasn't my my fault.
Speaker 1: I mean, clearly he got something wrong. Now, the interesting
Speaker 1: thing is, I believe the mistake he made is not
Speaker 1: what most people would say. Most people would say, gee,
Speaker 1: you know, interest rates were about right because inflation was
Speaker 1: on target. It was really on the regulatory side that
Speaker 1: there was a mess. In my view, and I did
Speaker 1: a Freedom of Information Act requests and so forth to
Speaker 1: to verify this. The fact actually did try to do
Speaker 1: something about some prime mortgages. In two thousand one, it
Speaker 1: did pass new rules. The problem is regulation, especially in
Speaker 1: the United States, is poorous it leaks. There are so
Speaker 1: many different agencies trying to do regulation. There's an alphabet
Speaker 1: soup out there of different bodies. So regulation doesn't work.
Speaker 1: And therefore I believe green Span should have been willing
Speaker 1: to raise interest rates to fight the bubble. We'll talk
Speaker 1: more about this apt for a breaking in just the second.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you about the degree to which
Speaker 1: he he thinks of his position in history. He looks
Speaker 1: back on decisions he made visa the regulation. What he
Speaker 1: could have done differently? Is he somebody who does think
Speaker 1: back on the past and maybe play out some counterfactuals.
Speaker 1: The fascinating thing is, you know, I would go see him, um,
Speaker 1: you know a lot. I lost current after seventy hours
Speaker 1: of sitting in his office, and every time he would
Speaker 1: want to speak about the present or the future, and
Speaker 1: I would have to force him because I'm doing a biography, right,
Speaker 1: I want him to talk about the past. But he's saying,
Speaker 1: why do you think about Brexit? Is that kind of
Speaker 1: you know, that kind of stuff? See, you know, we've
Speaker 1: spoken with him recently ran bloom Bigridian bloom Brew Television.
Speaker 1: He still is very actively engaged in these discussions that
Speaker 1: they're taking place. He's a wonderfully open and curious mind,
Speaker 1: and I think that's still true at ninety years old.
Speaker 1: We are joined in studio by Sebastian mal But, the
Speaker 1: author of for finding biography here of Alan Alan Greenspan,
Speaker 1: called the man who knew the life and times of
Speaker 1: Alan Greenspan, and Sebastian I wanted to ask you about
Speaker 1: FED communication. Alan Greenspan leaves and we see Ben Bernanki
Speaker 1: on sixty minutes. We watch wrapped every couple of months
Speaker 1: when the FED chair delivers a news conference. The vice chair,
Speaker 1: stand Fisher, spoke at the Economic Club of New York
Speaker 1: this week to a crowd of of hundreds. What is
Speaker 1: Alan Greenspan make of this movement toward more transparency, openness,
Speaker 1: whatever you'd like to call it. Well, when Alan Greenspan
Speaker 1: was chairman, first of all, he spoke less, but also
Speaker 1: when he did speak sometimes it was highly and deliberately confusing.
Speaker 1: I mean he was compared once to a bespectacled c
Speaker 1: SQUI who's sensing danger, right, He emits black ink and
Speaker 1: then glides away silently. So you know he didn't believe
Speaker 1: in quite as much communication. I actually think he got
Speaker 1: it right. I think the cacophony that you're here is
Speaker 1: not constructive because what it does it dilutes the message
Speaker 1: from the FED. And as a result, today you've got
Speaker 1: a tax on the FED from the right, from the left.
Speaker 1: Is it too tight? Is it too loose? And Janet
Speaker 1: Yell it is not really shaping that debate because there
Speaker 1: are too many different people speaking on behalf of the FED.
Speaker 1: That is not something that Alan Greenspan would have permitted.
Speaker 1: I'll have you come and down that. Maybe from from
Speaker 1: your perspective here, it seems like there's spin a sort
Speaker 1: of half moved toward openness. This is still there's still
Speaker 1: some opacity there. Uh. It creates a kind of game
Speaker 1: where we're constantly guessing, even as we do have more information.
Speaker 1: Just I guess the quality of that information is debatable.
Speaker 1: I think the fact is that the more you talk
Speaker 1: in a way, the less you can communicate. I mean,
Speaker 1: people have to then interpret too many statements by too
Speaker 1: many governors. Right in Greenspan's era, if one of his
Speaker 1: fellow governors went out and made a speech that got
Speaker 1: too much attention. Greenspan told him stop it, stop it.
