Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane, along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Abramowitz. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're not gonna
Speaker 1: show the chart right now because we don't want to
Speaker 1: waste the second with Matthew Lozetti, chief US economist at
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank. But Matt, I look at corese c P
Speaker 1: I and you've got to be kidding me. This is,
Speaker 1: you know, the to use a fancy phrase of David
Speaker 1: Fokas Landau would use, this is a teen tweets move
Speaker 1: and a turnaround. There's no way there's a vector here.
Speaker 1: So on the path it's six point three corps. What
Speaker 1: number do you need to see or you have John
Speaker 1: Farrell's vector of disinflation. Yeah, So I think we shouldn't
Speaker 1: over emphasize the zero point three. We've seen that a
Speaker 1: few times over the past year and a half. But
Speaker 1: I think when you do look at the underlying elements
Speaker 1: of this data, there's some support there. So owners equivalent
Speaker 1: rent coming off a little bit. We saw health insurance
Speaker 1: inflation come down, which was anticipated. You're seeing some of
Speaker 1: the goods deflation as we were. You know, everybody anticipates
Speaker 1: that we're going to see a power prices down, use
Speaker 1: cars everybody knew was gonna be down. Household furnishing is
Speaker 1: coming off. So I think the underlying elements of this
Speaker 1: report are actually you know, they're they're good, they're supportive.
Speaker 1: There's you know, some evidence that we are moving from
Speaker 1: peak inflation down lower. Where where do we end up?
Speaker 1: I think is the big question. But to John's point
Speaker 1: on vector six ish core inflation, at what point do
Speaker 1: you say, yeah, the arrows pointing down, is it five
Speaker 1: point eight? Is it five point two? How much move
Speaker 1: do you need to see in core to say vector
Speaker 1: in place? So I think we can't look at the
Speaker 1: year of a year data simply because you're building these
Speaker 1: point six point seven prints that we've seen over the
Speaker 1: past year. I think it's all about the month on
Speaker 1: month prints, and I think the market is right to
Speaker 1: focus on that. Um In those prints, you know we've
Speaker 1: gotten I would say some broad based deceleration and a
Speaker 1: lot of these categories I would expect the trim, mean
Speaker 1: and medium measures do look better today. It does support
Speaker 1: I think, what is the FEDS leaning towards wanting to
Speaker 1: downshift in in December? And then as we get into
Speaker 1: next year, you know, February March, it's all about can
Speaker 1: we maintain some deceleration and will you begin to see
Speaker 1: the labor market come into better balance over the next
Speaker 1: several months. And we're seeing the market down grade the
Speaker 1: expectation for a seventy five basis point rate hike in December.
Speaker 1: It seems like a fifty basis point rate hike is
Speaker 1: being locked in as well as a lower terminal rate
Speaker 1: than perhaps they were thinking just a couple of minutes
Speaker 1: before this report came out. How much does that change
Speaker 1: your assessment of how far the feder will have to go?
Speaker 1: If we get ongoing down shift in the inflation reads,
Speaker 1: if we get another softer than expected print in December,
Speaker 1: does that cause you to rethink a at recession and
Speaker 1: be that it's going to be deep? Yeah? I think
Speaker 1: the big if is do these into these continue because
Speaker 1: we've seen these point three prints before, UM, but no
Speaker 1: out if you continue to see these come off, UM,
Speaker 1: it's certainly supportive for the Fed not having to get
Speaker 1: too much higher levels. Our terminal rate has been at
Speaker 1: four point nine percent. I think that still seems like
Speaker 1: a reasonable view at the moment um. We wrote a
Speaker 1: piece yesterday. There's a lot of focus on financial conditions,
Speaker 1: and certainly with equity markets really taking off here, there
Speaker 1: will be a lot of focus on our financial conditions
Speaker 1: easing in a way that Chapal does not want. What
Speaker 1: I would highlight that is maybe a little bit different
Speaker 1: than that is the bank lending channel and we get
Speaker 1: the Senior Loan Officer survey. It's a really good leading
Speaker 1: indicator when you see tightening of lending standards on commercial
Speaker 1: and industrial loans UM, commercial real estate UM. And we've
Speaker 1: seen a material tightening there. So it's a question of
Speaker 1: has the Fed done enough? How much more do they
Speaker 1: need to do. The bank lending channel tells us you
Speaker 1: may not need to have a materially higher terminal rate
Speaker 1: than than what's being priced. It's a three percent move
Speaker 1: on some futures, it's a nineteen basis point twenty basis
Speaker 1: point move in some places on the curve in the
Speaker 1: bond market. Let me ask you this. You said something
Speaker 1: that is of interest to make this gives the FETE
Speaker 1: the spice to what that we're going to do anyway,
Speaker 1: which is back away from seventy five basis point hikes.
