Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Then comparison are being made to this trust But is
Speaker 2: this more callahan than trusts?
Speaker 1: Is this more seventy six than twenty two?
Speaker 3: Possibly?
Speaker 2: What we are seeing in the UK, guy is a
Speaker 2: train break in slow motion.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the City of London, the city of the
Speaker 3: City of the City of London.
Speaker 4: Then we need mind the gap between the and the
Speaker 4: PA the financial hearts of the country.
Speaker 3: The city, the city.
Speaker 2: Welcome to in the city.
Speaker 4: Then clear of the doors. Pe So, Dave, we're putting
Speaker 4: a bonus episode out today because there's been a lot
Speaker 4: of turmoil for UK assets. Now this is probably not
Speaker 4: only a UK story, but they're definitely at the forefront
Speaker 4: of this global route sparked by I guess latest threats
Speaker 4: of tariffs and worries that inflation will remain elevated in
Speaker 4: the US for longer than expected.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 2: I mean, as I'm sitting here in New York and
Speaker 2: you know, there are echoes of a few years ago.
Speaker 2: Because the UK term on in the market is breaking through.
Speaker 2: People in New York and around the world are asking
Speaker 2: what's going on with the UK assets? Why invest It
Speaker 2: seem to be fleeing. We're seeing falls and stocks falls
Speaker 2: and bonds and the pound at the same time. All
Speaker 2: of that adds up to a real lack of confidence
Speaker 2: in the UK as a place to invest.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and of course the global bond sell off is
Speaker 4: unnerving for many reasons. But of course it changes expectations
Speaker 4: on government's fiscal operations. So we're bringing you the special episode,
Speaker 4: this emergency edition of In the City to try and
Speaker 4: understand what it all means for the Chancellor of Rachel Reeves.
Speaker 4: I'm frontin Laqua in the London studio and.
Speaker 3: I'm David Merritt here in New York.
Speaker 4: And today we're discussing how the UK bond sell off
Speaker 4: is putting Rachel reeves economic projects on the brink with
Speaker 4: us Phil aldrich Or, senior reporter covering the UK economy
Speaker 4: and of course a regular on in the City. Phil,
Speaker 4: thank you so much for joining us. It's been a wild,
Speaker 4: wild week for UK assets.
Speaker 3: Why that is the question.
Speaker 1: Why now it's a bit of a quandary. And obviously
Speaker 1: what's been happening is, you know, US bond markets have
Speaker 1: been moving. Donald Trump has been spooking people with tariffs.
Speaker 1: So there's this backdrop of sort of less certainty about
Speaker 1: the outlook, and the UK is has been most exposed
Speaker 1: of you know, the major economies to that. We've seen
Speaker 1: this big increase in bond yields, so government boring costs
Speaker 1: are soaring, and the pound is falling, which is indicative
Speaker 1: of you know, capital flight in the UK. So people
Speaker 1: are losing confidence in the UK assets. So why is
Speaker 1: it happening now? It seems that people have well, why
Speaker 1: is it happening, particularly to the UK's people. Will investors
Speaker 1: seem to be sort of taking the making a judgment
Speaker 1: that Reeves's budget isn't going to deliver what is necessary
Speaker 1: to bring the debt on, put the debt on a
Speaker 1: sustainable footing, and to bring inflation down, and so there
Speaker 1: seems to be this kind of this nervousness now about
Speaker 1: the outlook. But having said that, it seems a little
Speaker 1: unfair to put the UK right in the crosshairs of
Speaker 1: all this, given that we do have a we have
Speaker 1: a stable government. You know, by comparison, you might say
Speaker 1: France looks like a bit of a basket case at
Speaker 1: the moment, and yet the UK is the one that's
Speaker 1: really getting it in the neck.
Speaker 2: I mean, Phil, I do remember the conversation we had
Speaker 2: when you came on after the budget and I was
Speaker 2: struck at the time you were you were pretty surprised
Speaker 2: at the scale of the tax risers and the spending.
Speaker 3: It blew through your expectations.
Speaker 2: And you said at the time, I remember clearly we
Speaker 2: talked about this question about the headroom and we talked
Speaker 2: about how there isn't really room for maneuver.
