Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jay Ley.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. This
Speaker 1: is a true joy. Gideon Rose has been wonderful to
Speaker 1: stop buying a monthly basis to flog his issue of
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs at magazine. It's a jewel, this one. I
Speaker 1: hate him because the books in the back, like including
Speaker 1: a one volume on chopin what is the music book?
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs again does it well with thoughtful reading, including
Speaker 1: essays by Secretary Pom Pale and also by the former
Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary of the United States, Jacob Blue. We're thrilled
Speaker 1: to Jack, Lou and Gideon Rose could be with us
Speaker 1: together this morning. Gentlemen, this is just a joy to
Speaker 1: have you here, particularly with the news flow. I've to
Speaker 1: ask you an ugly question. I don't want to ask you,
Speaker 1: but I want to go first to you. Gideon. You've
Speaker 1: got a beautiful essay in this new issue on authoritarianism
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. Give us your thoughts on the
Speaker 1: new Saudi Arabia. Well, so uh, in many respects, this
Speaker 1: is not exactly shocking. Um. The Saudi regime does not
Speaker 1: take distance lightly and they have gone after their internal
Speaker 1: critics in many respects in the past when and in fact,
Speaker 1: many regimes have done this in an unsavory way over
Speaker 1: the years. When Napoleon did something similar and got criticized
Speaker 1: for it, his foreign minister Talleyrand famously said it was
Speaker 1: worse than a crime, it was a blunder because it
Speaker 1: made everybody upset. And so what the Saudis have done
Speaker 1: with Kashogi was not just a crime but also a
Speaker 1: blunder because by doing so so gratuitously and obviously they've
Speaker 1: made everybody upset. And the reality is this crisis will
Speaker 1: blow over. No one's going to actually break relations with
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabi be over this. And so the question now
Speaker 1: is not really getting to the bottom of it, but
Speaker 1: getting past it for the diplomats and how that happens
Speaker 1: will be an interesting story about diploma for the diplomats.
Speaker 1: Mr Secretaries, Secretary minution attend this conference in Saudi Arabia. Look,
Speaker 1: the story is coming out of Istanbul or nothing short
Speaker 1: of horrific and Um, the idea that journalist could be
Speaker 1: murdered for reporting offends our most basic values. I've made
Speaker 1: it my business to refrain from publicly advising my successor.
Speaker 1: I appreciated it when my predecessors offered me private advice.
Speaker 1: But I can say that when I was Secretary and
Speaker 1: we had to make a decision about whether American business
Speaker 1: people should attend a conference in Russia, business conference in
Speaker 1: Russia while Russia was occupying Crimea and moving in in
Speaker 1: the eastern Ukraine, I advised them not to go. All right,
Speaker 1: But um, you know, Mr jacklu, how does it affect
Speaker 1: for relations between the US and Saudi Arabia? So away
Speaker 1: from the from the conference which is immediate, which is
Speaker 1: next week, Um, what kind of advice would you have
Speaker 1: taken on on the next step for the US and
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. Look, I think that the issue is a
Speaker 1: very serious one. It has to be engaged directly. There's
Speaker 1: a need to understand, in a kind of murky situation,
Speaker 1: what the facts on the ground are. Um. I think
Speaker 1: it's taken too long to get to a clear explanation
Speaker 1: of what happened, and the swirling stories that we hear
Speaker 1: only make it worse. Um, the conversations that have been
Speaker 1: going on between Secretary Pompeo and the leaders in Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia hopefully will provide some more clear understanding. UM, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that we'll ever understand exactly what happened, and
Speaker 1: they're just going to need to be a recognition that
Speaker 1: this kind of behavior is unacceptable. You know, the United
Speaker 1: States has complicated relationships all for the world, but it
Speaker 1: also has align that it draws in terms of what
Speaker 1: core values are and I think that that's this is
Speaker 1: a situation that requires an articulation of those issues. Well,
Speaker 1: should it actually hurt business? Again, this is the very
Speaker 1: complicated question, Mr Leeu, of how to deal with allies
Speaker 1: that could have, you know, questionable morals. So look, you know,
Speaker 1: the the idea of using economic sanctions is actually what
Speaker 1: I wrote in the current Issue of Foreign Affairs about
Speaker 1: I believe that using economic power economic leadership is an
Speaker 1: appropriate use of power and a powerful tool. The question
Speaker 1: is how you do it. Um, you have the opportunity
Speaker 1: to inflict pain, but the goal of using economic pressure
Speaker 1: is not just to cause pain. It's a change of policies.
Speaker 1: You have to articulate what the new policy is how
Speaker 1: economic pressure would be used to accomplish that, and you
Speaker 1: have to do it in a way where the United
Speaker 1: States hopefully is working as part of the world community.
Speaker 1: I'm not addressing the facts right here, but as a
Speaker 1: general model, saying you can power requires some care and
Speaker 1: skill give you. And I notice how the Secretary diplomatically
Speaker 1: began his essay with the walk through of our history
Speaker 1: of American sanctions and waited for the crushing criticisms of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration until the end. Let's bring up the
Speaker 1: quote right now here from Secretary lou in Gideon Rose's
Speaker 1: new Foreign Affairs and magazine, the president's administration is behavior,
Speaker 1: behaving as if the United States is immune to consequences.
Speaker 1: He goes on to say bellicost unilateral actions, and then
Speaker 1: he shifts it will fall to Congress and honest reckoning
Speaker 1: on the part of US polly policy makers with the
Speaker 1: limits of American power, Gideon Rose, can Congress come to
Speaker 1: a diplomatic rescue or is that's so nineteenth century? I mean,
Speaker 1: Congress has lots of power and at some points in
Speaker 1: the past has played an important role in American foreign policy.
