Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust in independent registered investment advisors to the tune
Speaker 1: of 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 and Frank. We start the
Speaker 1: show with a sad note. Uh former Bundesbank President Hansteep,
Speaker 1: his last president of the Bundesbank before the ECB, has
Speaker 1: died at the age of eighty five. I have a
Speaker 1: statement out from Buddhu's Bank president h Ian Fiedman just
Speaker 1: a few moments ago. Sad four is still a good life.
Speaker 1: But you're right, it's sad. And actually usually in the
Speaker 1: Christmas period we do get a little bit of this
Speaker 1: always always sad news when it comes to death. Um
Speaker 1: away from sad news, Mike, and actually I don't know
Speaker 1: whether it's good news or bad news, but you know,
Speaker 1: you were talking about the fact that we had a
Speaker 1: day off yesterday. We're still trying to figure out and
Speaker 1: actually I urge all of our listeners if you like
Speaker 1: talking about Brexit. There's a great Brexit quiz on our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com. But we're seeing as economic uncertainties may
Speaker 1: actually ratchet up in a lot more people holding cash.
Speaker 1: So this is according Mike to the British Bankers Association,
Speaker 1: and it's the first time that we saw that personal
Speaker 1: deposits growing about five percent in November. I don't know
Speaker 1: whether it means that that people are just a little
Speaker 1: bit concerned about their house prices and things like that
Speaker 1: are inflation, but it's the first time we've seen it
Speaker 1: in eleven months. And they gotta pay their Christmas bills too,
Speaker 1: you know, all the money they spent on gifts, all
Speaker 1: the money you see. I mean when when you say
Speaker 1: hoarding cash, I think of people putting their um, you know,
Speaker 1: sterling coins into a tin on the dresser or something
Speaker 1: like that. Um But you know, we have a new
Speaker 1: coin in One of the probably most popular cultural stories
Speaker 1: here is that we have a new sterling coin, which
Speaker 1: I believe will be unveiled by the Bank of England
Speaker 1: seventeen March or even April of next year that strangely
Speaker 1: looks like the euro. It's it's true, I've seen it.
Speaker 1: Perfect timing. Well, let's ask Mark Chandler about that he
Speaker 1: had of currency strategy for Brown Brothers hairman and he
Speaker 1: has migrated over here with us from Bloombergshire. Aillance on
Speaker 1: television and uh mark um significant the Brits are introducing
Speaker 1: a new coin this year. Actually, the larger question is
Speaker 1: what is the pound? What happens to the pound in
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen with bragsit in full flower Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision coming up, the article fifty trigger theoretically in March,
Speaker 1: what do you see happening? Yeah, that's a good question.
Speaker 1: I think that's like. One of the big surprises, of
Speaker 1: course this year was the Brexit, the refervendum. I still
Speaker 1: think that such an important decision made by a very
Speaker 1: small majority of people, less than fifty two percent. So
Speaker 1: some big changes coming to to the UK, and I
Speaker 1: think the market is getting frustrated that this idea of
Speaker 1: a soft Brexit hard Direxit, which is what the market's
Speaker 1: really been debating about. I think next year that all
Speaker 1: that changes, And it seems to me these are splitting
Speaker 1: hair is really it's hard to see how the UK
Speaker 1: is gonna be able to maintain both access to it
Speaker 1: to the Common market and control its borders. It's that
Speaker 1: I think the EU is right that it's not a
Speaker 1: smortgage board type of opportunity where you just pick and
Speaker 1: choose what you want. And so I think that until
Speaker 1: this is resolved, it's hard to see how Sterling has
Speaker 1: a substantial rally. So I'm looking at sterling still to
Speaker 1: be falling. I think that next year, as if I've
Speaker 1: write about the Euro going through parity, I think we
Speaker 1: could see sterling back down to those loads we saw
Speaker 1: on the flash crash. Bring this down about one fourteen
Speaker 1: or so, say a dime from here on the downside,
Speaker 1: And I'm looking at this new pound coin. Looks like
Speaker 1: it's a pineapple. I mean, what is that. I think
Speaker 1: it's a Scottish emblem, but close it's a thistle, it looks,
Speaker 1: but I think it's a thistle. Um, we'll put it
Speaker 1: on social media for the for the people that are
Speaker 1: listening to us, so you can also have a look
Speaker 1: at the new twelve sided one pound coin being unveiled
Speaker 1: next year. Mark when you look at currencies, right it's
Speaker 1: very clear that volatility was largely played out in currencies
Speaker 1: in because docs just kept on going higher. Do you
Speaker 1: think we'll follow a similar pattern in now? I think
Speaker 1: that's good because I think that what we have is
Speaker 1: that there's this idea that the capital markets that letting
Speaker 1: the prices of currencies and money in general, like interest
Speaker 1: rates move be volatile, that means that the real economy
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be That is that these financial instruments
Speaker 1: act as a shock absorber, and we see the economy
Speaker 1: has become more volatile as the financial markets become less volatile.
Speaker 1: So I personally would rather see more volatility in the
Speaker 1: financial assets. So that the problem though with volatiling the
Speaker 1: financial assets that it implies a direction. So we say
Speaker 1: low volatiling in the stock market, what do we know?
Speaker 1: We know from some of the charts that Mike's shown
Speaker 1: before that the VIX tends to go down when the
Speaker 1: stock market goes up. So we're talking about more volatility.