Speaker 1: If this FED had this data going into the last
Speaker 1: meeting with that news conference has been any different, I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I mean, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: worry is when you downshift that you ease financial conditions
Speaker 1: in a way kind of like where we saw in
Speaker 1: July that is counterproductive from the Fed's perspective. This is
Speaker 1: one data point. We had points six the previous month.
Speaker 1: This is point three. There are some encouraging elements within
Speaker 1: this data point, so I definitely want to emphasize that,
Speaker 1: but the FED needs to see more to to say,
Speaker 1: you know, we we can decelerate them from fifty down
Speaker 1: to twenty five and ultimately pause at some point. It
Speaker 1: is something that I think helps them along that path um,
Speaker 1: but it's no, it's not conclusive evidence. I think that
Speaker 1: they can peak up at five percent and be fine
Speaker 1: for this Watching this and listening right now, they won't
Speaker 1: just have the hope that FED backs away from seventy
Speaker 1: five and goes with fifty and this data. If we
Speaker 1: get the data like this again on December thirteenth. That
Speaker 1: would endorse that approach. They're hoping that the second piece
Speaker 1: of a communication from chair and Pal also gets readdressed,
Speaker 1: so it's slower seventy fifty maybe twenty five. He also
Speaker 1: said higher. Does this remove the risk or help to
Speaker 1: remove the risk that the terminal rate scope for the
Speaker 1: terminal rates much higher than where we are priced right
Speaker 1: now is removed. Yeah. I think some of the contexts
Speaker 1: around those comments was lost. You know, when chair Pal
Speaker 1: is talking about a higher terminal rate, he's usually referencing
Speaker 1: what the sep dot plot was showing in September that
Speaker 1: terminal rate was four point six as a medium, up
Speaker 1: from three up, up from three a D. But I
Speaker 1: think he was saying higher than what they had projected
Speaker 1: as of September. The market went with it and went
Speaker 1: to five and a quarter for someone what we priced already,
Speaker 1: absolutely sure, and so I think there's there's some context there.
Speaker 1: He was guiding towards something that was higher than where
Speaker 1: they were in September, not necessarily something that was materially
Speaker 1: higher than what the market was pricing at the time.
Speaker 1: A viewer just wants to know your view as we
Speaker 1: got the CPI report, we got initial jobs claims, and
Speaker 1: we see the continuing claims ticked up to one point
Speaker 1: four nine million. How much are we looking at increase
Speaker 1: in employment rates that perhaps people have not really priced
Speaker 1: in fully. Yeah, so on our re continuing jobs claims
Speaker 1: are the best real time indicators of recessions. UM. There's
Speaker 1: been a lot of difficulty in interpreting that data. UM.
Speaker 1: At least if you look to the prior weeks, you
Speaker 1: had seen this uptick take place, but it was only
Speaker 1: in the seasonally just the data was not in the
Speaker 1: n s A data. So I think there's some caution
Speaker 1: because there's been a lot of difficulties seasonally adjusting the
Speaker 1: data UM post the pandemic. But if you continue to
Speaker 1: see that rise, uh, it is something that tells you
Speaker 1: that the labor market is beginning to materially usen and
Speaker 1: it is the best real time indicator of recession. This
Speaker 1: was awesome gotten into the print coming out of it.
Speaker 1: I hope we can do it again December thirty for
Speaker 1: that and it's our real something. Okay, look forward to
Speaker 1: your bank looking forward to it too. Kathy Jones Jones Down,
Speaker 1: Chief Fixed Income strategistic Charles Swabs, so she could join.