Speaker 1: They're not really doing so now. I think many of
Speaker 1: us would like them to do so now, but end well,
Speaker 1: it's a quite The people in Washington can do anything
Speaker 1: if they actually choose to. Right now, we seem to
Speaker 1: be in a sort of partisan spitfighting spending contest that
Speaker 1: prevents Congress from playing any kind of significant role in
Speaker 1: foreign policy or domestic Well, I'm gonna use the word pragmatic.
Speaker 1: This is what you do when Jack lou works with
Speaker 1: Joe Mowkley and Tip O'Neil up in Massachusetts from another
Speaker 1: time ago. There's got to be a pragmatic view coming
Speaker 1: out of these mid term elections towards if we're not
Speaker 1: going to go to multilateral, we're going to go to
Speaker 1: some new lateral What would you like to see? Whatever
Speaker 1: the form of Congress in senateive is. To be clear,
Speaker 1: I think the United States should work multilaterally whenever we can,
Speaker 1: reserving the right to act unilaterally when we need to.
Speaker 1: The question is, um, do we go around the world
Speaker 1: as we are right now with our tariffs, acting in
Speaker 1: a way that violates norms that we helped to define?
Speaker 1: Do we do things like withdrawing from the Iran Deal,
Speaker 1: leaving all of our allies in Europe and Japan with
Speaker 1: with countries like China and Russia. They cooperated with US
Speaker 1: rejecting to what we're doing. And that's going to happen
Speaker 1: in a few days when the new secondary sanctions kick
Speaker 1: in because the United States withdrew and does that increase
Speaker 1: or decrease American influence. The argument that I make in
Speaker 1: the article is that this is a powerful tool that
Speaker 1: you need to treat as a tool of some limitation.
Speaker 1: Where does it come from. It comes from the centrality
Speaker 1: of the dollars, the world's reserve currency, and the primacy
Speaker 1: of the United States. It's not a good thing when
Speaker 1: you see countries in Europe working with China to develop
Speaker 1: alternative payment systems in order to get around the dollar.
Speaker 1: This won't happen overnight. This is not a question of
Speaker 1: the ATTORNI switch and does the world move away from
Speaker 1: the dollar. It's a decades long process. I think it's
Speaker 1: profoundly against US national security interest to accelerate that process.
Speaker 1: And I think the unilateralism, the the you know, the
Speaker 1: I think not careful unilateralism is driving that process to
Speaker 1: speed up. Reserving the right tower is different than using
Speaker 1: it on every issue. Aren't these just acting on campaign promises.
Speaker 1: A lot of people won't expect the president and his
Speaker 1: administration to follow through, but this is what they promised
Speaker 1: when the people voted for them. Well, I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, we all have to live and should live
Speaker 1: with campaign promises because when you're elected, it is a
Speaker 1: contract with the people. UM. I think how you exercise
Speaker 1: that power has to reflect the facts on the ground
Speaker 1: and strategic questions about how do you preserve us influence.
Speaker 1: I think that diminishing US power over the long term
Speaker 1: is a very serious consequence, and I think it's something
Speaker 1: that the Embarkan people don't want us to do. UM.
Speaker 1: These are questions that require careful thought, careful analysis. You know,
Speaker 1: Tom asked, can Congress come to the rescue? Congress is
Speaker 1: traditionally pushed administrations, where administrations have restrained Congress. The idea
Speaker 1: that that kind of leadership comes from Congress is a
Speaker 1: bit backwards. We're not seeing the kind of careful leadership
Speaker 1: that we've seen frankly in Republican and democratic administrations in
Speaker 1: the past, Which does not mean you don't use the levels,
Speaker 1: but you have to use them carefully. But but if
Speaker 1: you if what you say is true, Secretary Lucian, the
Speaker 1: Republican Party not hold the Trump administration into account if
Speaker 1: they're actually diminishing over the longer term the power of
Speaker 1: the US. Look I I can't speak for the Republican Party, UM,
Speaker 1: but I know that over my decades in public life, UM,
Speaker 1: there used to be a core and the Republican Party
Speaker 1: that believed deeply in free trade, that thought that it
Speaker 1: enhanced American influence and grew the economy. We now see
Speaker 1: a Congress that's willing to step back when an administration
Speaker 1: puts in place things like steel and aluminum tariffs on
Speaker 1: our closest allies, which is an attack in some ways
Speaker 1: on the core principles of the Atlantic Alliance. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense in terms of our long term national security.
Speaker 1: We could keep this discussion going all day. We'll try
Speaker 1: to do that with Secretary Louis welcome all of you
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Television and radio worldwide with Jeck Lou and
Speaker 1: Gideon Rose and celebration of a new Foreign affairs magazine.
Speaker 1: You have the Secretary State occupied in Riod with your
Speaker 1: lead article on Iran, and I love his subhead Iran Exposed.
Speaker 1: But as you listen to Secretary lou Gideon Rose. Is
Speaker 1: it America exposed? Is that the real distinction here? I
Speaker 1: think the challenge is exactly the Secretary he was saying
Speaker 1: that you have to pick your fights. You can't fight
Speaker 1: with everybody on everything. The United States is far and
Speaker 1: away the most powerful player in the world, not just
Speaker 1: in the security but also in the economics fear. We
Speaker 1: can deploy that leverage for our interests and our values,
Speaker 1: but we can't do everything, and so you have to
Speaker 1: pick and choose which fights you on. And the problem
Speaker 1: with this administration, or one of the problems with the
Speaker 1: tradition for me, is that they keep fighting with everybody,
Speaker 1: allies and enemies, Iran and China and Russia, and were
Speaker 1: not Russia, Russia the only person they don't fight with,
Speaker 1: but essentially everybody else. And that diminishes your leverage. And
Speaker 1: at some point people wonder, is this guy really somebody
Speaker 1: we want to play with? Or should we just go
Speaker 1: and organize a game by ourselves without the United States.