Speaker 1: I want to be the messenger. And if there's order
Speaker 1: of us talking at once, that just confuses the markets.
Speaker 1: It doesn't help but seaction. I mean, we pay some
Speaker 1: of the market participants, you know, the hedge funds are
Speaker 1: paid handsomely to understand these markets. I mean, what the
Speaker 1: fact is becoming is just a little bit like the
Speaker 1: Bank of England and the NPC here where you have
Speaker 1: different views and actually it's up to the markets to
Speaker 1: understand the strength of the economy. Well, you know, when
Speaker 1: the Taper tantrum occurred in ben Bernanke himself was I
Speaker 1: think totally surprised and confused by how the markets reacted
Speaker 1: to what he said. And that just shows you that
Speaker 1: however much you pay people to interpret what the central
Speaker 1: bank is doing, if the central banks statements are open
Speaker 1: to multiple interpretations, you're gonna get these volatile swings. You know,
Speaker 1: every time the feed is about to meet maybe it's
Speaker 1: going to exit low rates, you see this enormous volatility
Speaker 1: build up. I just think you had much less volatility
Speaker 1: in the Great Moderation and the Great moderation was under
Speaker 1: the great Alan Greenspan. Um. You know there were other
Speaker 1: stuff going on too, but I think Greenspan was the
Speaker 1: master of being the empowered guru in Washington. Right. The
Speaker 1: times have changed also, haven't they. You know, yesterday we
Speaker 1: extensively talked about this opinion piece in the Telegraph by
Speaker 1: William Hague, whose Foreign secretary, former Foreign secretary in the UK,
Speaker 1: and if you look at the headline, he says, central
Speaker 1: bankers have collectively lost the plot. They must raise interest
Speaker 1: rates or face their doom. I mean, someone as powerful
Speaker 1: as Alan Greenspan in today's context would would be eaten alive. No,
Speaker 1: I think Alan Greenspan would probably eat his critics in life.
Speaker 1: I mean, the truth is that green Span Greenspan had
Speaker 1: unbelievably a good sense of how to manipulate Washington. He
Speaker 1: was a Machiavellian power excellence. He had contacts in the
Speaker 1: media such that if you picked a fight in public
Speaker 1: with Alan Greenspan, you should not be surprised if in
Speaker 1: the next two weeks one of the major newspapers had
Speaker 1: a front page story is saying that you were wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, he had such good relations with people in
Speaker 1: the Senate that you could perhaps not be confirmed to
Speaker 1: the job you wanted. Greenspan knew how to operate in
Speaker 1: a way that I think other central bankers today just
Speaker 1: cannot match him. That's that's a fascinating point. I think
Speaker 1: about our last two FED chair Ben Bruniki and Janet Yellen,
Speaker 1: their backgrounds are very different from from Alan Greenspans. As
Speaker 1: you were writing this, as you were thinking about this,
Speaker 1: do you have any sort of conclusion about what equips
Speaker 1: somebody best for a job like that. Yes, well, one
Speaker 1: of the revelations about Alan Greenspan in his background is
Speaker 1: that he was super political. I mean, you know, people
Speaker 1: might vaguely know that he had advised Richard Nixon in
Speaker 1: the sixties. He was not just the economic advisor, he
Speaker 1: was the polling analyst. And then if you go forward,
Speaker 1: you know he serves in the Ford administration. He's the
Speaker 1: kind of person who sneaks into the White House with
Speaker 1: his allies on the weekend to rewrite the president's speech
Speaker 1: because one of his bureaucratic adversaries has done something he
Speaker 1: didn't like. Henry Kissinger. At one point, Henry Kissinger supposed
Speaker 1: to be the master bureaucratic infighter, and a story appears
Speaker 1: in The New York Times attacking Kissinger's kusting just says
Speaker 1: where the heck did this come from? To his deputy,
Speaker 1: and the deputy says, oh, well, Alan Greenspan must have
Speaker 1: planted that because green Span, I mean, you know, he
Speaker 1: was just brilliant politically, and I think that is relevant
Speaker 1: to why he did so well at the said when
Speaker 1: he was attacked by politicians, he took the fight to them.