Speaker 1: That's warning, Kathy, I want to get right to the reality.
Speaker 1: You know, I've been on this. I don't care about spreads,
Speaker 1: I don't care about fancy convexity and the rest of
Speaker 1: the frank fibosy world. I'm down in some flavor of
Speaker 1: quality bonds. How do I begin the recovery? Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a couple of choices you have, so you know,
Speaker 1: most likely what you want to do is start reinvesting
Speaker 1: and higher coupon bonds. So in order to recoup your money,
Speaker 1: you want that coupon money, right, because that's what you
Speaker 1: get out of the bond market. It's much less about
Speaker 1: capital gains. Obviously that was when when deals were falling
Speaker 1: to zero, But in reality, most income you get from
Speaker 1: fixed income is the coupon payment. So frankly, to repeat
Speaker 1: what we had this year and get another fourteen percent down,
Speaker 1: you need rates to go to nine percent. Now I
Speaker 1: know a lot of parish people, I don't know anybody
Speaker 1: talking about nine percent. So even in a static or
Speaker 1: higher interest rate environment, if you have higher coupon hang
Speaker 1: bonds and you're going to have a positive tone return,
Speaker 1: what quality of quality corporates is the best positioning point?
Speaker 1: Is it the no brainer triple A. I'm not using
Speaker 1: it as a credit rating basis, but just the emotional
Speaker 1: triple A quality or do you want to go some
Speaker 1: shades of quality down to find that coupon? Well, in
Speaker 1: the corporate bond world, there's not a lot of triple
Speaker 1: A paper out there anymore, but you know you want
Speaker 1: to stay investment grade. We think um high yield is
Speaker 1: it's very appealing at nine percent yield. The problem is
Speaker 1: we haven't really I don't think discounted the weakness in
Speaker 1: the economy that's coming and there's probably more shake out.
Speaker 1: They are so pretty cautious on high yield, but sticking
Speaker 1: with higher credit quality and with munis too, or if
Speaker 1: you're in a higher tax bracket, the mini market still
Speaker 1: offers from very attractive tax exempt returns. How until you
Speaker 1: staying in cash are short term bonds? I mean, we
Speaker 1: just heard from Phil camp Rally over at JP Morgan
Speaker 1: temper percent of his portfolio in cash because there is
Speaker 1: an alternative. Are you finding the same thing in fixed
Speaker 1: income and avoiding, for example, long duration simply because of
Speaker 1: the uncertainty Right now? Yeah, we're seeing a lot of people,
Speaker 1: you know, stay short relatively, stay short duration. We think
Speaker 1: that's actually a mistake to stay all in cash because
Speaker 1: to lock in higher yields right now, we think as
Speaker 1: an opportunity we are looking for inflation to come down.
Speaker 1: We are still looking at a rocky road ahead for
Speaker 1: the economy, and you're not locking in some of that
Speaker 1: income right now. You're probably going to ride ride it
Speaker 1: up and ride it all the way down and be
Speaker 1: looking at lower yields down the road. So we're not
Speaker 1: extending duration too, you know, uh, thirty years, but would
Speaker 1: definitely think you should be moving out to at least
Speaker 1: an egg like duration in portfolios. Do you think that
Speaker 1: longer term we're going to see an average tenure yield
Speaker 1: closer to say three percent or even two percent? Is
Speaker 1: that the more likely kind of target that you're looking at.
Speaker 1: Just get people an understanding of the rate of change
Speaker 1: and where we may be headed. Yeah, we do. I
Speaker 1: think some of the basic fundamentals haven't changed, so and well,
Speaker 1: hey we've got some you know, weakness in the economy
Speaker 1: coming to just a cumulative effect of all the typing
Speaker 1: we've seen globally. We should see the economy continue to
Speaker 1: weekend and inflation come down, But then we haven't really
Speaker 1: changed the demographic profile globally and domestically of an aging population.