Speaker 1: We're talking about lower stock prices, and we're probably talking
Speaker 1: about lower bond prices. If bond market volatil is going
Speaker 1: to improve. Currencies are a different story. I think that
Speaker 1: some currencies tend to be more volatile. I'd say that
Speaker 1: the dollar, block, Aussie, Canada, Key, we tend to be
Speaker 1: a bit more volatile than say the Swiss shrink. But
Speaker 1: I think that in the year ahead, we still have
Speaker 1: to be careful about the end, which has had this
Speaker 1: big reversal this year. You know, we began at one
Speaker 1: five or so, sold off to almost one hundred, and
Speaker 1: then bounced back here to one eighteen. I'm looking for
Speaker 1: dollar yend to continue to move higher. I'm looking for
Speaker 1: this to take place over the course of the first
Speaker 1: half of the year. But the same thing, I think
Speaker 1: in the other major currencies, we should be expecting a
Speaker 1: little bit more volatilitly, not just because of a trend,
Speaker 1: but really because of these periods of consolidation after these
Speaker 1: large trends like we've just seen. We started a conversation
Speaker 1: with the pound, but you told us earlier that it
Speaker 1: is the euro is your currency of the year for
Speaker 1: two thousand seventeen, that it's going to really influence what
Speaker 1: happens to a lot of the markets in the coming year. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the way I sort of think of this is
Speaker 1: that the what's going on. I think that beside this
Speaker 1: divergence between ECB policy and FED policy. We also have
Speaker 1: political issues, and I think for me the key the
Speaker 1: political issues is this wave of populism. Nationalism may began
Speaker 1: off in Poland, hungry Czech Republic, moved to the UK
Speaker 1: with the Brexit vote, the US election with the Trump election,
Speaker 1: and now we have in Europe next year. We have
Speaker 1: several opportunities for these populist nationalists to show their hand.
Speaker 1: And I think that this nervousness, this anticipation, it keeps
Speaker 1: the keeps the Euro on the defensive. And I think
Speaker 1: that is particularly problematic because Europe has been held together
Speaker 1: by integration and if we're seeing a wave of nationalism,
Speaker 1: that eats away at that integration. And so this is
Speaker 1: an existential challenge for Europe. And I think that's what
Speaker 1: keeps the Euro. Besides this monetary policy, this wide divergence.
Speaker 1: Investors get paid over two hundred basis points right now
Speaker 1: to belong the US dollar over the Euro, thinking about
Speaker 1: financing through the Germany. This is the key incentive, the
Speaker 1: key driver for the dollar. But I think that the
Speaker 1: politics right behind it. But Mark aren't the politics extremely dangerous?
Speaker 1: And I don't know whether it's because we don't trust
Speaker 1: the polls, But is there a concern that actually one
Speaker 1: of the big countries I'm thinking into the fronts could
Speaker 1: leave the Eurozone the next eighteen months. Oh, I don't
Speaker 1: know about eighteen months to leave the Eurozone, because here's
Speaker 1: what it would have to happen, right, I think about
Speaker 1: next year, we get the Dutch elections at first, most
Speaker 1: likely the Dutch elections, and the far right party does
Speaker 1: seem me pulling ahead, but the majority of the Dutch
Speaker 1: you want to stay in the EU, want to stay
Speaker 1: in e MU. Then you've got the French action, and
Speaker 1: there there's a long tradition of the of the center
Speaker 1: to parties UH combining forces when faced with a UH,
Speaker 1: faced with challenge from the National Front. Even then, I
Speaker 1: can't see how it happens in eighteen months. And then
Speaker 1: of course in Germany where Merkele she might not be
Speaker 1: as popular as she was before due to her immigration policies,
Speaker 1: but doesn't look like she has a local rival that
Speaker 1: could unseat her. So you're right that other elections, like
Speaker 1: in Italy, it's possible. But even then Italy has a
Speaker 1: has a constitutional ban on referendums to affect treaties, So
Speaker 1: I think that people are jumping the gun a little bit.
Speaker 1: You know, I was around for both of the Greek crisis,
Speaker 1: and many people thought Greece was going to drop out.
Speaker 1: I think those uh London bookies were making odds at
Speaker 1: like a seven to one or twelve to one chance
Speaker 1: that Greece was going to drop out. And I think
Speaker 1: that people have underestimated the political will, and that's what's
Speaker 1: so important about now. The political will is being challenged.
Speaker 1: I thought Carolin was rounding off, but it really is
Speaker 1: a dollar four zero zero for the euro, which is
Speaker 1: Mark Chandler's currency of the Year for two thousand and seventeen.
Speaker 1: You think it will go down as low as eight
Speaker 1: two eight one, not next year, but I've got ninety
Speaker 1: seven by the middle of the year. But the A
Speaker 1: two and a half is the October two thousand low,
Speaker 1: and I think we're gonna head there. And during this
Speaker 1: Obama slash Trump dollar rally. Well, when we last saw
Speaker 1: the euro that low, the rest of the world stepped
Speaker 1: in the G twenty intervened to prop it up. Currency
Speaker 1: intervention has sort of gone the way of the Dodo.
Speaker 1: But does it come back, Well, it could come back,
Speaker 1: but I think that depends on what's happening at the time.
Speaker 1: I mean, right now, it seems to me that the
Speaker 1: weakness of the euro is a good thing for Europe.
Speaker 1: It's a good thing for the world economy, because this
Speaker 1: is how this is how it's supposed to work. The
Speaker 1: country that's growing quicker, has stronger fundamentals, gets a stronger currency,
Speaker 1: and those countries that have a weaker economies get a
Speaker 1: weaker currency that helps stimulate them. But so it depends
Speaker 1: only what happens when we get those kind of extremes
Speaker 1: and how fast we get there, right, But market that
Speaker 1: this is kind of the point that I was thinking about,
Speaker 1: is that a week or Europe will be welcomed for
Speaker 1: a lot of the European exporting countries. Is the problem,
Speaker 1: if you want to call it a problem, is not
Speaker 1: dollar strength. Yeah so yeah, so exactly. So, I don't
Speaker 1: think that we had a point yet where the dollar
Speaker 1: is a is a problem for Europe. I don't think
Speaker 1: the dollar is yet really a problem for the US
Speaker 1: as long as the pace that we've seen in recent
Speaker 1: months does not continue at this pace. So I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that we're at a point at a point in
Speaker 1: the foreseeable future, where the G seven will say, we've
Speaker 1: been telling the Chinese, we've been We've been making these
Speaker 1: uh high sounding platitudes that G twenty meetings that currency
Speaker 1: markets ought to determine the value of foreign exchange, and
Speaker 1: to overcome those comments with saying that, well, this time
Speaker 1: is different. We need to intervene because the dollar is
Speaker 1: getting too strong. I think it's a very high hurdle.