Speaker 1: He understood power, he knew how to wield it. And frankly,
Speaker 1: experts today who are under attack on the defensive they
Speaker 1: could learn a lot from the example of Alan Greenspan.
Speaker 1: How would he deal with Donald Trump? I think he would,
Speaker 1: you know, make it um. You know, he would feed
Speaker 1: the press with very smart arguments as to why what
Speaker 1: Trump was doing was ridiculous, and the negative commentary on Trump,
Speaker 1: which has already been quite considerable, would have been even more.
Speaker 1: He would have gone to people in the Senate who
Speaker 1: were you know, who are used to getting advice from
Speaker 1: green Span, and he would have, you know, told them
Speaker 1: that Trump was ruining their party, and he would have
Speaker 1: isolated Trump, you know, completely, And I think that and
Speaker 1: you know, he might also have said things in public.
Speaker 1: And remember, at the height of Alan Greenspan's power, there
Speaker 1: were Alan Greenspan T shirts, There were Alan Greenspan dolls,
Speaker 1: you know, there was there were cartoons of him so
Speaker 1: dressed up as Superman. I mean, he was the maestro.
Speaker 1: Somebody compared him to Prozac because he lifted the mood
Speaker 1: of Americans. Right, So if he had gone out in
Speaker 1: public and said, you know, something negative about what Trump
Speaker 1: was saying, it would have had an enormous effect on
Speaker 1: Trump's standing and credibility. I mean, John McCain, in one
Speaker 1: of the presidential primary debates in two thousand's made the
Speaker 1: point that even if Greenspan were to die, you would
Speaker 1: still want him miss fed chairman. You would dress him
Speaker 1: up but dark glasses on the guy and keep him
Speaker 1: in office because that was the nature of Greenspan's prestige.
Speaker 1: I have a disclaimer. I do have a T shirt,
Speaker 1: not of Greenspan. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That's it. I need
Speaker 1: to say that, Sebastian. Do you think that there's a
Speaker 1: central banker that I mean gets as close as possible
Speaker 1: as green Span. It seems they're all getting under so
Speaker 1: much pressure. Mark Harney now being politicized, you know, Cherry
Speaker 1: Yellen being the markets don't seem to believer her. You
Speaker 1: have Druggy that's basically battling with states, and then you
Speaker 1: have Governor Kroda who's losing credibility by the day. You know.
Speaker 1: I think Janet Yellen is the furthest from the green
Speaker 1: Span model because she's such an economist, economist, a sort
Speaker 1: of technocrat, rather cautious. I'd say that Mark Karne has
Speaker 1: that political flair. Um. You know, he obviously has their
Speaker 1: own political ambitions in Canada um. And before Justin Trudeau
Speaker 1: became the leader there, you know, there's talk of him
Speaker 1: becoming the leader of Canada. And I think that shows
Speaker 1: you that Connie does have that political side to him,
Speaker 1: which is a good thing. His his disadvantage is that
Speaker 1: in Britain he's not embedded in the long term. I mean,
Speaker 1: he came three or four years ago, whereas green Span
Speaker 1: by the time he became FED chairman, he had already
Speaker 1: had two decades in Washington of building up relationships and
Speaker 1: they always Maria drag I think Marria drag E does
Speaker 1: have some of that political talent and is very kind
Speaker 1: of deeply embedded in the Eurozone. And when he made
Speaker 1: that statement in you know, the whole Eurozone was falling apart.
Speaker 1: Peripheral yields were going crazy, and and and Draggy stood
Speaker 1: up and said, you know, we're going to fix this.
Speaker 1: We will do what it takes, and believe me, it will,
Speaker 1: you know, do enough. It's almost like Clint Eastward, you know,
Speaker 1: curning his lip and snarling at the hedge funds. I'm
Speaker 1: badder than you are, right and Draggy I think that
Speaker 1: he won that battle. And that is another reminder. Draggy
Speaker 1: had that Greenspan magic and that's what we need more
Speaker 1: of today. Very quickly here, just about thirty seconds left.
Speaker 1: I wonder what he makes of the policy tool kits
Speaker 1: such as it exists now. Is it something he could
Speaker 1: have envisioned? You mentioned you talked to him for his
Speaker 1: severny plus hours and wrestled with some of these modern
Speaker 1: day issues. What does he make of of what's in
Speaker 1: that toolbox right now? I think he's highly skeptical of
Speaker 1: the modern toolbox. He thinks that if you create that
Speaker 1: much money in the end, there's going to be inflation.