Speaker 1: We still have a lot of savings around the world,
Speaker 1: and frankly in the US, we still have the world's
Speaker 1: reserve currency that people flocked to when you know, things
Speaker 1: get tough. So I don't know why we wouldn't go
Speaker 1: back we get inflation down to around our roughly three
Speaker 1: three percentage tenure yield because the Iro Jersey over at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence just publishes and he talks about a ten
Speaker 1: year yield that will be hovering and that there will
Speaker 1: be almost the stasis. Are you assuming we come out
Speaker 1: of bond volatility and yield volatility towards a hovering sense
Speaker 1: of the fixed income market? Well, I would love volatility
Speaker 1: in the bond market to come down, but I think
Speaker 1: we have to get the FED to slow down or
Speaker 1: stabilize before that happens. I think one of the concerns
Speaker 1: I have is that this this volatility, this rate of
Speaker 1: change has been so dramatic and so high that it's
Speaker 1: kind of destabilizing a lot of other things. So, you know,
Speaker 1: because bonds are used to price other assets, if you
Speaker 1: have a highly volatile treasury market, you can't really price
Speaker 1: those assets very well. So I think down the road,
Speaker 1: sure we should get lower volatility, but I think we
Speaker 1: need to see the FED plateau at least before that's
Speaker 1: going to happen. Kathy one of the best time, so
Speaker 1: always Kathy Jones. That changed to up climate. It was
Speaker 1: one of the themes in the election. Maybe below the
Speaker 1: radar of crime, immigration, inflation, the economy of America, but
Speaker 1: nevertheless it is always of this. Michael Reagan joins US
Speaker 1: now administrator, yes, of the Environmental Protection Agency, but far
Speaker 1: more from the backbone in the fields the hills of
Speaker 1: North Carolina. He's got an understanding of the value of
Speaker 1: climate to ourselves. Michael, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: From copy seven. The problem with these interviews, as we
Speaker 1: tend to go big and broad, I want to go narrow.
Speaker 1: And it does go to the President's back and forth
Speaker 1: on hydrocarbons, on oil, on net gas, and also on
Speaker 1: methane emissions from oil. Take us into that little narrow
Speaker 1: window of methane emissions and what can be accomplished. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you for having me, and you know the President
Speaker 1: has pledged that will continue to move forward UH to
Speaker 1: reduce global warming, to reduce these emissions that cause global warming.
Speaker 1: He never pledged that we would get out of it
Speaker 1: immediately overnight, but he pledged that we would work our
Speaker 1: way out of this. And so I think when we
Speaker 1: talk about methane in particular, the conversation is that I'm
Speaker 1: having with the oil and gas sector, with technology providers, UH,
Speaker 1: with you know, the US Chamber of Commerce, is that
Speaker 1: we see an opportunity to deploy technology to reduce methane
Speaker 1: UH and actually save the loss of gas and gas
Speaker 1: products while saving the planet and protecting public health. We
Speaker 1: know the technologies exist, We know that there are advanced
Speaker 1: technologies and business models that can aggt to reduce in methane,
Speaker 1: and so E p a's job is to put some
Speaker 1: rules of engagement in the role so that all companies
Speaker 1: know and can make these longer term investments. How does
Speaker 1: EPHS job change with the election including a big Republican
Speaker 1: win in your North Carolina. I'm fascinated how the oil
Speaker 1: and gas industry that has a GOP ben will change
Speaker 1: an amend coming off this election. Well, you know, we're
Speaker 1: the president has had a historic two years and passing
Speaker 1: historic legislation with the Biparts and Infrastructure Law, the Inflation
Speaker 1: Reduction Act. You know, resources coming to e p A
Speaker 1: UH to help with and enhance the regulations UH that
Speaker 1: we are required to put in place by law. So
Speaker 1: I don't think the elections will change the fact that
Speaker 1: e p A has legislative authority or authority provided by
Speaker 1: the legislature or Congress to pursue the reduction of greenhouse
Speaker 1: gas emissions to protect public health and protect the planet.
Speaker 1: We're gonna continue to move forward and do our job.