Speaker 1: That's the danger down the road within our economics statecraft,
Speaker 1: Mr Secretary, is the idea of our new debt, in
Speaker 1: our new deficit. Congressional budget Office driving for this convert sation.
Speaker 1: We have a Reinehart and Reinhardt not right off and
Speaker 1: rogue golf Carmen Reinhardt Vincent Reinhart writing on where we
Speaker 1: are ten years on in this new edition of Foreign Affairs.
Speaker 1: But it comes down to a debt. Your thoughts on
Speaker 1: a debt growing easily out over a trillion And we
Speaker 1: have one guest who is suggested, with economic slowdown, we
Speaker 1: could begin to look at a crisis near two trillion
Speaker 1: dollar deficit. You know, I I think the growth of
Speaker 1: the deficit over a period of strong economic growth is
Speaker 1: very troubling. Usually you deficits go up when you're in
Speaker 1: a recession or when you're in a war. We don't
Speaker 1: usually drive the deficit out of control when we're in
Speaker 1: a period of sustained high growth. I have a number
Speaker 1: of concerns. First of all, our borrowing requirements will keep growing.
Speaker 1: That means that, you know, for all the focus on
Speaker 1: the trade deficit, when you have a fiscal deficit, you're
Speaker 1: borrowing money from overseas, You're driving up the trade deficit.
Speaker 1: That's going to have a powerful negative impact on our
Speaker 1: trade balances. Secondly, it has an effect on interest rates.
Speaker 1: It drives up, not just treasury rates, but all rates
Speaker 1: in the economy. You know. Third, we need to have
Speaker 1: fiscal capacity when the economy needs it. We're in the
Speaker 1: tenth year of a recovery. We're not going to grow forever.
Speaker 1: Whether it's six months, a year or two MutS from now,
Speaker 1: we're going to wish we had more fiscal s Your charm,
Speaker 1: he has a limited charm. As you worked in the
Speaker 1: legislative branch for years and then in the executive branch,
Speaker 1: many of you won't know that secretary who will also
Speaker 1: served in state for a while. Your charm, as you
Speaker 1: understand the addictions of Washington is debt is a growing deficit.
Speaker 1: Does it become an addictive process for the Beltway? I
Speaker 1: think right now you have an unusual situation. There is
Speaker 1: no loud chorus for fiscal responsibility. Fiscal conservatives voted for
Speaker 1: a tax cut that costs two trillion dollars over ten
Speaker 1: years and blew a hole in any plan for fiscal balance.
Speaker 1: Progressives are saying, you know, to democratic administrations in a
Speaker 1: row were fiscally responsible and what did they do? They
Speaker 1: were followed by Republican administrations that spent more than we
Speaker 1: had on tax cuts. I'm worried that putting together any
Speaker 1: coalition to care about fiscal responsibility is much harder. And
Speaker 1: I would point out fancy that the chairman's Gideon Rose
Speaker 1: is the Peterson, the Pete Peterson chair at the Council unformulations,
Speaker 1: with his deficit UH knowledge over the years. Francy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I like them to talk about charm Tom, but I
Speaker 1: really want to talk about is actually dullar as a
Speaker 1: reserve of currency? Secretary leew And. This is something that
Speaker 1: you alluded when we started off the conversation. Why why
Speaker 1: does it not actually really lose its appeal in less
Speaker 1: than ten years if the US continues going the way
Speaker 1: it is. Look at the moment, I don't see an
Speaker 1: alternative out there. There were times when people thought that
Speaker 1: either the euro or the yen or the R and
Speaker 1: B would emerge as a near term alternative. UM. I
Speaker 1: think if you look over the next five or ten years,
Speaker 1: it is hard to imagine that it's going to be
Speaker 1: a process that's that quick. I'm being very careful when
Speaker 1: I say this is a multi decade process. Um. The
Speaker 1: special position the United States has in the world, because
Speaker 1: the dollar is the world reserve currency, is one of
Speaker 1: the reasons we have the ability to have the deepest
Speaker 1: and most liquid bond markets in the world. It's it's
Speaker 1: the reason we can exercise the sanctions authority that we exercise.
Speaker 1: It's an enormous consequence to the United States to maintain that.
Speaker 1: I think if you just turn the speed up on
Speaker 1: a movement away, it is against the national interest. So
Speaker 1: I'm not sitting here predicting it's going to be in
Speaker 1: the next five or ten years. And and I I
Speaker 1: think if there were an alternative, I might be in
Speaker 1: a position where I would be more concerned about it
Speaker 1: being quicker. I think it's pretty scary if you take
Speaker 1: what could be a fifty year process and you accelerated
Speaker 1: by ten or fifteen or twenty years. But does China
Speaker 1: want to be that China fill that vacuum. I think
Speaker 1: at the moment, you know, China wants to have it
Speaker 1: both ways. They want to be taken very seriously as
Speaker 1: one of the two major economies of the world. They
Speaker 1: wanted their currency, the R and B, to be accepted
Speaker 1: by the I m F into the Special Drawing Rights basket. Uh.
Speaker 1: They don't really want their currency to be fully convertible
Speaker 1: and subject to all market pressures the way a world
Speaker 1: reserve currency would have to be. Um. Do they want
Speaker 1: that in the long term? Possibly? What I do think
Speaker 1: is that there are conversations between Chinese and Europeans looking
Speaker 1: at ways to develop alternatives to you know, settling in
Speaker 1: dollars and going through things like swift. What we're gonna
Speaker 1: do is one final question with Secretary Low and then
Speaker 1: we'll move forward with Gideon Rows on Foreign Affairs Magazine.