Speaker 1: Bar I don't think we're anywhere close to that. All Right,
Speaker 1: other big currency of the year, perhaps in two thousand
Speaker 1: and seventeen, will be the Chinese when because the PRESIDENTI
Speaker 1: like the United States and City, is going after the
Speaker 1: Chinese because they unfairly manipulate their currency. They obviously have
Speaker 1: been manipulating it higher, not lower, as he has suggested,
Speaker 1: trying to keep a floor under it. But what happens
Speaker 1: to the UN in two thousand and seventeen. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: I think that the first thing I say to keep
Speaker 1: in mind is that when it comes to people, you
Speaker 1: and I talk, we want to be uh we want
Speaker 1: to be honest with each other. But I think when
Speaker 1: politicians talk, they make a distinction between like declaratory policy
Speaker 1: what they say operational policy, what they do. And oftentimes
Speaker 1: the US presidential candidates talk tough about China. When they
Speaker 1: get into office, they realize they get presented with new information,
Speaker 1: the complexities of the relationship and the nuances of what
Speaker 1: China is doing. And right now, I fully agree that
Speaker 1: China is if anything, it's trying to strengthen its currency.
Speaker 1: It does not want the currency to fall too fast.
Speaker 1: It's keeping it relatively stable against the basket. But I
Speaker 1: have to because I have a strong dollar review and
Speaker 1: I'm bag back on FED raising interest rates, strength of
Speaker 1: the US economy while the Chinese economy likely to slow
Speaker 1: and if anything, some more monetary stimulus from China. I've
Speaker 1: got the dollar R and B, which now you stay
Speaker 1: is right below seven, going about seven twenty next year. Okay,
Speaker 1: you're suggesting Mark that when the facts change, or the
Speaker 1: facts presented to the president like change, he will change.
Speaker 1: What will it take for Trump's trade advisor, Peter Navarro,
Speaker 1: who has written books called, for example, The Death of China,
Speaker 1: who has clearly on the show, also said he believes
Speaker 1: China's cheating because they have a surplus. Yeah, this is
Speaker 1: uh is a good point you raise, and for me,
Speaker 1: the challenge as an observer is really is really trying
Speaker 1: to figure out which of these voices within the Trump
Speaker 1: administration are really going to carry the day. I first
Speaker 1: got involved in politics when Henry Kissinger was a National
Speaker 1: Securities adviser, and I think Will Rogers was at the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State, and yet it was Henry Kissinger that
Speaker 1: was really running the show. So it really depends not
Speaker 1: just on who the formal appointments are, but where that
Speaker 1: power really lies. And if it's not clear to me,
Speaker 1: where's how it's going to play out. One thing, though,
Speaker 1: is clear to me, And even though Trump's has said
Speaker 1: that he'll declare China currency manipulator on day one in office,
Speaker 1: I would out hold your breath for that. That is
Speaker 1: to say that the Treasury Department has a has a
Speaker 1: quantitative list of factors and they say that China only
Speaker 1: meets one of those three factors. And so whatever brush
Speaker 1: the Trump administration says that China is a currency market manipulator,
Speaker 1: that same brush could be could be used to tar
Speaker 1: many other countries, perhaps including Japan. Well, very quickly, what
Speaker 1: does it mean if they designate them a currency manipulator? Yeah,
Speaker 1: So there's to two parts of it. One is China
Speaker 1: would have to whoever we cited the currency manipulator would
Speaker 1: have to have negotiations with the US. But more importantly
Speaker 1: how it affects like equity investors is that US companies
Speaker 1: could then sue China to get for their grievances that
Speaker 1: try to try to manipulate the currency. Take an X
Speaker 1: percentage dollars from them. How do they respond? They can
Speaker 1: sue them, And so I think that it just opens
Speaker 1: up that World Trade Organization. I think they might be
Speaker 1: even separate judicial like tribunal set up for this. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's fully just at the w t O.
Speaker 1: All right, Mark Chandler for Brown Brothers Herman, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us this morning here on Bloomberg Surveillance. Tony Kristenzi,
Speaker 1: pimco's Markets TRGY portfolio manager. He's come home for Christmas,
Speaker 1: all the way from Newport Beach to Brooklyn and UH
Speaker 1: and points here in Manhattan. We thank you for stopping
Speaker 1: by this poinning. Your latest note intrigued me because um,
Speaker 1: everybody talked about the taper tantrum. It was a huge
Speaker 1: impact on the markets when the Fed suggested it might
Speaker 1: raise rates and did not. UH might taper and did not.
Speaker 1: Now you're calling what we're seeing in the bontom markets
Speaker 1: a Trump tantrum. But when you use those words is
Speaker 1: it's not the same effect. It's a lot different. On
Speaker 1: two thirteen, there was this fear of withdrawal of stimulus,
Speaker 1: the ending of quantitative easing, the bond buying that the
Speaker 1: Fed had engaged in several trillion dollars of securities. This
Speaker 1: tantrum is a little different released a Trump and omics
Speaker 1: and more traditional factors that affect the bond markets, such
Speaker 1: as growth and inflation. The markets think that growth, which
Speaker 1: had has been subdued at around two percent or so,
Speaker 1: inflation also subdued, would might pick up towards the old normal.
Speaker 1: I mean, the new normal for growth had been around
Speaker 1: two percent. But the markets think that it could pick up.
Speaker 1: The question is whether it will pick up permanently in
Speaker 1: the trajectory move up towards the old normal where suspect
Speaker 1: and the bottom market in fact is while many are
Speaker 1: talking about the all the optimism, look at where the
Speaker 1: bond markets priced for yields in the year. Looking at
Speaker 1: short term instruments difficult for anyone to the average person
Speaker 1: to to see, but we in the bond market. Know
Speaker 1: that the market participants or priced for the Federal funds rate,
Speaker 1: the FEDS policy rate, which is today at about a
Speaker 1: half percent to move up to just two percent in
Speaker 1: that's about half of what is normal for a neutral rate,
Speaker 1: where the fit's either pressing on the gas of the
Speaker 1: brakes historically, so the markets still believe that growth will
Speaker 1: be subdued over the long run. So while there has
Speaker 1: been a Trump tantrum, it's been relatively subdued in the
Speaker 1: sense that the markets are still priced for a very benign,
Speaker 1: shallow path on interest rates. Looking forward, Tony. First of all,
Speaker 1: congratulations on your greeting. Hi, Tony Um. I wanted to
Speaker 1: send you a Bloomberg message through the terminal and as
Speaker 1: a greeting I have. You are only as good as
Speaker 1: your lost trade. I love that. I've used that since
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties on my Bloomberg terminal and it served
Speaker 1: you well. So what is your best trade for well? Uh.