Speaker 1: He hasn't been improved right yet. But his view is
Speaker 1: that this is playing with fire. S Matsha Melby, thank
Speaker 1: you very much for for twining us here, based in London,
Speaker 1: here in New York with us today. He's the author
Speaker 1: of a new book, The Life The Man Who Knew,
Speaker 1: the Life and times of Alan Greenspan. He's a Senior
Speaker 1: Fellow in Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Who
Speaker 1: you put your trust in matters. Investors have put their
Speaker 1: trust in independent registered investment advisors to the two and
Speaker 1: of four trillion dollars. Why they see their roles to serve,
Speaker 1: not sell. That's why Charles Schwab is committed to the
Speaker 1: success over seven thousand independent financial advisors who passionately dedicate
Speaker 1: themselves to helping people achieve their financial goals. Learn more
Speaker 1: at find your Independent Advisor dot com. I'm joined now
Speaker 1: in studio by Alan Krueger Heath Schi of course, professor
Speaker 1: of Economics at Princeton University, formerture of the Council of
Speaker 1: Economic Advisors in the Obama administration, now in informal advisor
Speaker 1: to the Hillary Clinton campaign. I certain we want to
Speaker 1: talk about the campaign and the debate, but let me
Speaker 1: mind your expertise here in labor economics for a minute,
Speaker 1: free Stallen, and we had the last jobs report, a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand jobs added, the employment rate of five percent.
Speaker 1: I was struck by how that played in the press.
Speaker 1: I was looking back at the headlines when when those
Speaker 1: numbers came out the New York Times seeing the US
Speaker 1: economy showing resilience added a hundred fifty six thousand jobs
Speaker 1: last month. The USA today saying disappointing hundred fifty jobs
Speaker 1: added in September. Help us process that number and put
Speaker 1: into some context for us, well, I think the big
Speaker 1: picture is the labor market is in much better shape
Speaker 1: than it was five years ago, eight years ago, and
Speaker 1: we're now seeing, uh, the benefits of the recovery. We're
Speaker 1: seeing wage growth pick up, We're seeing the gains be
Speaker 1: more broadly shared. And I think going forward, with the
Speaker 1: unemployment right down to five, the expectation should be for
Speaker 1: around a hundred and fifty thousand jobs added. There Uh
Speaker 1: is not that big a pool of workers left looking
Speaker 1: for work compared to where we were a few years ago.
Speaker 1: So alan we're going to see a right hike in December, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, if everything is so strong it would be
Speaker 1: the wrong signal not to hike in December. Well, I
Speaker 1: think it's likely that the hike in December, but you
Speaker 1: know a lot of data will come in between now
Speaker 1: and then. Uh So, nothing happens in the economics with certainty, right,
Speaker 1: but the trend so far points to a strong or
Speaker 1: stronger US economy than what it was six months ago.
Speaker 1: I think there's no question that the US economy has
Speaker 1: been resilient and is on stronger footing. At the same time,
Speaker 1: the inflation rate, while picking up, is still below the
Speaker 1: two percent target. Uh And there's a lot of weakness
Speaker 1: in the rest of the world, which the f O
Speaker 1: m C will pay attention to. An issue in this
Speaker 1: campaign has been the disenfranchised worker or the disenfranchised American
Speaker 1: who wants to work or or work more. It's certainly
Speaker 1: something that Donald Trump talks about. It certainly something that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton talks about, perhaps with a little more difficulty
Speaker 1: here as the natural successor to to to President Obama.
Speaker 1: What explains that, What explains the sentiment that we're seeing
Speaker 1: surrounding that right now, given the act that we are
Speaker 1: getting stronger numbers and we're seeing the unemployment rate where
Speaker 1: it is well. Over the last year, the labor force
Speaker 1: participation rate actually has recovered about a half a percentage point,
Speaker 1: which frankly, I was not expecting. The reason why I
Speaker 1: wasn't expecting it is that the main reason we've seen
Speaker 1: labor force decline is simply because we're an older population.