Speaker 1: Some interesting themes they are, particularly on nuclear warfare. Mr Secretary,
Speaker 1: your Democratic Party was distracted over the last twenty four
Speaker 1: hours of the DNA out to one one thousand and
Speaker 1: twenty four of whatever this silly DNA debate is. How
Speaker 1: does your party get back to Mokeley and Tip O'Neill.
Speaker 1: It's that simple. How do we get back to what
Speaker 1: you lived a number of decades ago? You know, Tom,
Speaker 1: I hear a lot of discussion about where where is
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party going? Um. I think in a few
Speaker 1: weeks on election day, we're going to see whether or
Speaker 1: not Democrats win a majority in the House. The arithmetic
Speaker 1: to me is pretty straightforward. If we went back a
Speaker 1: majority will be because we picked up some centrist seats,
Speaker 1: some switchovers from Republican to Democratic seats, and you're going
Speaker 1: to see a group of new faces, new moderates come
Speaker 1: to Washington. This is not a moment where I expect
Speaker 1: broad bypartisan revival, but I think it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: breath of fresh air if we see some faces that
Speaker 1: are looking at how do we get things done, how
Speaker 1: do we solve problems? And that's going to start to
Speaker 1: become part of the debate about where is the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party going? Mr Secretary, congratulations on your article and Warn Affairs.
Speaker 1: Uh this morning Gideon Rose with us in celebration of
Speaker 1: a new issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. It's got a
Speaker 1: real focus on a new thinking about nuclear But the
Speaker 1: real headline, Gideon Rose, is you go all cabinet on
Speaker 1: us with an essay by Secretary of Pompeio distracted right
Speaker 1: now in read and the attendance this morning of the
Speaker 1: Secretary Treasury Jack Lou with you as well with Bloomberg Surveillance.
Speaker 1: Let's start with Jack Lou. What did he tell you
Speaker 1: in Foreign Affairs? The great ability to have wise men
Speaker 1: and women like that to come in and sort of
Speaker 1: help us get some perspective on events is really one
Speaker 1: of the pleasures of the job. Um. So one of
Speaker 1: the things that that Secretary lou is so concerned about
Speaker 1: is the way that we are abusing The United States
Speaker 1: is abusing its privileges as the most important dominant nation
Speaker 1: in the global economy. And the question of we have
Speaker 1: the leverage to use our financial power to extract things
Speaker 1: from others, to enforce norms, to uh get things we want,
Speaker 1: but we can't do it recklessly, and if we do
Speaker 1: it too much, then other countries basically start to question
Speaker 1: whether they want to be part of a system that
Speaker 1: we are helping to run. And the real question here
Speaker 1: is the United States has basically engaged in a bargain
Speaker 1: with the world in which we have our economic power
Speaker 1: and our security power, and we use it relatively restrained
Speaker 1: lee on behalf not just of our own national interests,
Speaker 1: but of the system stability as a whole. And the
Speaker 1: question now is are we actually going to continue that
Speaker 1: kind of policy or are we going to simply be
Speaker 1: using our power just for us? And if we do
Speaker 1: it just for us, at some point will others say
Speaker 1: this is not a game we want to keep playing.
Speaker 1: So let's not with the premise of the pace, and
Speaker 1: we should question it to begin with, Is the United
Speaker 1: States doing it too much? Well? I think so the
Speaker 1: answer is again yes, because we're picking fights with everybody.
Speaker 1: If not so much that you can't have trade disputes
Speaker 1: with your allies, not so much of you cannot trade
Speaker 1: disputes with China. It's not so much that you can't
Speaker 1: object to what Russia is doing in here, and you
Speaker 1: can't object to what ex is doing there, and you
Speaker 1: should say something about the Saudis. But basically, if every
Speaker 1: single mode is punitive and you're never cooperating, and you're
Speaker 1: basically trying to punish everybody, you you rack up a
Speaker 1: lot of grudging compliance. Even when you get anything at all,
Speaker 1: you piss people off. And that's what we're doing now.
Speaker 1: And the question is how long before people just start
Speaker 1: to lose faith in American economic leadership of the system
Speaker 1: as a whole. That's the real danger here down the road.
Speaker 1: And Secretary of Pompeo with an essay as well on Iran,
Speaker 1: and in course he is speaking the Trump Doctor and
Speaker 1: as he calls, well, but so this is a great question, right,
Speaker 1: So what what what Pompeo wants? And it's a legit
Speaker 1: goal is to use American economic leverage to get let's say,
Speaker 1: other countries like the Europeans, to put pressure on Iran
Speaker 1: and to further our goals. That's a legitimate policy. We've
Speaker 1: tried to do secondary sanctions before. I happened to think
Speaker 1: it's a dumb policy that doesn't work well because other
Speaker 1: countries resist. That has happened in the Nine Ease with
Speaker 1: Europe on Iran and Libya sanctions. But basically, if you
Speaker 1: want to do that, then you can't pick fights on
Speaker 1: something else, and if you want to pick fights on
Speaker 1: this other thing, you can do that. You can't fight
Speaker 1: with everybody all the time. If you do that, your
Speaker 1: positioner rose down the road. And what the administration is
Speaker 1: has it's demonstrated its ability to get into fights, and
Speaker 1: it's even demonstrated its ability to get out of them
Speaker 1: uh and settle them and move on. But it hasn't
Speaker 1: yet demonstrated any ability as far as I can see,
Speaker 1: to link its fights together to some broader strategy that
Speaker 1: moves things forward. Overall. Well, let's talk about the argument
Speaker 1: as to whether there is one rule for Iran and
Speaker 1: another facaity Arabia to sending Arabic at special treatment. And
Speaker 1: why because they are the dominant player in the global
Speaker 1: energy supply markets and that extracts their ability to uh,
Speaker 1: their their ability to manipulate oil prices, gives them leverage
Speaker 1: over other countries pulses? Does that enable them to commit
Speaker 1: humanitarian catastrophes, do things like the allegations that we're seeing
Speaker 1: in Turkey murdering journalists. I mean, uh, if you say,
Speaker 1: does it permit it in practice? Yes? In theory no,
Speaker 1: but I think you will. And my cynical guess is
Speaker 1: that you're going to see this uh again. People are shocked,
Speaker 1: shocked to find this happening. Nobody is surprised. Nobody has
Speaker 1: any illusions about what the Saudi regime is actually like,
Speaker 1: and if they did, they were uh, they were silly
Speaker 1: to have done so. Um. Yeah, I looked within the
Speaker 1: magazine and we don't really have time for it today.