Speaker 1: For one, it's great news that bond yields have increased
Speaker 1: for bond investors because starting yield is the major determinant
Speaker 1: of future returns. The yield on the Barkley's aggregate, which
Speaker 1: for those who don't know. It's similar to were watching
Speaker 1: these SMP five hundreds, the main barometer by which many
Speaker 1: bond managers are judged against, although there are a lot
Speaker 1: of them these days, the Bockley's aggregate is yielding about
Speaker 1: two and three quarters percent. That's upper percentage point from
Speaker 1: about six weeks ago. In other words, investors, as I said,
Speaker 1: uh can now expect with the idea that starting yield
Speaker 1: is the major determine at the future returns about two
Speaker 1: and three quarters in a passive strategy. But bond managers
Speaker 1: like PIMCO historically earned alpha and earned something above that,
Speaker 1: and we historically have learned about a hundred basis points
Speaker 1: more than that. So bond investors are looking at returns
Speaker 1: in the high threes now and even near four on
Speaker 1: average going forward. So staying invested in bonds is one
Speaker 1: of the important points. It's many are worried about rising yields,
Speaker 1: but as I as I said, higher yields are good
Speaker 1: for one and secondly, one can't try to mock at
Speaker 1: time the diversification benefits of bonds. It's like getting in
Speaker 1: a car and saying, well today I don't need car insurance.
Speaker 1: I'll take the risk. Uh, it's not a wise thing
Speaker 1: to do. So if investors want to buy equities, if
Speaker 1: they want to take more risks because they feel the
Speaker 1: economic outlook is better than it was. Uh, owning bonds,
Speaker 1: of course enables them to get in the car and
Speaker 1: drive and take those risks. So it's good to have
Speaker 1: that anchor. So staying investation and bonds being overweight on
Speaker 1: credit and also being but but by being somewhat cautious
Speaker 1: and leaving some dry powders another factor, and also by
Speaker 1: um simply uh small staying investor is probably the biggest snack.
Speaker 1: I say, there's a lot of little details. Talk too
Speaker 1: long about things, things to buy. But we can talk
Speaker 1: about that if you will. Well, I have to follow up,
Speaker 1: by the way, John Tucker points out, it's the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Barclays index, So we have to do our own shoots.
Speaker 1: Plug here. So Tony's writing that down. He won't make
Speaker 1: that mistake never again. But how do I know? I mean,
Speaker 1: you don't have to go in to every detail of
Speaker 1: every bottom. But okay, you say I should have bonds,
Speaker 1: you sell bonds, Um, how do I know what kind
Speaker 1: of bonds I want to buy? In the whole universe
Speaker 1: to offer myself protection at time when even if Trump
Speaker 1: produced zero additional growth, growth has picked up enough to
Speaker 1: justify the higher rates that we're seeing right now. Right well,
Speaker 1: um in terms of the types of on course strategies,
Speaker 1: for one of the anchor that I mentioned, the insurance
Speaker 1: that investors tend to need at the vertification benefits the
Speaker 1: type of thing to stick with because investors these days
Speaker 1: want to take more risks, and equities have moved up
Speaker 1: significantly and they want to stay in the car and
Speaker 1: drive and take additional risks. Probably is good to be
Speaker 1: in core strategies, but they're also good income strategies. That
Speaker 1: depends on investments in UH liquid and complex instruments. UH.
Speaker 1: These include non agency mortgages subprime mortgages, for example. We
Speaker 1: would expect returns in those, and we've been investing heavily
Speaker 1: in them to stay in the mid single digits called
Speaker 1: five so on a loss of justice laws adjusted whole
Speaker 1: to maturity basis. Second security of high interest to US
Speaker 1: is a bank capital. Banks in Europe they're getting safer
Speaker 1: and safer, maybe not those in Italy, but in general
Speaker 1: banks are sharing up the capital levels and that's good
Speaker 1: for capital securities which are yielding between seven and nine
Speaker 1: in Europe, so we like those. And being overweight credit
Speaker 1: is a general concept, but leave some dry prowd. If
Speaker 1: we had to put it on the scale of szewould
Speaker 1: attend how in terms of the overweight on credit, we'd
Speaker 1: probably place it around five or so because markets are
Speaker 1: somewhat fully priced for a good scenario, and they'll be
Speaker 1: ups and downs naturally in markets in tween and beyond
Speaker 1: that one will want to take advantage of so, so
Speaker 1: of course strategies number one income strategies UH. Secondly, complexity
Speaker 1: I liquidity good things. Taking advantage of volatility UH is
Speaker 1: something to do in the bond market in as an investor. Really,
Speaker 1: and Tony, does that change given what you've just said
Speaker 1: in terms of the investment landscape? Does it change if
Speaker 1: the US enter as a trade war or something goes
Speaker 1: not to plant. I don't know if it's terriffs, I
Speaker 1: don't know if it's renegotiating messy renegotiations. Francine As you
Speaker 1: mentioned that the idea of the negative side of the
Speaker 1: Trump trade that markets don't seem to be thinking about.
Speaker 1: And this is why when we say stay overweight on credit,
Speaker 1: but leave dry powder. We are thinking about the possibility
Speaker 1: of volatility in as markets now and then look at
Speaker 1: the negative side of or the risks I should say,
Speaker 1: the left tail risks for the Trump administration. And so
Speaker 1: those are things that can affect the market negatively and
Speaker 1: would add to volatility. And we'll have to wait and
Speaker 1: see how the Trump administration reacts to that volatility and
Speaker 1: markets and to any impact it may have on economies
Speaker 1: with policies like that. And it suffice it to say
Speaker 1: that it will take many months to sort this all out.