Speaker 3: Here if there's a bit of a shock.
Speaker 2: And of course back then we didn't know that Donald
Speaker 2: Trump was going to win the election, and yet it
Speaker 2: was a big possibility and and you said, this is
Speaker 2: a risky budget. You know, there's there's not room from maneuver,
Speaker 2: and you know, and low it came to pass and
Speaker 2: we've seen more turbinines and markets in the UK has
Speaker 2: really copped it. I mean, I think you called it right,
Speaker 2: didn't you.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you that one. It may have been one
Speaker 1: of the few times I did. But yeah, the thing
Speaker 1: is the headroom is is very thin. It's the third
Speaker 1: smallest headroom the Chancellor has had since the OBI was
Speaker 1: set up in twenty ten.
Speaker 2: So is that how big mistake do you think? Like
Speaker 2: not trying to kind of put the country's finances on
Speaker 2: a more stable foot thing and find public services. But
Speaker 2: she just didn't give herself enough room for maneuver in
Speaker 2: the world we're in now, I.
Speaker 1: Think I think that was that was clearly a risk,
Speaker 1: and OBR clearly flagged that risk in the in the
Speaker 1: budget in October, and I do think that was an error.
Speaker 1: I mean, if she had gone with the sort of
Speaker 1: more traditional levels of headroom, which would be twenty five
Speaker 1: billion to thirty billion pounds, you know, this was sort
Speaker 1: of you know, pre twenty nineteen levels, then you know
Speaker 1: this would not have eroded. She would have roaded half
Speaker 1: her headroom. She still have, you know, enough to say
Speaker 1: I can meet my fiscal rules. The whole point about
Speaker 1: the headroom is it's a it's a buffer against unexpected shops.
Speaker 3: If you leave yourself.
Speaker 1: Nothing, which is you know this, as I said, it
Speaker 1: was the third slimmest headroom ever, then you know you
Speaker 1: are exposing your rules to movements in markets like this,
Speaker 1: and you know, if you're saying that, you know what
Speaker 1: you're trying to provide is fiscal stability on which you
Speaker 1: can then build your growth program. And you've created such
Speaker 1: a such a small buffer that you end up creating
Speaker 1: policy instability because nobody knows how you're going to fill
Speaker 1: this hole. Should markets move against you, you may have
Speaker 1: to raise taxes, you may have to do spending cuts.
Speaker 1: You know that sort of completely undermines the sort of
Speaker 1: edifice of her project.
Speaker 4: Yes, so basically, you know, if you have a lot
Speaker 4: of pain inflicted by these rapidly rising barring costs, if
Speaker 4: you have razor thin buffers, which is what's happening. So
Speaker 4: the fact that the ten year and the thirty year
Speaker 4: really moved makes it so much more difficult Rachel reeves,
Speaker 4: especially in a week where there's so many bond auctions
Speaker 4: by the UK, does she need to now just find
Speaker 4: extra money at.
Speaker 1: The moment she does. I mean, markets aren't fickle. It
Speaker 1: could all move back. And obviously, you know, we did
Speaker 1: have a big move in just the days after the budget. Actually,
Speaker 1: in fact, her entire headroom was wiped out within about
Speaker 1: three or four days, and then the markets came back
Speaker 1: in and readjusted again and she had much of her
Speaker 1: headroom was restored. And now they're going back again the
Speaker 1: other way and they've taken away even more so she's
Speaker 1: now effectively indeficite. She has made it very clear that
Speaker 1: her fiscal rules are non negotiable, that her iron clad
Speaker 1: fiscal rules. So she is going to have to on
Speaker 1: March the twenty sixth, if nothing else changes, when the
Speaker 1: fiscal update is presented by the OBI, she is going
Speaker 1: to have to have shown that she is repairing to
Speaker 1: some degree or replenishing the full ten billion of headroom
Speaker 1: she had, and that will require tax rises, it will
Speaker 1: require spending cuts, could require well welfare cuts as well,
Speaker 1: but she's going to have to do something. At the moment,
Speaker 1: they're sort of indicating that. You know, there's the spending
Speaker 1: review coming in June, and there the indication is that
Speaker 1: they'd rather do it through just trimming spending.