Speaker 1: Why did you take the nuclear topic on? Because what
Speaker 1: annoyed me was the fact that the nuclear issues get
Speaker 1: brought in as unquestioned game changers. And when you say, okay,
Speaker 1: no matter what we're doing, we they've they've moved forward.
Speaker 1: So obviously this Trump's everything, and it's no longer clear
Speaker 1: to me that that necessarily should be the case. There
Speaker 1: are good reasons why you might think that there are
Speaker 1: good reasons to be upset about hawks, but there are
Speaker 1: also reasons to worry about whether we're obsessing too much.
Speaker 1: And there's a wonderful piece by John Mueller that closes
Speaker 1: by saying, before we get let's at the very least
Speaker 1: not get into a major war and kill lots of
Speaker 1: people and do the things for fear of something that
Speaker 1: might happen that we're not really sure about. Gideon Rose,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Congratulations a new issue of Foreign
Speaker 1: Affairs Magazine. We'll have the conversation with Mr Rose and
Speaker 1: Secretary Lou we'll do that out in our podcast here
Speaker 1: Allison Williams with us parsing the details of all these
Speaker 1: different things. I'm going to assume, Allison, that this economy
Speaker 1: is so good it's really hard not to have a
Speaker 1: good earnings report. Like things are pretty good. So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go all ratio on you before Farrell beat you
Speaker 1: over the head with detail. What's return on equity and
Speaker 1: what number is really good? Isn't it? It is really good?
Speaker 1: And definitely the returns on they are being boosted by
Speaker 1: taxes this year. So that's sort of the big up,
Speaker 1: big from the gift from the trumpet ground. Um, it's
Speaker 1: a couple of hundred to a few hundred, depending on
Speaker 1: on the banks, you know, I mean, it's it's it's
Speaker 1: here that job that's all different glass and pretty consistent.
Speaker 1: That is across the board. It is consistent across the board.
Speaker 1: But but keep in mind that was a lot of
Speaker 1: this sort of stock run that we had, you know,
Speaker 1: late last year when we got the tax reform. It
Speaker 1: was a lot of the initial move up that we
Speaker 1: had post the election. Banks sort of anticipating about a
Speaker 1: regulatory environment, anticipating for fiscal stimulus, anticipating a lot of
Speaker 1: the help that we had this year. Can we talk
Speaker 1: about the lack of consistency in some of these reports.
Speaker 1: It's very hard to get a read across from one
Speaker 1: bank as to what the last quarter did for other banks. Um,
Speaker 1: dead underwriting, equity underwriting. What's the signal from goldban this morning, Allison?
Speaker 1: So I think because this quarter in general, it was
Speaker 1: sort of a muted quarter for trading, So there's sort
Speaker 1: of you know, slight puts and takes across those businesses
Speaker 1: across companies for the most part coming in line maybe
Speaker 1: one or two surprises. The big surprises that we've gotten
Speaker 1: are on the investment banking fees, and I think that's
Speaker 1: because if you look at again in a very muted
Speaker 1: trading environment, we had huge growth in I p O
Speaker 1: s in the US compared with a year ago, So
Speaker 1: US I p O is doubling. The global equity you know,
Speaker 1: global equity underwriting in general kind of flatish because there
Speaker 1: were weak there were weaknesses in an area like Europe,
Speaker 1: like I p O is super strong, and that's where
Speaker 1: you're really seeing the strength, especially um for companies like
Speaker 1: Goldman and Morgan Stairs, speaker of IPOs. There's one I
Speaker 1: PO that I think everyone would like a slice of.
Speaker 1: According to the Wall Street Journal, Tom Uber receiving IPO
Speaker 1: proposals value in the company up to a hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty billion dollars. That headlines just crossing the Bloomberg. Can
Speaker 1: you imagine the scramble to get a piece of that
Speaker 1: ipl So I believe we rip up the script at
Speaker 1: this point, Williams, what's the math on that? Ms wims
Speaker 1: that we want to pin you down live on radio
Speaker 1: Worldwide but you're going to anyway, I mean, they're gonna
Speaker 1: go We'll just go with a lot. Okay, a lot
Speaker 1: does this safe answer? But you know, an I p
Speaker 1: O a million years ago used to be a six
Speaker 1: percent business. I can get any idea. They're not going
Speaker 1: to make, you know, twelve billion dollars off of this transaction.
Speaker 1: But what's how do you do that? How do you know?