Speaker 1: But the resources that flow from the UH, from the
Speaker 1: Inflation Reduction that just help with that public private partnership
Speaker 1: to pursue these reductions, So we're not solely reliant on
Speaker 1: regulations alone. How complicated is it right now, Michael, to
Speaker 1: be with this mandate to reduce submissions at a time
Speaker 1: where people are prioritizing fossil fuels in light of some
Speaker 1: of the shortages, in light of the war in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: Is it perhap taking some energy away from what you're
Speaker 1: saying or making it more difficult to argue your cause.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a it's a it's a it's a
Speaker 1: speed bump, right I mean, I think we find ourselves
Speaker 1: in this position where many countries are overly reliant on
Speaker 1: fossil fuels provided by UH, you know, countries like Russia
Speaker 1: at a time where it's it's inconvenient, and we are
Speaker 1: seeing that this unprovoked war with Ukraine is causing pain globally.
Speaker 1: If we were not so dependent on these fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: if we had made the proper investments in clean technologies
Speaker 1: and energy efficiency and more domestic opportunities, we would not
Speaker 1: see the price volatility that we're seeing internationally. So it's
Speaker 1: a wake up call, right. Number one, it is very
Speaker 1: inconvenient obviously, but number two, UH, it is really forcing
Speaker 1: all of us UH here at cop UH to think
Speaker 1: through how we continue to double down and invest in
Speaker 1: alternatives to fossil fill with Michael Reagan, Thank you, sir,
Speaker 1: Michael Reriggan, there have the e p A. This is important,
Speaker 1: John and you alluded to it one an election. To
Speaker 1: speak to Terry Haynes. He has a certain perspective. He
Speaker 1: got it right, He just got it right out into
Speaker 1: all of this. I've almost looking for that massive red wave.
Speaker 1: It dominated the conversations on this show when that's not
Speaker 1: what's Harry was looking for? Terry Haynes, founder of PANCHEA Policy,
Speaker 1: joined us right now, Terry, why don't you start with
Speaker 1: what you were looking for and why and we'll take
Speaker 1: it from there. Good morning, John, And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm kind of old school. I I look at the
Speaker 1: data as much as possible. I weigh in a bunch
Speaker 1: of other things. I do pay attention to what some
Speaker 1: of the aggregators are are looking at, whether it be uh,
Speaker 1: you know, real clear politics, ornate silver sight, or whatever.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a spice. But I've been been around
Speaker 1: us and doing this a long time, and in the end,
Speaker 1: what you get from me is my own view. I
Speaker 1: wasn't seeing a way. I was seeing a you know,
Speaker 1: slight reddening of the map, certainly, but probably what probably
Speaker 1: a small house majority and uh, you know, the Senate
Speaker 1: is still up for grabs, but I think right now
Speaker 1: a little more likely to go are than D. But
Speaker 1: it wasn't gonna happen. So you know, I mean what
Speaker 1: you get out of this is, you know, you get
Speaker 1: continued but what you already have continued for firstability, nothing
Speaker 1: in the domestic and uh continued unimity on foreign policy Terry,
Speaker 1: Will there be a set of Joe Mansions in the House.
Speaker 1: Will there be centrist Republicans looking to two thousand and
Speaker 1: twenty four that will push against more conservative Republicans. I'll
Speaker 1: let Joe Mansion and the Democrats in the Senate. Oh sure,
Speaker 1: and well there already are. You know, Mansion by no
Speaker 1: means is alone. Everybody knows Mansion in cinema. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I always look at them and know that they're they're
Speaker 1: representing others on issues, whether it be energy issues or
Speaker 1: you know, frankly the regulation of financial services, because remember
Speaker 1: they've rejected a bunch of people. Those people exist in
Speaker 1: the House as well. So sure, these are four factions,
Speaker 1: not two parties, I always say, and there then that's
Speaker 1: still true. Well, this is really important. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's in the zeitgeist right now, Terry. It's not a
Speaker 1: unified GOP in the House. I get that, But do
Speaker 1: they have real power to steer GOP legislation with the
Speaker 1: GOP majority in the House. Well, if if they can
Speaker 1: unify around something, sure, and there will be lots of
Speaker 1: responsible people, uh Patrick McHenry and financial services being one
Speaker 1: who will look to do that exactly. But it won't
Speaker 1: be an easy process for them, just like it wasn't
Speaker 1: an easy process for Democrats in the last cycle. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, it'll take some time. It won't be instantaneous. Uh.