Speaker 2: I mean, as you're describing it. Therefore, we're talking about
Speaker 2: the kind of the buffeting of this government by by
Speaker 2: the markets. And you've got a story out and your
Speaker 2: first paragraph you say, six months into her job, her
Speaker 2: project is close.
Speaker 3: To being in tatters. How did it go so wrong
Speaker 3: so quickly?
Speaker 2: You know, they talk so much in the election campaign
Speaker 2: about stability, fixing the foundation of the economy.
Speaker 3: Is it external shocks here?
Speaker 2: Is it what's going on globally or is the blame
Speaker 2: really to be do we need to point the thing
Speaker 2: of really at her and her policies.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a bit of both. But the I mean,
Speaker 1: the reason why that the project is, you know, in
Speaker 1: deep trouble is because the entire project is based on growth,
Speaker 1: generating the returns that will deliver the public finance, the
Speaker 1: improvement in public finances so that you know, you know,
Speaker 1: basically the debt coming under control. Also all of the
Speaker 1: money for public services. I mean, she did forty billion
Speaker 1: of tax rises, which was you know, the fundamental way
Speaker 1: in which we fixed the public services, and that's the goal.
Speaker 3: But then.
Speaker 1: Because of the Manifesto pledges that you couldn't just do
Speaker 1: broad based tax rises, she's had to effectively put it
Speaker 1: all on business employer, you know, through the payroll tax,
Speaker 1: which is then causing uncertainty and problems for business about
Speaker 1: how that then comes through the pipe. Will it come
Speaker 1: through in higher prices so consumers a lot to pay
Speaker 1: more and that's inflationary. Will it come through in squeezing wages?
Speaker 1: I mean, there was these there's been a combination of
Speaker 1: sort of missteps because it's not clear exactly why, but
Speaker 1: obviously they were traps set by the Tory Party during
Speaker 1: the election and then and then subsequent decisions that were made.
Speaker 1: But you know, ultimately, if she doesn't get the growth,
Speaker 1: it's going to be very difficult to fix the public
Speaker 1: services and all the pledges she's made on not putting
Speaker 1: taxes on working people, you know, that may have to
Speaker 1: be broken in the worst case scenario. And so the
Speaker 1: project does begin to look like it's can.
Speaker 4: Unravel, and I think it's it's a good reminder that
Speaker 4: the UK is a small, open economy and I think
Speaker 4: Mark Carney had said, you know, realies on the kindness
Speaker 4: of strangers. This is an economy that's extremely dependent because
Speaker 4: of the amount of debt on foreign buyers of guilt.
Speaker 1: Which it's not just the debt actually, it's also that
Speaker 1: we have a we have a current account deficit to
Speaker 1: our trade position, so just paying to pay our way
Speaker 1: in the world, we require, you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: money from foreign for foreign investors into the UK.
Speaker 3: So we've got this.
Speaker 1: I mean in economics they call it, they talk about
Speaker 1: the twin deficit of the budget deficit and the current
Speaker 1: account deficits. So the government cannot find it itself without
Speaker 1: the kind of strange kindness of strangers that those overseas investors,
Speaker 1: and you know, just in general, like business and the
Speaker 1: way that the economy operates, it also needs that money
Speaker 1: from foreign investment as well. So if we if we
Speaker 1: spook those foreign investors, they either will take their money
Speaker 1: away or they'll say we want to beat which we
Speaker 1: want to charge us a bit of a premium. And
Speaker 1: that's what's happening now because that's why we're seeing those
Speaker 1: borrowing costs going up.