Speaker 1: And and just you know, you're talking about the size
Speaker 1: of transactions. I think that's what we're seeing really in
Speaker 1: the noise around the M and A numbers, Right, So
Speaker 1: the M and A numbers are one area that are
Speaker 1: coming in a little bit all over the place in
Speaker 1: terms of growth and what's happening. And I think a
Speaker 1: lot of that is because given the size of deals,
Speaker 1: when there's you know, some closings pushed to the fourth quarter,
Speaker 1: it can show up in your revenues. We generally do
Speaker 1: see that at the smaller boutiques, but this quarter it
Speaker 1: was it was sort of notable the difference between announcements
Speaker 1: and closings. I think it's very interesting at this point
Speaker 1: the cycle for these banks to to work out what
Speaker 1: they want to be a part of from what they
Speaker 1: don't want to be a pontsaw alisone. You're still getting
Speaker 1: valuations like this for these kind of companies. It kind
Speaker 1: of makes you scratch your head. Where are we? Last
Speaker 1: week we had a big correction in the equity market,
Speaker 1: UM Marcus a Unit, Gouldment Sex They're worried about meeting
Speaker 1: their targets for next year and pulled back due to
Speaker 1: credit risk. And then you see headlines like that, where
Speaker 1: are we in this whole cycle? So I think there's
Speaker 1: two I guess there's two sides of the business. Right.
Speaker 1: There's the traditional lending business, which I think is hitting
Speaker 1: on all cylinders, just given the fact that we've had
Speaker 1: the interest rate cycle move up and credits still stable,
Speaker 1: so UM very profitable on that front, and also the
Speaker 1: cost cutting efforts coming through adding to the tax reform
Speaker 1: we're hitting are we's that are at or above targets?
Speaker 1: And then we have the capital markets business. So again
Speaker 1: there's pockets of strength, but in the quarter, you know,
Speaker 1: not especially strong quarter, not especially weak quarter. I think
Speaker 1: in general, investors are still looking at potential upside to
Speaker 1: the cycle in terms of help from volatil it in
Speaker 1: then longer term capital market, like if I email Juno,
Speaker 1: which is a New York City Uber equivalent. I get
Speaker 1: an email back. If I email Lift, nobody an Uber
Speaker 1: talks to me. I mean it's like, I mean, Pharaoh,
Speaker 1: You've got so much cloute you can actually talk to
Speaker 1: What are you trying to talk about? Just you know,
Speaker 1: I owe money or they owe me money. Whatever. You
Speaker 1: can't communicate with Uber. Wall Street's got to communicate with Uber.
Speaker 1: What advice do they give a company that's a hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty jillion dollars According to The Wall Street Journal, Well,
Speaker 1: if I perhaps if I would have a better question
Speaker 1: answer to that if I was the Goldman banker. But
Speaker 1: I think what's important to know is that the Goldman
Speaker 1: bankers do have a sort of an eye into these clients, right,
Speaker 1: sort of the Morgan Stanley bankers. And that's why I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna be listening today to hear what these
Speaker 1: companies are hearing from their clients. That is one of
Speaker 1: the things that we've listened to just to point out.
Speaker 1: According to reporting by The Wall Street Journal, Goldman Snacks
Speaker 1: and Morgan Stanley last month, the two banks that delivered
Speaker 1: the value I proposals to Uber, according to the Soldier,
Speaker 1: is this going to be a techie techie deal where
Speaker 1: the public has no voting rights, no control on nothing.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be three side card preferred transactions. You know,
Speaker 1: everybody's gonna get rich except the public. And then foisted
Speaker 1: on this company at a hundred and twenty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: I'm getting silence see that, and it's you know, she
Speaker 1: named her cat red herring. Yeah, you know the I
Speaker 1: p o s of a million years ago, back when
Speaker 1: they were in print, John, we called those red herrings.
Speaker 1: I will I will say though that um, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of you know, Goldman and Morgan Stanley, and
Speaker 1: you know you're talking about sort of the performance of
Speaker 1: the stocks after the fact. I think that is something
Speaker 1: that they bring to the table. That's something that why
Speaker 1: people will go to them over time, right, is to
Speaker 1: find the valuation that makes investors happy. But that also, um,
Speaker 1: sort of rewards the people that are sounding. Do they
Speaker 1: do road shows anymore? Do they? You know, is there
Speaker 1: going to be an uber road show? I think there's
Speaker 1: always very Because I'm not an investor, you just don't,
Speaker 1: you just don't follow it anymore. Come on, you dial up.
Speaker 1: Can we just point out that that one twenty. According
Speaker 1: to the Wall Street Journal, that one is nearly double
Speaker 1: the company's valuation in a fundraising round two months ago.
Speaker 1: Think about that a fundraising round. How two months ago
Speaker 1: the valuation proposal delivered by Goldman Sax and Morgan Stanley
Speaker 1: is double that valuation from two months ago, Tom, in
Speaker 1: the whole digital dissemination, does I mean Ellison? They're putting
Speaker 1: us out on Twitter on WSJ business is Well, I'm
Speaker 1: trying to sign in right now to the But I
Speaker 1: think more importantly, and I think more importantly Tom, for
Speaker 1: many people who have access to public markets, it's very
Speaker 1: difficult for your average retail investor to get access to
Speaker 1: private markets. And there has been some real growth opportunities
Speaker 1: in private markets, which is why private equity have found
Speaker 1: it so easy to raise as much money as they
Speaker 1: could possibly want. And watch some people also, if there's
Speaker 1: many people out that they talk about the valuations in
Speaker 1: private markets, Tom, and maybe they're too frothy. But if
Speaker 1: you can get evaluation two months ago and then get
Speaker 1: a proposal for an IPO from two banks for doubled
Speaker 1: evaluation and anything else, does Liz Hoffman, Gregg Bensinger and
Speaker 1: Marineen Ferrell state second paragraph, the combined Uber would be
Speaker 1: more than the combined General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a kind of silliness we're talking about.