Speaker 1: UH tax legislation, for example, may not be passed till
Speaker 1: next summer and will take a while before markets are
Speaker 1: sure about the future for the economic growth in terms
Speaker 1: of not just eighteen but the trajectory. Will it will
Speaker 1: us growth will permanently move higher or will it be
Speaker 1: a Trump bump? The markets will be more interested in
Speaker 1: in what a permanent increase in growth, and the only
Speaker 1: way to get there is through high quality spending, high
Speaker 1: quality policies that encourage investments, unalization, educational attainment and plants, equipment,
Speaker 1: software and things that over the long run produce economic
Speaker 1: growth and proven to be growth producers. Just seconds we
Speaker 1: got the move index measure of altility going down. I
Speaker 1: mean it peak on election day and it's been going
Speaker 1: down since well. End of of course, Historically the declines
Speaker 1: in volatility or something to be worried about. And always
Speaker 1: I always say beware quiet markets. One never knows what
Speaker 1: will be next. But the main goal of central bank
Speaker 1: policy you know we're wrapping up, has been to suppress volatility.
Speaker 1: And one has to question whether central banks can continue
Speaker 1: to do that because there has been a shift from
Speaker 1: central bank dominance to fiscal dominance. Now all right, Well
Speaker 1: as who is the guy in Buck's money, um the
Speaker 1: Hunter Elbow Fund would say markets of VOI voy quiet.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of good quote as uh, we get
Speaker 1: through this holiday week between Christmas and New Year's a
Speaker 1: lot of people on vacation, but we are seeing markets higher.
Speaker 1: Do you get more movement off when you have volatility
Speaker 1: elevated because there are a few of people trading, but
Speaker 1: we're not seeing that so far in the market. Tony
Speaker 1: Kristenzi is with us. He's a PIP called Market Strategistic
Speaker 1: Portfolio Manage, which means he's all about bonds. I want
Speaker 1: to go back to something You've started our conversation with
Speaker 1: earlier about how when you look at the forward curve
Speaker 1: for the bond markets UH, you are not seeing the
Speaker 1: enthusiasm in fixed income for trump pomics that you are
Speaker 1: seeing in equity. I'm looking at the dot plot of
Speaker 1: the FED, which, if you go to dots go on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg not only gives you the dot plot where
Speaker 1: the Fed essentially sees the proper setting of the various
Speaker 1: members of the open market. If you see the proper
Speaker 1: setting rates, but you see what the market, the overnight
Speaker 1: index swaps price out UH interest rates for the next
Speaker 1: couple of years. And you're right, there's no real enthusiasm
Speaker 1: for Trump boosting growth significantly over where we are right now.
Speaker 1: Markets are quite familiar with the story on US economic growth,
Speaker 1: which is to say, they're very strong headwinds sti ILL
Speaker 1: and even with the perspective changes in legislation, and there's
Speaker 1: doubts about what these legislative actions will do for growth
Speaker 1: on a permanent faisis basis. Consider demographics. UM, that's a
Speaker 1: major force in shaping the economic growth globally. It's empirically
Speaker 1: shown that it can affect growth in a nation considered Japan,
Speaker 1: which last year sor decline in the number of persons
Speaker 1: about a million in the population from a hundred twenty
Speaker 1: six million, and the population is expected to continue contracting
Speaker 1: about a half million per year and m until it
Speaker 1: goes to under one hundred million and twenty fifty. It's
Speaker 1: difficult for a nation to grow when there are fewer
Speaker 1: people to produce goods and services. In the United States,
Speaker 1: the baby boom is born people born between nineteen forty
Speaker 1: six and sixty four began turning sixty five. Of course,
Speaker 1: that means in eleven UH it's a contingent of forty
Speaker 1: million people today that will grow to seventy five million
Speaker 1: when the last baby boomer that includes me UH will
Speaker 1: turn sixty five. And so the use doesn't have as
Speaker 1: many people entering the labor force to produce goods and
Speaker 1: services as it used to. So when the bond markets
Speaker 1: thinking about growth prospects, it's thinking about demographic influences on growth.
Speaker 1: That's one thing. The second influence would be credit growth.
Speaker 1: Does the US banking system produce the same sort of
Speaker 1: loan loan growth that it used to know, So this
Speaker 1: means the impulse to growth from credit won't be as
Speaker 1: strong here in Japan and Europe as it used to
Speaker 1: be in Europe that had negative growth in loans through
Speaker 1: last year. Now it's up just one and a half
Speaker 1: per cent or so year over year. It used to
Speaker 1: grow in the high single digits. So the credit story
Speaker 1: isn't as favorable. But the biggest thing is productivity. Companies
Speaker 1: government haven't been investing in people and in stuff. The
Speaker 1: sources of productivities are three. It's people human capital skills
Speaker 1: that people bring to the table. Secondly, it's stuff it's plants, equipment, software, infrastructure.
Speaker 1: And third to total factor productivity. They call it how
Speaker 1: it all gets used? How do we use this stuff
Speaker 1: and people's skills in The data shows that the middle part,
Speaker 1: capital intensity it is called the stuff part, has declined
Speaker 1: on a year of year basis for the first time
Speaker 1: in over sixty years. In other words, companies have fewer
Speaker 1: things in place per unit of labor and the nation
Speaker 1: as a holder. So a company of five years ago
Speaker 1: that had one hundred employees and fifty computers today may
Speaker 1: have based on these data, first decline in over sixty years,
Speaker 1: a hundred people and forty eight computers, fewer things in
Speaker 1: place per unit of labor and so markets to the
Speaker 1: boer market saying that until these things, until that changes,
Speaker 1: it can't overwhelm these other headwinds. And so why not
Speaker 1: then pricing at lower than historical federal funds rate policy
Speaker 1: rate for the Fed and markets the price for Mike
Speaker 1: you said, they looked at the dot plot and o
Speaker 1: I S as it's called, the market the price for
Speaker 1: a two percent policy rate in the year historically the
Speaker 1: neutral rate where the it's neither pressing on the games
Speaker 1: of the brakes is four and a quarters as well,
Speaker 1: below normal for neutral rate. It's not even a tight rate.
Speaker 1: Remember the Fed raised the funds rate to five and
Speaker 1: a quarter the last time around, and when it raised
Speaker 1: rates from two thousand four two thousand and six. Is
Speaker 1: this is a very subdued picture on growth in the
Speaker 1: bond market. So when you think, take a look at
Speaker 1: the bond market and west price for a few years,
Speaker 1: hence Tony, if you look at the spread, for example,
Speaker 1: between let's say the tenure bund and treasury yields, right,
Speaker 1: so that spread has peaked for the moment, I think
Speaker 1: it wind in. I'm looking December to a record two
Speaker 1: thirty five basis points can that spread become bigger next year?