Speaker 1: And of course if the Senate does not go whether
Speaker 1: or not the Senate goes Republicans way, you need sixty
Speaker 1: votes to to proceed the legislation in the Senate. They
Speaker 1: won't have anywhere near that. So the net net of
Speaker 1: that is you won't see very much legislation be successful. Terry,
Speaker 1: is it too soon to say that Rhoda Santis is
Speaker 1: a new leader of the Republican Party? Um? No, probably not, Lesta,
Speaker 1: It's probably not too soon to say that. You know.
Speaker 1: Certainly the direction that the Santis points, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of unapologetic on policy while at the same time
Speaker 1: having having a winning way about if not only personally
Speaker 1: but but through election results, is exactly the direction the
Speaker 1: party wants to go in. And Uh, then so sure,
Speaker 1: I think that's probably true. From a substance perspective, How
Speaker 1: does that differ from Donald Trump from a what perspective?
Speaker 1: From a substance perspective? Substance perspective, I think what, what
Speaker 1: and how it changes. Is that kind of consistency of
Speaker 1: purpose and consistency of message. What always dogged former President
Speaker 1: Trump was was a lack of consistency in messaging and
Speaker 1: and a lack of consistency in substance. To some extent,
Speaker 1: Now there were he had some successes where he was
Speaker 1: laser sharp on both of those, trying to tearriffs being one,
Speaker 1: but a lot of other things that Trump White House
Speaker 1: is a little bit all over the map, and that
Speaker 1: was bad for them. Uh. De Sanders has shown in
Speaker 1: his governorship that he's he's learned from that. It's Terry.
Speaker 1: Tom's talked about this. I just want to build on
Speaker 1: it a little bit more too close down this conversation.
Speaker 1: The failure to embrace men in voting on the Republican side, Terry,
Speaker 1: how did they address that? How do they even talk
Speaker 1: about it in the coming months? Uh? The what? John?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry? There to embrace mail in votes on the
Speaker 1: Republican side, it just hasn't been part of the strategy
Speaker 1: for the party. Yeah. That's strange, isn't it. It's Uh,
Speaker 1: They're they're gonna have to. Uh And I think this
Speaker 1: is probably a wake up call for that. I don't
Speaker 1: know why they've been laid to the post done that,
Speaker 1: but they have been. But they're going to have to
Speaker 1: figure out that there's really two h two elections here,
Speaker 1: the mail in vote election in the day of vote election. Uh,
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania is a perfect example that I could never understand
Speaker 1: why uh why Republican why Oz agreed to debate Veterman
Speaker 1: so late after there were so many votes already starting,
Speaker 1: and uh, they're already in and that's probably what election
Speaker 1: against him. Terry, Yeah, Terry, don't feel bad that you
Speaker 1: didn't understand John. I didn't understand him either. There, you know,
Speaker 1: like about every fifth word with John, I just with
Speaker 1: the accident, I just I don't I didn't get the
Speaker 1: mail in thing there as well. It wasn't just like no,
Speaker 1: it's just like a pinky blinders thing. I have to
Speaker 1: watch the captions. No, I did not understand what John said.
Speaker 1: There is Terry said the same thing. The accent you'll
Speaker 1: suggesting that was a Brimi accent. No, I need well,
Speaker 1: I changes now that I think about it. I need
Speaker 1: to get you know, the word thing at the bottom
Speaker 1: of the screens close captions. I do that with pinky blinders.
Speaker 1: I mean I didn't understand me there and I didn't well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know, but I need close caption for Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance with John Farrow. I mean question how offended I
Speaker 1: should be. I think I think quite. I think you're
Speaker 1: justified being quite. But let's talk about Shelter. Melon voted.
Speaker 1: Sterry has hugely valuable. Thank you ter. This is the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays
Speaker 1: from seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Television each day from six to nine am
Speaker 1: for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, and of course on the terminal. I'm
Speaker 1: Tom Keene, and this is Bloomberg