Speaker 2: What's also struck me this week, phil is is kind
Speaker 2: of what's going on in the real economy. We've had
Speaker 2: trading updates from some of the big bell Weather retailers
Speaker 2: talking about Christmas, you know, and it's this contrast because
Speaker 2: a lot of them have said, haven't they looked, so
Speaker 2: we had not a bad performance, next Mark Suspenser's sales up,
Speaker 2: But then they've thought they've had these very gloomy outlooks
Speaker 2: and said, look, we're being piled on with extra costs
Speaker 2: from wages from the National insurance hike, uncertainty in the future,
Speaker 2: and that has caused the share prices to take to
Speaker 2: take fright a bit. So it is underneath the hood
Speaker 2: of the economy. There's a lot of trepidation from business
Speaker 2: and is that feeding through to people thinking, well, growth
Speaker 2: is going to be really challenging, and that makes Rachel
Speaker 2: Reeves's whole project much harder to achieve.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's there's definitely a sentiment issue going on in
Speaker 1: the business world. I mean, in a way, I do
Speaker 1: look back to the post Brexit where there was absolutely
Speaker 1: ridiculous level of uncertainty, and you know, we've got a
Speaker 1: very small fraction of that level of uncertainty coursed by
Speaker 1: all these Knix rises in the national living wage going up,
Speaker 1: and obviously what happened is that business learned to live
Speaker 1: with that uncertainty, and this will be much easier to
Speaker 1: learn to live with than Brexit. So I'm a bit
Speaker 1: cautious about the amount of damage that all this will
Speaker 1: ultimately do to the growth potential. But certainly businesses are
Speaker 1: saying that they're worried and that's it's and it's not
Speaker 1: helping sentiment. So Labor does have a growth strategy, which
Speaker 1: is this big investment plan and basically the reform agenda
Speaker 1: to get planning obstacles removed. Probably with that it's a
Speaker 1: sort of temporal issue. You've got in the short term,
Speaker 1: you've got all these tax rises coming through, which will
Speaker 1: inevitably have some kind of dampening effect on growth, but
Speaker 1: then the investment comes through later, so you can then
Speaker 1: get the growth later on. And so the Office Budget
Speaker 1: Responsibility is forecasting more to mystic growth trajectory in the
Speaker 1: back towards the back end of the forecast. But in
Speaker 1: the short term we're obviously facing this particular conundrum. And
Speaker 1: so people, I mean markets are looking at the immediate
Speaker 1: what's happening immediately, and you know, the budget forecasters are
Speaker 1: looking what's happening what's longer term, And obviously the government
Speaker 1: is trying to think has always been trying to think
Speaker 1: longer term. It's a question of whether they can get
Speaker 1: to that longer term thing without being completely disrupted by
Speaker 1: the market moves.
Speaker 4: It, Phil is as soon as you have, you know,
Speaker 4: big market moves and the market it's also almost a
Speaker 4: self fulfilling prophecy, right, And I know you wrote about
Speaker 4: the fact that you have these big move in borrowing
Speaker 4: costs in guilds but also pound and so you just
Speaker 4: have to make sure that investors don't completely lose faith.
Speaker 4: There's been a lot written about the speed of the
Speaker 4: moves and the fact that it was a little bit
Speaker 4: like the Lost Trust mini budget that was like a
Speaker 4: horror show. Is the market much better placed now in
Speaker 4: terms of being strengthened since that budget or is it
Speaker 4: more like the nineteen seventies deck crisis.
Speaker 1: Well, Martin Will's the former Bank of England rate setter
Speaker 1: who's drawn this nineteen seventy six analogy when the UK
Speaker 1: went to the IMF for a three point nine billion
Speaker 1: dollar loan. Obviously, the the issue here is whether you
Speaker 1: know markets aren't going to basically just turn against the
Speaker 1: UK entirely. I mean, I I'd be cautious to say
Speaker 1: I either scenario is the outlook at the moment, because
Speaker 1: we had huge short term movements and they and they
Speaker 1: kind of catalyzed into massive catastrophes through the through the
Speaker 1: LDI crisis that we had.
Speaker 3: We're having smaller moves now. It's kind of aworderly.
Speaker 1: I mean, as what I think a Deutsche Bank ever
Speaker 1: noted the foreign exchange desks suggested or they were saying
Speaker 1: that in a way, the fact that this is not
Speaker 1: an acute crisis, like Liz trust is kind of worse
Speaker 1: because it's actually saying people are genuinely worried about some
Speaker 1: of the underlying underlying dynamics in the UK. It of me,
Speaker 1: but it does mean, It does mean that you can
Speaker 1: get this kind of chronic picture for you know, the
Speaker 1: UK trajectory, which can which which can then become a
Speaker 1: dominant narrative. But that's not as dangerous in terms of
Speaker 1: immediate risks as a kind of complete acute catastrophe overnight,
Speaker 1: which can absolutely as we saw in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: you know, destroy a premiership.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in some ways, are we still kind of living
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, after Richison I took over and
Speaker 2: Jeremy Hunt, they talked a lot about repairing the damage
Speaker 2: to Britain's reputation internationally from the trust to backle and
Speaker 2: you know what was it called the Moron premium on
Speaker 2: not on UK bonds and all that, and that seems
Speaker 2: to have worked. But is the revival of these questions.