Speaker 1: It could widen, but we wouldn't expect to widen by much.
Speaker 1: And it much depends on the viewpoint on US growth
Speaker 1: and whether the view on the path for rates in
Speaker 1: the United States changes, And it depends in part on
Speaker 1: the toughness that the Fed shows towards inflation. When the
Speaker 1: sphere in the streets of the bondmark, the bond market
Speaker 1: needs a cop on the beat, and that cop on
Speaker 1: the beat is Janet yelling and the Fed. Otherwise bondmarket
Speaker 1: vigilantes emerge, which is to say, bond investors take matches
Speaker 1: into their own hands and tighten policy for the FED
Speaker 1: by raising rates higher than otherwise. So the Fed is
Speaker 1: vigilant in seventeen and addresses the inflation fears developing in
Speaker 1: the bond market. That will limit the spread between US
Speaker 1: yields and foreign yields. And the Feed is tough on inflation.
Speaker 1: If it keeps controls the view on the path for
Speaker 1: rates the destination point, which is that two percent level
Speaker 1: for twenty, then uh, the spread will be kept low.
Speaker 1: And remember, investors globally, we know this. PIMCO has offices
Speaker 1: thirteen countries visited many of them UM investors. They are
Speaker 1: very very keen and interested in and buying bonds that
Speaker 1: are harder yielding than those in their country, and so
Speaker 1: UH investors in Japan and Europe will be looking to
Speaker 1: the n s to invest tire if yields spreads widen.
Speaker 1: And one final point for the Japanese investor yields at
Speaker 1: the start of the year switching from a tenure j
Speaker 1: GB Japanese government on to the tenure treasury UH that
Speaker 1: they pick up was about a hundred basis points after
Speaker 1: including hedging costs to the Japanese investor to hedge there
Speaker 1: yen back into the dollars they buy back into the end.
Speaker 1: It went to zero in the summer, is probably the
Speaker 1: reason why US treasure yields arose. But now it's back
Speaker 1: up to about eight nine basis points, so they can
Speaker 1: pick up additional incremental yield now and so it's probably
Speaker 1: the reason for the stability and yields after the big
Speaker 1: jump in yields recently, is that the yields after hedging
Speaker 1: costs are considered for foreign investors look better, and so
Speaker 1: we see we're seeing again their interests develop. What happens
Speaker 1: for the corporate market in two thousand seventeen, with the
Speaker 1: rates rising UH, we're going to see borrowers step back.
Speaker 1: You correct, my in fact key factor we consider in
Speaker 1: UH the outlook for corporate bonds. These technical factors, and
Speaker 1: because yields have increased, and because companies had been expecting
Speaker 1: the possibility of a yield increase UH and took advantage
Speaker 1: of it by barring more heavily in twenty than they
Speaker 1: otherwise would have. This means the amount of supply of
Speaker 1: corporate bonds in may decline relative to in terms of
Speaker 1: new issuance. A technical factor will be very beneficial to
Speaker 1: a corporate bond market that is of keen interest to
Speaker 1: foreign investors, and so it's one reason to stay optimistic
Speaker 1: about credit and be overweight on credit in SEN is
Speaker 1: this technical force and will remain a technical technical force
Speaker 1: as yields mars. One other point in the high yield
Speaker 1: bond market, very very few bonds mature. It's a very
Speaker 1: positive technical In the next three years, under ten percent
Speaker 1: of the entire universe of how yield bonds mature because
Speaker 1: many companies have turned out the debt pushed the debt
Speaker 1: will maturity far out into about and so that's a
Speaker 1: positive technical that makes short dated how yield very attractive. Tony,
Speaker 1: Is there something so we talk a lot about creating jobs,
Speaker 1: reflating spending on infrastructure, is there anything that President leg
Speaker 1: Donald Trump can do to actually make the US more
Speaker 1: productive or at least, you know, try and fix that
Speaker 1: productivity puzzle. Yes, for one, encouraged give provide incentives to
Speaker 1: companies to invest in capital equipment that over the long
Speaker 1: run will mean more output per hour. But secondly, the
Speaker 1: spending that the u. S engages in directly rather than
Speaker 1: through private sources is going to be need be of
Speaker 1: high quality. So investors should focus on not just the
Speaker 1: quantity of money that is set to be spent on infrastructure,
Speaker 1: about the quality. In two thousand nine, fifty billion was
Speaker 1: spent on infrastructure in the American carvering the Investment Act.
Speaker 1: It was felt that it was of low quality when
Speaker 1: toward making roads a nicer but didn't really provide for
Speaker 1: more output. And also money was that was spent states
Speaker 1: would otherwise have spent, so it was merely a was
Speaker 1: a substitution effect there, And so the it's a very
Speaker 1: big challenge for the Trump administration to produce high quality spending.
Speaker 1: Someone is going to have to watch over how the
Speaker 1: money is spent rather than how much. And that's the
Speaker 1: key to the outlook for productivity and growth and even
Speaker 1: interest rates U in the future. Tony Kristenzi, thanks for
Speaker 1: stopping in this morning. I know you're here to get
Speaker 1: some good Brooklyn pizza. Hope you are able to do
Speaker 1: that your travels. This is Bloomberg Surveillance on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust in independent registered investment advisors to the tune
Speaker 1: of four trillion dollars. Why they see their role is
Speaker 1: to serve, not sell. That's why Charles Schwab is committed
Speaker 1: to the success of over seven thousand independent financial advisors
Speaker 1: who passionately dedicate themselves to helping people achieve their financial goals.
Speaker 1: Learn more and find your independent advisor dot com. All right,
Speaker 1: and now onto the tweet, because we're always on tweet.
Speaker 1: Watch right, Mike, especially when it comes to the President electness.
Speaker 1: This is his latest one. He talks about Princed Obama.
Speaker 1: This is after I guess it started on Sunday. It
Speaker 1: was a Sunday Mike where President Obama was talking about
Speaker 1: the fact that that had he been running instead of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, he probably would have won. Again, I went
Speaker 1: back and listened to the interview twice. It was actually
Speaker 1: more thoughtful than a lot of the media portrayed it
Speaker 1: to me. Anyways, the latest Donald Trump tweet says this.