Speaker 1: And I think to that point, we've had sort of
Speaker 1: this early volatility, We've had some price activity. I think
Speaker 1: for companies that might have been thinking about doing deals
Speaker 1: and going public to some extent, you could actually get
Speaker 1: sort of a push. Right, So if people are concerned
Speaker 1: about the market next year, does that pull forwards? Does
Speaker 1: that pull forwards? In a serious point? And on the
Speaker 1: private equity side, I would say this as well. So
Speaker 1: we have seen this huge growth, and I think there
Speaker 1: is a lot of talk and there is more effort
Speaker 1: about trying to get private equity more into retirement accounts,
Speaker 1: sort of broadening. You know. It's it's good for the managers,
Speaker 1: it's good for the investors, especially for something that's locked up. John,
Speaker 1: you and PIM are better at this same I am.
Speaker 1: Is there any indication Uber makes a quarter to quarter
Speaker 1: operating profit. I believe I have not seen it. I
Speaker 1: have not seen that. I think cash burn is quarter.
Speaker 1: You know, there may be one quarter where they've done well.
Speaker 1: But Allison essentially they're throwing a tenth of a trillion
Speaker 1: dollar valuation and something that I believe. Cash Burn is
Speaker 1: the middle name. So I'm financial analysts, so I cannot
Speaker 1: relate to tech. I can't relate to tech until and
Speaker 1: that's why tech focus. Financial companies don't want the bank analysts.
Speaker 1: So I continue continue this. There is already some speculation
Speaker 1: out there, and I I won't name names, know that
Speaker 1: this is well timed good news for certain investors in
Speaker 1: uber and those certain investors, of course could well be
Speaker 1: the Saudis or soft Bank who have rather large steak
Speaker 1: in uber Um, and this is wild timed good news
Speaker 1: for those um those respective entities. At this point there
Speaker 1: it is Allison Williams just killing it today doing Morgan
Speaker 1: Stanley earnings blind and then coming in there nailing Goldman
Speaker 1: Sax and then vamping on her knowledge of the technology space.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg coming to today from the Bloomberg Interactive
Speaker 1: Broker Studio, and we're thrilled to bring in someone that
Speaker 1: we have known for yours, Muhammad el Arian writing always
Speaker 1: in Bloomberg opinion and very visible in terms of synthesizing
Speaker 1: economics and all Dr Llarion. You have a heritage of
Speaker 1: Egypt of your father of years ago. In in cif
Speaker 1: I Capital Finance magazine two years ago, you wrote up
Speaker 1: the bold vision of Saudi Arabia. Is it shattered right
Speaker 1: now for Saudi Arabia and how will the adjacent Middle
Speaker 1: Eastern nations deal with his latest uproar of Turkey, Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia and a disappearing journalist. I think in terms of
Speaker 1: what countries are going to do in the region, they're
Speaker 1: gonna wait and see. Saudi Arabia is very important. UM.
Speaker 1: They're not going to front run the kingdom in any way,
Speaker 1: so they're gonna wait and see what comes out of
Speaker 1: the internal investigation and what the Saudies themselves say in
Speaker 1: terms of what it does to the Saudi vision. Clearly
Speaker 1: it's a short term setback. Long term we yet to see.
Speaker 1: What I find fascinating Tom is the market reaction UM today,
Speaker 1: For example, CDs on on on Saudi sovereign is tighter,
Speaker 1: oil is lower, So the market is basically saying this
Speaker 1: is a short term hiccup that's going to be brushed off,
Speaker 1: and the question is politically whether that turns out to
Speaker 1: be the case or not. So the market is just
Speaker 1: making the assumption that this doesn't escalate. We saw that
Speaker 1: in the old market yesterday, not responding to a not
Speaker 1: so veiled threat that they could use it as a
Speaker 1: policy tool. That makes me ask a broader question just
Speaker 1: about complacency in general, Mohammed, So let's talk about the
Speaker 1: broader question of complacency. Do you see a lot more
Speaker 1: pockets of that popping up through sing I see somewhat
Speaker 1: less complacency. I think last year was the height of complacency,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Um. And that's because markets were very comforted by
Speaker 1: central banks. The narrative has changed in markets. Central banks
Speaker 1: are stepping back, fundamentals are reasserting themselves. It's a messy transition,
Speaker 1: it's a volatile transition, and there are complicated fundamentals. As
Speaker 1: the I m F meetings, Um told us, this is
Speaker 1: not about synchronized pick up and growth anymore. This is
Speaker 1: about divergent growth and all the complications that come with that.
Speaker 1: So it's the reaction function of the Federal Reserve shifted
Speaker 1: as well. Typically, when we see around like the one
Speaker 1: we saw last week, several years ago, the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: would have sent someone out and it would have backed
Speaker 1: away that didn't happen last week. Yes, not a word,
Speaker 1: not a word from any official, neither the board nor
Speaker 1: from the regional banks. And I think that's important. This
Speaker 1: is a different fat. I tell my friends, this is
Speaker 1: a different fat. This is a fat that will deliver
Speaker 1: higher rates than what the marketing is. Fact, this is
Speaker 1: a fit that will keep an eye on the issue
Speaker 1: of future financial stability. And it's a different paradigm for markets.
Speaker 1: And I think markets are starting to get it. They're
Speaker 1: not quite there yet, but they're starting to understand that
Speaker 1: this is a different fit. In your classic when markets
Speaker 1: collide back in the back of the book, this ancient tome,
Speaker 1: it's like out a Game of Thrones, John, it's up
Speaker 1: there in the temple thing up there, like on fifteen
Speaker 1: stories up chapter eight. Improved risk management? Have we have
Speaker 1: we actually improved our risk management? You've invented this idea
Speaker 1: of unknown unknowns? Are we better at our unknown unknowns?
Speaker 1: So I didn't invent it? Um, We're not better at
Speaker 1: unknown unknowns. Um. In terms of risk management, where there
Speaker 1: has been a significant improvement is in the banking system.