Speaker 2: Are we still kind of seeing the legacy of that
Speaker 2: shaking of the foundational belief that Britain is a good
Speaker 2: place to invest.
Speaker 1: At the moment, you can't help but think that, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the UK has historically been a safe haven,
Speaker 1: and suddenly you have that trust situation where you know,
Speaker 1: we can mess things up so badly that it causes
Speaker 1: a massive market panic, and you know, for a brief period,
Speaker 1: you know, George Osborne in twenty ten used to say,
Speaker 1: We've got to worry about our you know, our sovereign
Speaker 1: position because we you know, there's a Greek debt crisis,
Speaker 1: and we could be like Greece. And it always seemed
Speaker 1: like a lot of nonsense and a lot of politics,
Speaker 1: and suddenly, you know, for a brief two week period,
Speaker 1: we kind of did look a little bit like Greece,
Speaker 1: and so that might have changed people's the way people
Speaker 1: view the UK. So I don't think it definitely don't
Speaker 1: think it has helped. The problem with labor is that
Speaker 1: labor is always you know, starting off on the back
Speaker 1: foot with markets, and financial markets will be less sympathetic
Speaker 1: to policies that they undertake. So should the Tories have
Speaker 1: done exactly the same thing, you could be pretty sure
Speaker 1: that they would not be getting as sharp a backlashes
Speaker 1: as labor are, just because of the history. Really, so
Speaker 1: it does make it just does make life a little
Speaker 1: bit more difficult for Reeves and co.
Speaker 4: So feel going forward because of the market moves. Basically
Speaker 4: this week it basically wiped out the spending buffer of
Speaker 4: around nine point nine billion pounds that Rachel does it,
Speaker 4: I mean, if it continues, you she'll have to find
Speaker 4: extra money. Do we have an emergency budget budget? Is
Speaker 4: it too soon to say? And if we do have
Speaker 4: something that she needs to do quickly, She's ruled out
Speaker 4: tax hikes, so does she just have to cut spending?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that in the moment they're doing the spending
Speaker 1: review conversation, So the departments are seeing Darren Jones at
Speaker 1: the Treasury. He's the chief secretary who helps set their budgets,
Speaker 1: and the message effectively is that the spending envelope, which
Speaker 1: was set in the October budget cannot go higher, but
Speaker 1: it certainly can be smaller, and if they need to
Speaker 1: find a few billion quit they can just basically trim
Speaker 1: it from the sort of you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: about seven hundred billion pounds of departmental spending and your
Speaker 1: departmental spending, so you know, in that scheme of things,
Speaker 1: it's not an awful lot of money. Personally, I would
Speaker 1: I would not be surprised if we see some fiddling
Speaker 1: of the aid budget, which has already been dropped from
Speaker 1: two point seven to zero point five, and they obviously
Speaker 1: need to increased defense spending. So you know, they can
Speaker 1: some I don't know if they can change the accounting
Speaker 1: treatments and move more of it, you know, just move
Speaker 1: money out of out of aid into defense. But they'll
Speaker 1: be looking for painless ways of doing this because one
Speaker 1: of the problems that you hear from you know, investors
Speaker 1: is that in a market and financial market investors, is
Speaker 1: that there is a there was potentially a credibility problem
Speaker 1: if they just try and cut departmental spending, because that
Speaker 1: was exactly the fiscal fiction that nobody nobody believed that
Speaker 1: the spending trajectories from the March budget. When Hunt did
Speaker 1: his final budget for the Tories, no one believed those
Speaker 1: spending trajectories. And that's what Labor had to fix, and
Speaker 1: that's what the forty billion pounds of tax risers was for.