Speaker 1: More than half of the decline in labor force participation
Speaker 1: in the US is simply the result of the baby
Speaker 1: boom reaching retirement age um and those who criticize the
Speaker 1: economy under President Obama are missing the fact that this
Speaker 1: was all expected before he came to office. The Council
Speaker 1: of Economic Advisors under President Bush was anticipating that labor
Speaker 1: force participation would be falling because of increasing retirements from
Speaker 1: the baby boom generation. We saw the length of the
Speaker 1: work week took up a little bit in the last report.
Speaker 1: When you look at wage game where two point six
Speaker 1: percent growth over over the last twelve months. You talked
Speaker 1: about where the overall rate should be, the number of
Speaker 1: jobs added should be. When you look at those things,
Speaker 1: when you look at wages, when you look at the
Speaker 1: length of the work week, are are we nearing a
Speaker 1: ceiling there? Do you think? I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: the ceiling. I think we're getting close to the classical
Speaker 1: definition of full employment. Wage growth is up two point
Speaker 1: eight percent this year. Last year we saw the sharpest
Speaker 1: decline in poverty since the late ninet nineties, and we
Speaker 1: saw the fastest growth in real median household income since
Speaker 1: the nineteen sixties. So I think those are signs that
Speaker 1: the labor market is getting tight. Should we worry or
Speaker 1: should the Fed worry about a stronger dollar? Um? I
Speaker 1: think the Fed anticipates that if the US economy continues
Speaker 1: to recover the way they have been forecasting, and if
Speaker 1: they raise rates, then the dollar probably will move up.
Speaker 1: Some of that's already I think built into the markets,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure that that's part of their forecasts, right,
Speaker 1: so they can withstand it, right as long as it
Speaker 1: doesn't Is there an optimum level, for example, for year dollar? Well,
Speaker 1: I think more broadly, they're balancing lots of competing forces,
Speaker 1: and their looking for the sweet spot where we can
Speaker 1: maintain full employment and stable prices. And so far, you know,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't second guess what they've done. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: kind of remarkable progress that we've made. When when I
Speaker 1: first started to work for President Obama. In two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: we were losing eight hundred thousand jobs a month. Now
Speaker 1: we're a little disappointed because we only added a hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty six thousand UM and last year we added
Speaker 1: almost three million over the course of the year. So
Speaker 1: I think we're in a much stronger position and also
Speaker 1: much stronger compared to the rest of the world. Help
Speaker 1: me with the definition here of full employment. You hear
Speaker 1: stan Fisher talk about where we are. We're nearing full
Speaker 1: employment in his estimation. We talk a lot about the
Speaker 1: the maybe fracturing unanimity of the FED Reserve Board, But
Speaker 1: is there a clear definition of what full employment is
Speaker 1: what the FED wants to see now when it comes
Speaker 1: to employment. I think that as you as you said, UH,
Speaker 1: FED is not of one mind, and different governors and
Speaker 1: regional presidents have different views. Some would like to see
Speaker 1: the job market run very hig I put some upward
Speaker 1: pressure on wages and see that push up prices. Others
Speaker 1: are concerned that inflation get could get above the two
Speaker 1: percent target. My own view is that we've been below
Speaker 1: the two percent target for so long. I think the
Speaker 1: FET has been right to be cautious. UH and to
Speaker 1: move at a at a slow pace. I think the
Speaker 1: economy could withstand uh the inflation rate UH getting to
Speaker 1: the two percent target or above it for a little while,
Speaker 1: because it was below it for so long. You're sympathetic
Speaker 1: to to stand Fisher's argument there not to change that
Speaker 1: target at this point, to to raise it leave it
Speaker 1: where it is. Well, I think they're stuck with the
Speaker 1: two percent target um because there there's a lot of
Speaker 1: credibility if they were to change it. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: the way I interpret the target is that it's an average.
Speaker 1: Two percent is an average. The fact that we've been
Speaker 1: at one percent one and a half percent for four
Speaker 1: years means to make the average of two percent, we
Speaker 1: could be at three percent for a few years. Now.