Speaker 1: It was posted a couple of minutes ago. He says,
Speaker 1: doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory president oh
Speaker 1: so President Obama's statements and roadblocks. I thought it was
Speaker 1: going to be a smooth transition. Not that's in capital letters,
Speaker 1: exclamation mark this again. My concern in this, Mike is
Speaker 1: that this does not seem like a president that is
Speaker 1: trying to unify the country. Right. We were talking to
Speaker 1: a guest a little bit earlier on saying we should
Speaker 1: ignore wall Street, should not take too much notice of
Speaker 1: his tweets. But he is someone that has to at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, govern um and govern well
Speaker 1: many different political factions, and he seems at the moment
Speaker 1: a little bit thin skinned. A little bit he seems
Speaker 1: rather thin skinned, and he continues tweets. Another one coming
Speaker 1: out now complaining about the president and his abstention on
Speaker 1: the Israel U n vote the other day. So Um,
Speaker 1: you want to follow the president elect, you gotta get
Speaker 1: yourself a Twitter account. I guess one of the things
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has made very clear is that he
Speaker 1: thinks the U. S. Intelligence community is not worth dealing with.
Speaker 1: He doesn't want the presidential briefings, and he says he
Speaker 1: does not trust the c i A, the d i A,
Speaker 1: and the other elements of our national security um and
Speaker 1: national intelligence operations. John Nixon is a former CIA senior
Speaker 1: analyst who says, uh that maybe Mr Trump has a point.
Speaker 1: He's written a new book called Debriefing the President The
Speaker 1: Interrogation of Saddam Hussein. Mr Nixon was basically the CIA's
Speaker 1: Hussein expert, and when they captured the man, he sent
Speaker 1: him in to interrogate him, and he found that much
Speaker 1: of what the agency was telling the President of the
Speaker 1: United States was wrong. Welcome to surveillance, Mr Nixon. Um,
Speaker 1: you describe that does not do a particularly good job,
Speaker 1: or at least did not around that issue. Yes, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, working on a rock, we were constrained by
Speaker 1: sometimes we're having very bad sources of information. Overall, we
Speaker 1: understood the sort of general arc of Saddam's career in
Speaker 1: his life and what he had done. But there were
Speaker 1: many of the sort of granular details that we were
Speaker 1: in a dark about and uh, it was pretty shopping
Speaker 1: when I started to be briefed him to learn some
Speaker 1: of these. Do you think John, this has changed. Has
Speaker 1: it changed? Has either the the you know, the operatives
Speaker 1: or the way that communication between CIA and the president changed? Well? Um, Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I would say no. I think that there are still
Speaker 1: problems in terms of analysis and in collection, and some
Speaker 1: of it is not the CIA's fault. For example, you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't have a doesn't in a country, it's
Speaker 1: very hard to get information sometimes and information that's good
Speaker 1: and reliable. So that's one thing. Um. One of the
Speaker 1: things that is the CIA is balled is sometimes it's
Speaker 1: an analysis it's very watered down and because especially in
Speaker 1: the last ten years, I mean, the CIA has been
Speaker 1: like a pinata for policy makers to kind of take
Speaker 1: wax that and you know, uh, it just sort of
Speaker 1: at that point to sort of hunkers down and takes
Speaker 1: the blows. But the the the analysis itself gets kind
Speaker 1: of watered down and is not that good because the
Speaker 1: CIA doesn't want to be you know, a blame for
Speaker 1: making mistakes. Um. In fairness, I will say this intelligence
Speaker 1: is not something that is a hundred hundred percent right
Speaker 1: all the time. And contrary to popular opinion, we don't
Speaker 1: have a scene uh uh crystal ball in the basement.
Speaker 1: But you know, we can often give policymakers a fairly
Speaker 1: good range of what might happen in what they can
Speaker 1: expect um. And sometimes it's policy maker problems that really
Speaker 1: are at fault because they do think that somehow, you know,
Speaker 1: we can critic the future. John Dixon was a senior
Speaker 1: leadership analyst with the CIA from two thousand and eleven,
Speaker 1: regularly wrote for and briefed the most senior levels of
Speaker 1: US government. He's written a book about his experience in
Speaker 1: Iraq debriefing the President, the Interrogation of saddahm Lussein, in
Speaker 1: which he is critical of the CIA's efforts to understand
Speaker 1: what is going on in Iraq, although you are not
Speaker 1: a wholesale critic of the agency, as we were just
Speaker 1: talking about. So I'm wondering, uh, from what we never
Speaker 1: quite know what the president elect is thinking, but from
Speaker 1: what he has tweeted and said, Um, do you think
Speaker 1: his distrust, dislike and disinterest in uh, the intelligence community
Speaker 1: is justified. Uh No, I think that. I think that
Speaker 1: it's very I'm very disturbed that there is this clash
Speaker 1: that appears to be happening between the president elect and
Speaker 1: the c I A. UM. The irony here is that
Speaker 1: both sides need each other. The president is going to
Speaker 1: need good information in order to make decisions, and the
Speaker 1: CIA needs to have the President's trust and backing in
Speaker 1: carrying out its mission. Uh. And if a wall is
Speaker 1: brit And I hate to use this metaphor for obvious reasons,
Speaker 1: but if a wall comes up between the president and
Speaker 1: his intelligence community, that will that will just the only
Speaker 1: people that will benefit from that our enemies, and that's
Speaker 1: what they really would like to see happening. Um. The
Speaker 1: thing is, the intelligence community really can for someone like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, who doesn't have a steep background in foreign affairs. Um,
Speaker 1: the intelligence community actually can help him in terms of
Speaker 1: getting up to speed and understanding some of the issues
Speaker 1: that will confront him in the next four years. And
Speaker 1: I get nervous when I hear him say things like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a smart guy and I already know things,
Speaker 1: and I'll just you know, if I need to hear
Speaker 1: from them, I'll ask them, Um, you really need to
Speaker 1: be engaged in in and you get your briefing every
Speaker 1: day so that you can understand what's going on. It's
Speaker 1: a very complex world out there, and if you just
Speaker 1: jump into something when it's at a crisis point, you're
Speaker 1: you're probably not going to come up and make the
Speaker 1: right decision. You know. If I can sort of come
Speaker 1: back to the book, that's sort of the way that
Speaker 1: I'm Hussein operated in his government. He didn't have regular briefings.