Speaker 1: If you go back, if she pushes back and says, actually,
Speaker 1: now we're going to do We're going to cut those
Speaker 1: budgets from where we've put them in October, the markets
Speaker 1: may just think this is nonsense. You know, it's another
Speaker 1: physical fiction your credibility. We're not gonna that's not gonna wash.
Speaker 1: And we're going to still turn against you because what
Speaker 1: you're doing is trying to trick us. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, we've got to this point where you just
Speaker 1: can't trick the markets any any longer. They're kind of
Speaker 1: they've reached the end of the tether.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've so obviously we've heard some you know, attempts
Speaker 2: to calm the markets, and you know, the Chief Treasury
Speaker 2: is saying that, you know, the market moves are all
Speaker 2: in all this stuff. But on the politics of this
Speaker 2: as well. The chance has gone off to China, hasn't
Speaker 2: she on on a trip, and some discussion about.
Speaker 3: Whether that was the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: I hesitate a little bit of what I'm going to
Speaker 2: say anyway, about remembering quasi quat and going off to
Speaker 2: Washington at the height of the trust to back and
Speaker 2: of course on his way back he didn't have a job.
Speaker 2: I don't think I'm assuming you don't think we're quite
Speaker 2: there yet, but they you know, is it wise the
Speaker 2: chance to fly to the other side of the world
Speaker 2: when the markets are convulsing like this?
Speaker 1: I mean I don't think it's I don't think I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a problem. It's because it's not acute.
Speaker 1: It's because it's not like trusts. I don't think it's comparable.
Speaker 1: I mean, actually that nineteen seventy six analogy is it's
Speaker 1: similar because Dennis Healy was on his way to Washington,
Speaker 1: he was the chancellor in nineteen seventy six, and he
Speaker 1: had to turn around at the airport and head back
Speaker 1: to the Labor Party conference at the time and tell
Speaker 1: them that they're going to have to tighten their belts.
Speaker 1: But the Yeah, I think she should go to China
Speaker 1: and she should be looking, you know, they should be
Speaker 1: looking beyond this because this is this is something which
Speaker 1: can be addressed in coming days. Obviously, you know, on Monday,
Speaker 1: if the market's convulsed massively, she should be back in
Speaker 1: time to deal with that.
Speaker 2: But you know it's I mean, sorry, just come back
Speaker 2: to your story field. You know, the project is close
Speaker 2: to being in tatus. If it becomes to be in tatus,
Speaker 2: can she can our first female chances to eight hundred
Speaker 2: years survive in this job much longer has she become
Speaker 2: a victims.
Speaker 3: It's a good question.
Speaker 1: One question I've been asking myself if everything I mean,
Speaker 1: if the markets go app to turn absolutely violently against
Speaker 1: them and they have to rip up their manifesto commitment
Speaker 1: and actually start raising taxes. I mean, this is an
Speaker 1: extreme scenario which I don't think anybody thinks is going
Speaker 1: to happen, but it should that happen. Would she would
Speaker 1: she would she be the sacrificial lamb again?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: You look back to nineteen seventy six Dennis Healy. He
Speaker 1: survived as chancellor for another three years. Labour doesn't have
Speaker 1: a track record of chopping and changing like the Tories
Speaker 1: do with their leaders. You know several know how many
Speaker 1: chancells it was, But I mean who's and who's there?
Speaker 1: Who would who would replace her? I mean, if Cooper
Speaker 1: might be a reasonable choice, I mean the others. I
Speaker 1: mean Analyst Dodds was Kestalmer's first choice for chancellor in opposition,
Speaker 1: but he replaced her. You know, Ed Muliband obviously he's
Speaker 1: a former Labor leader, so he potentially could do it,
Speaker 1: but you know, it's not clear that there's anyone better
Speaker 1: than Rachel Reads.
Speaker 4: Bill, Thank you so much, Thanks very much, Thanks for
Speaker 4: listening to the Sponus edition of the in the City
Speaker 4: podcast from Bloomberg. It was hosted by me Francine Lackwell
Speaker 4: with Dave Merritt. It was produced by Somersati, a production
Speaker 4: support from Moses and m and sound designed by Blake Maples.
Speaker 4: Special thanks to Phil Aldrich. Please subscribe, rate, and review
Speaker 4: wherever you listen to podcasts.