Speaker 1: That's my interpretation. I would like to hear a little
Speaker 1: more articulation from from the FET about how they interpret
Speaker 1: their target and stand Fishers saying the the Economic Club
Speaker 1: of New York really this week, indeed, the FIT things
Speaker 1: we were close to that two percent target. Alan we
Speaker 1: are here a few hours away from the third and
Speaker 1: final presidential debate. We can talk about Hillary Clinton's plans
Speaker 1: in specific here in a moment, but I wonder what
Speaker 1: your sense is of the degree to which these candidates
Speaker 1: have engaged with economic issues. I think back to the
Speaker 1: last presidential debate. It had that town hall forum, and
Speaker 1: you know, who knows how representative that that group is
Speaker 1: of the American electric But the economy was not front
Speaker 1: and centered, at least in the questions there. Well, I
Speaker 1: think that's uh certainly was the case. Uh. Secretary Clinton,
Speaker 1: I can tell you, has focused very much on economic
Speaker 1: issues facing the country. She's developed very detailed plans about
Speaker 1: her vision for the future, about how to improve the
Speaker 1: work life balance, how to have an economy that works
Speaker 1: for everyone. I've been involved in the development of some
Speaker 1: of those plans, and I can tell you it was
Speaker 1: reminiscent of my work in the government. Who was a
Speaker 1: level of detail, And the other side seems really to
Speaker 1: be flying by the seat of their parents. They don't
Speaker 1: have specifics on what they would do to help middle
Speaker 1: class families, um, what they would do to invest in infrastructure.
Speaker 1: So I think that contrast couldn't be stronger. You know,
Speaker 1: you you've been in Washington, You've seen the policy engine
Speaker 1: grind slowly as it's been grinding over these these last
Speaker 1: few years. We're talking with Stan Collinder about the prospects
Speaker 1: for divided government here in the in the next year.
Speaker 1: How would a president Hillary Clinton deal with Congress? Again,
Speaker 1: we hear the clarion call from central bankers, from from
Speaker 1: UH financial policymakers calling for more fiscal policy. It has
Speaker 1: been difficult, to say the least, for the ABO administration
Speaker 1: to get more done. Are you optimistic that with a
Speaker 1: new president something would be possible? How is it going
Speaker 1: to be possible? I think there would be a great
Speaker 1: opportunity for Hillary Clinton if she were to become president.
Speaker 1: She's worked across the aisle before. She's demonstrated that she
Speaker 1: can make principles compromises. I think that there's scope for
Speaker 1: improving our corporate tax system, for investing more in infrastructure,
Speaker 1: for improving our work life balance. I think it can
Speaker 1: be done in a fiscally responsible way, but you need
Speaker 1: Congress well. I think if Congress remains divided, or Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan remains Speaker of the House, I still think there's
Speaker 1: an opportunity. Ryan has expressed interest and a lot of
Speaker 1: issues UM which I think could lead to UH a package.
Speaker 1: UH you know, for example, expanding their in the Coome
Speaker 1: tax credit to be more generous to individuals without depending
Speaker 1: children reforming the corporate tax system. So I think that
Speaker 1: there is scope for a lot of progress even if
Speaker 1: Congress remains divided. Ellen, let's go back to the economic
Speaker 1: policies of Hillary Clinton, and we all read the you know,
Speaker 1: the policies. We read some of the leaflets and their um.
Speaker 1: You know, they seem okay on paper, But how many
Speaker 1: unification initiatives can the Clinton administration actually push through? For example,
Speaker 1: in infrastructure, you need to finance the spending. Where's the
Speaker 1: money coming from. I actually helped to make some suggestions
Speaker 1: for her infrastructure plan, so I'm intimately familiar with it.
Speaker 1: UM it's a fiscally responsible plan. It's paid for with
Speaker 1: corporate tax reform. It would increase investment in infrastructure UH
Speaker 1: I think by about five billion dollars over the first
Speaker 1: five years. Part of it would come from a Infrastructure
Speaker 1: Investment Bank, which would be seeded by UH funds from
Speaker 1: the government, but would leverage private capital and would benefit
Speaker 1: I think from the judgment of private sector investors. She
Speaker 1: would emphasize repairing on the tax so corporate income tax
Speaker 1: would go up. No, no, you know, if you take
Speaker 1: a look at our corporate tax system. It is so inefficient. UH,
Speaker 1: companies have so much money deferred abroad which they owe
Speaker 1: federal income tax on that there's plenty of scope for
Speaker 1: UH lowering our corporate tax rate, reducing some of the loopholes,
Speaker 1: improving the way we tax international income, and using some
Speaker 1: of the revenue that that generates to invest in infrastructure. Right,
Speaker 1: and you and you believe that she will be able
Speaker 1: to reach an agreement that's acceptable to both House Republicans
Speaker 1: and members of her own party. Well, I think there's
Speaker 1: an agreement to be had if if you look at
Speaker 1: the proposal that Congressman David Camp had when he was
Speaker 1: Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, it wasn't
Speaker 1: too far off of the Treasury Department proposal. So I'm
Speaker 1: hoping that the election will free up a little bit
Speaker 1: of space for Congress to make some progress on these issues.