Speaker 1: He didn't he didn't have an intelligence community that was
Speaker 1: gaily serving his needs. Um. And a lot of times
Speaker 1: he when he asked a quid, when he did ask
Speaker 1: the questions, he would get back the answer that they
Speaker 1: thought he'd wanted to hear. And you know, he made
Speaker 1: a series of bad mistakes, chief among them the invasion
Speaker 1: of Kuwait in and you know something, Um, I I
Speaker 1: think if don Trump wants to avoid derailing his presidency,
Speaker 1: he really should try to develop a relationship for the
Speaker 1: intelligence community. John, congratulations on your book. It's a great
Speaker 1: book and also an extremely important book because of what
Speaker 1: we're talking about with the president like Donald Trump. But
Speaker 1: actually in your book, right, you're right that the agency,
Speaker 1: no matter who the president is, will almost want to
Speaker 1: give him the answer that he wants to hear. So, actually,
Speaker 1: with the dysfunctional or the fact that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: now calling the agency dysfunctional, do you not see any
Speaker 1: hope that that this gets severed that actually we find
Speaker 1: a much more stable and fruitful working relationship between the president,
Speaker 1: any president, and the CIA. That's a that's a very
Speaker 1: good question. Um, I'm hopeful that somehow they'll Right now,
Speaker 1: right now, the CIA is trying to probably is probably
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how best that the conservative needs uh.
Speaker 1: And you know, there are things that he has said
Speaker 1: that maybe might be able to they might be able
Speaker 1: to sort of get themselves in the door with him,
Speaker 1: which is you know, he said he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: read the same thing every day. Okay, well that's one indication.
Speaker 1: So they might not give him the same they might
Speaker 1: not give him the same topic every day. And they
Speaker 1: also know that he wants to look at he likes Twitter,
Speaker 1: and he probably likes his information these small little tweet
Speaker 1: like messages. That's unfortunate, but you know that might be
Speaker 1: another way to kind of communicate with him. Um, it
Speaker 1: still remains to be seeing how this gets worked out. Um.
Speaker 1: But for all of its shortcomings, and you know, the
Speaker 1: CIA has many short tunnels, and I chronicle some of
Speaker 1: them in the book. But the thing is, you know,
Speaker 1: you can't try that. You can't say to yourself, Okay,
Speaker 1: I know what Iron is doing, I know what the
Speaker 1: supremeter is up to. If you're not getting some so
Speaker 1: if you don't have some sort of grounding in the
Speaker 1: intelligence and some sort of grounding in the context in
Speaker 1: the history of what has happened before, Because if you
Speaker 1: don't do that and you say I'm going to make
Speaker 1: decisions a based on because I'm a smart guy, it's
Speaker 1: going to be a disaster, you know. And and really,
Speaker 1: can this country afford many more fiascos like a rock
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think so. Very interesting story in
Speaker 1: the Washington Post yesterday written by a former colleague of yours,
Speaker 1: Stephen Hall, of former CIA official, why the CIA won't
Speaker 1: want to go public with its evidence of Russia's hacking.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have these committees investigating at least maybe even
Speaker 1: want just one supercommittee investigating the hacking thing. Um. Mr
Speaker 1: Hall makes case that you know, any kind of any
Speaker 1: time you give out information, you risk giving out sources
Speaker 1: and methods, and sometimes the cost of doing that is
Speaker 1: uh much greater than the benefit you gain from making
Speaker 1: the information public. So do you think we get anywhere
Speaker 1: with this Russian hacking investigation anywhere that would satisfy the
Speaker 1: American people, the people who believe Donald Trump when he
Speaker 1: says it didn't happen. Uh, Can they be convinced without
Speaker 1: giving up sources and methods. Well, I think there's a
Speaker 1: way to do that, and I think the Obama administration
Speaker 1: was correct in wanting to ask passing the intelligence community
Speaker 1: to look into this. Where I think the problem is
Speaker 1: is that all of a sudden, it gets leaked to
Speaker 1: the media before any conclusions are drawn. And then once it,
Speaker 1: once it's sort of into the public realm, then it
Speaker 1: becomes politicized, that it becomes sort of a football, that
Speaker 1: it gets kicked around by commentators and politicians and what
Speaker 1: have you, and your chances of really getting at the
Speaker 1: truth at that point become very small. And I think
Speaker 1: that that's a bad thing. The politicization of intelligence has
Speaker 1: done more, I think, to harm our foreign policy than
Speaker 1: than anything in the last decade. Um. You know, because
Speaker 1: you know, we the CIA really should just be this
Speaker 1: institution that just comes to the president and says, here
Speaker 1: are the facts, this is what we know, this is
Speaker 1: what we think we know, and this is what we
Speaker 1: don't know. Um. But now it's sort of like you
Speaker 1: get this brow beating from the Oval Office, and then
Speaker 1: you know, the CIA gets under pressure to kind of
Speaker 1: give the give the boss what he wants, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's something that's snowballs and it has a
Speaker 1: very pernicious effect on our government and the conduct of
Speaker 1: our own police. John Nixon, former CIA senior analyst, author
Speaker 1: of the new book Debriefing the President the Interrogation of
Speaker 1: Saddam Hussein, and I think fran it's very obvious that
Speaker 1: what happens within the intelligence community is going to be
Speaker 1: front and center in the Trump administration. Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: actually fascinating, and it was great having John Nixon on.
Speaker 1: We I wonder how much of this actually will find
Speaker 1: out right, because the CIA is always a secretive I
Speaker 1: wonder whether Donald Trump will maybe give us more of
Speaker 1: a glimpse than previous presidents. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm out on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Tom Keene. David Gura is at David Gura. Before
Speaker 1: the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Who you put your trust in matters. Investors have put
Speaker 1: their trust in independent registered investment advisors to the tune
Speaker 1: of four trillion dollars. Why learn more and find your
Speaker 1: independent advisor dot com