Speaker 1: Let's talk trade for a second here. One of our
Speaker 1: reporters just sat down with an ambassador mic Frome and
Speaker 1: the U. S Trade representative talked about the prospects for
Speaker 1: getting the Trans Pacific Partnership voted on by Congress here
Speaker 1: by by the end of President Obama's term. Of course,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton said she doesn't support the partnership as it
Speaker 1: stands right now. What is wrong with it is she
Speaker 1: as she sees it when she looks at that policy,
Speaker 1: what's missing, what needs to be changed? Of course, your
Speaker 1: trade a a very big part of the economic backdrop
Speaker 1: to this campaign. I can't be for the candidate on
Speaker 1: what you would need to see, but I can tell
Speaker 1: you as an economist, trade agreements certainly have the potential
Speaker 1: to increase the size of the pie, but the affect
Speaker 1: who gets which slice of the pie and the gains
Speaker 1: from globalization have not been shared broadly enough. I think
Speaker 1: too many workers get dislocated as a result of trade,
Speaker 1: and we don't do enough to help them make a
Speaker 1: transition to other sectors to help them make up for
Speaker 1: lost income. That brings me to my next question here,
Speaker 1: which is about economic conclusion. You certainly saw it being
Speaker 1: talked about at the IMF World Bank meetings a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago. It seems like any big event, any big
Speaker 1: gathering of economists, now it's going to be something that
Speaker 1: comes up. And I wonder why it seems like, um,
Speaker 1: this is happening now. I think you could I think
Speaker 1: you could criticize the field, perhaps the policy field for
Speaker 1: coming to this too light, But there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people who feel disenfranchised, and what tangibly can policy
Speaker 1: makers do to to to make economic gains more inclusive. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, the rise and inequality that we've seen
Speaker 1: in the US started in the early eighties, so this
Speaker 1: is not a new phenomenon. And the only time in
Speaker 1: the last thirty five years where we've seen the bottom
Speaker 1: gain as much as the top, if not more than
Speaker 1: the top, was in the late nineteen nineties and then
Speaker 1: last year. So I think it's clear that a strong
Speaker 1: macro economy helps, but policy can also help, for example,
Speaker 1: raising the minimum wage, expanding their own income tax credit.
Speaker 1: I think investing in infrastructure would would help possibly bring
Speaker 1: back some people have left the labor force, so there's
Speaker 1: a lot that could be done. But I think economic
Speaker 1: forces have been following us apart and I think some
Speaker 1: corporate decisions have been pulling us apart um. We've seen
Speaker 1: too much of the profit go uh to the very
Speaker 1: top in the corporations, and one of the things that
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton proposed and I'm a big fan of, is
Speaker 1: more profit sharing for for employees and having tax incentives
Speaker 1: to encourage profit sharing, which could also increase loyalty and
Speaker 1: raised productivity. So I think there's a lot of both
Speaker 1: the private sector and the government can do to create
Speaker 1: a more inclusive society. All right, Alan Krueger, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for joining us here today in New York.
Speaker 1: That's Alan Kruger. He's a professor of economics at Princeton University.
Speaker 1: Cours formature of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, now
Speaker 1: an informal advisor. It's an advisor and awful lot of
Speaker 1: times here to the Hillary Clinton campaign for president. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm out on Twitter at Tom Keene. David Gura is
Speaker 1: at David Gura. Before the podcast, you can always catch
Speaker 1: us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio. Who you put your trust in?
Speaker 1: Man Letters investors have put their trust and independent registered
Speaker 1: investment advisors to the two and four trillion dollars. Why
Speaker 1: Learn more at find your Independent Advisor dot com.