Speaker 1: The banking system in the US has been de risked.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for sources of systemic risk. It's not
Speaker 1: the banks, But John and I are doing tons of
Speaker 1: interviews Mohammed which make it very clear there's a new
Speaker 1: shadow banking, and that's what people are talking about. Correct,
Speaker 1: Because what people haven't quite understood is that risk doesn't disappear,
Speaker 1: It morphs and migrates, and it has migrated to the
Speaker 1: non banks. So there's certain segments that I really worry about.
Speaker 1: I worry about the overpromise of liquidity that's now embedded
Speaker 1: in the system by certain products. John Very John Tucker
Speaker 1: is a non banks, a non bank for three children. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I have definite systematic risk attached to me. So
Speaker 1: they say, what's a non bank? A non bank is
Speaker 1: a an institution that is not subject to both the
Speaker 1: restrictions and the privileges of being very close to the
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve and being very closer to posit insurance. So
Speaker 1: where's the leverage right now? What are the pockets of
Speaker 1: fixed income that you're worried about? So I worry about
Speaker 1: the lower quality segments. I worry about segments of high yield.
Speaker 1: I worry about emerging market corporates. I think there's been
Speaker 1: an overpromise of liquidity there when you see the proliferation
Speaker 1: of ETFs and inherently a liquid as a class, worry
Speaker 1: because it doesn't need to have signal to the consumer
Speaker 1: instantaneous liquidity at reasonable bit office spreads. If the underlying
Speaker 1: asset class is a liquid, that is a silly promise
Speaker 1: to make, and yet it's been made because the market
Speaker 1: has gone that way. So what did you make of
Speaker 1: last week when we have a significant draw down in
Speaker 1: risk assets like equities, but then we see leverage loans
Speaker 1: looking really solid and yes we see a bit of
Speaker 1: spread wine again high yield, but there's been some performance
Speaker 1: there through eighteens. So what do you make of that
Speaker 1: Equities get hit but things like leverage alons look rock solid. Mohammed? Why, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's unusual. Normally it's the bond market that leads away
Speaker 1: and then the equity markets follow. But as you point
Speaker 1: out Natan correctly, corporates in particular have been relatively stable. Um.
Speaker 1: I think part of that is because people have been
Speaker 1: reassured and conditioned over and over again to fade every
Speaker 1: cell off in markets. And I think that is very
Speaker 1: deep conditioning after years and years and years of exceptional
Speaker 1: support from central Banks Maham, that opinion Columnistum, do you
Speaker 1: want to us say, in New York City without the
Speaker 1: New York Jets jacket? Um this morning, and we're a
Speaker 1: little bit disappointed. Yeah, I just expected that he would
Speaker 1: show up with the New York They play the Vikings next,
Speaker 1: which is like a layup win right there. There's no
Speaker 1: such thing, because lay up for the New York Jets.
Speaker 1: Muhammad Arian with us, who was so visible that I
Speaker 1: think too many people forget the first principal skills of
Speaker 1: Dr l Arian, which is out of the game, theoretic
Speaker 1: uh knowledge base of the British schools of Oxford and
Speaker 1: of his Cambridge is well Dr Larryen. And this goes
Speaker 1: to your books The Unknown Unknown and the te Decision,
Speaker 1: and that John von Neumann who who sort of codified this,
Speaker 1: if you will, in World War two had a great
Speaker 1: idea about zero some games, and that was just the
Speaker 1: basic idea, how can I maximize my rewards in this
Speaker 1: sort of game in a President Trump era, in the
Speaker 1: neo mercantilist world that we're in right now, how can
Speaker 1: President Trump maximize his rewards? So I think what President
Speaker 1: Trump is doing is approaching an inherently cooperative game trade
Speaker 1: in cooperatively in order for the other side to correct
Speaker 1: regards as longstanding deficiencies. And that is quite a change
Speaker 1: from what we've had in the past. The distinction, and
Speaker 1: this goes back to Abanage Sticks of the Princeton and
Speaker 1: his art of strategy classic book, The Distinction, and you
Speaker 1: just nailed it. The perception that the other side is
Speaker 1: one side and it is not multilateral and numerous, isn't
Speaker 1: it it is? You know, Tom, what he's done is
Speaker 1: he's taking it sequentially. So everybody in the beginning said,
Speaker 1: you know what, if you're going to take on China,
Speaker 1: let's confront China with one side. And he did something
Speaker 1: very different, high high risk, but it turns out to
Speaker 1: be a strategy that that is working. He said, let's
Speaker 1: take them sequential. So he first agreed with Career, then Mexico,
Speaker 1: then Canada. The EU is next, and then he will
Speaker 1: confront China. So his idea of trade is very different
Speaker 1: from what we've seen in the past. And it turns out,
Speaker 1: just like Reagan realized this in the eighties, that if
Speaker 1: you're willing to underwrite the cost and risks of an
Speaker 1: operative strategy, there are benefits, but the equation is a
Speaker 1: very delicate one. Sometime it let's talk about potential outcomes.
Speaker 1: What are the potential outcomes at the moment for un So,
Speaker 1: A lot depends on how long it takes the Chinese
Speaker 1: to realize that at the end of the day they
Speaker 1: will have to make concessions. If it takes them a
Speaker 1: short term, short while, then we will get concessions on
Speaker 1: a joint venture. Requirements be intellectual property transfers and see
Speaker 1: the deficit. If we don't, Jonathan, and this is really important,
Speaker 1: then what is today's trade issue becomes a national security issue,
Speaker 1: and the more it migras international security space, the harder
Speaker 1: will be to diffuse these tensions. Some people might say
Speaker 1: we're already there, Muhammed, I think we're getting there, and
Speaker 1: I understand those who feel that we are already there.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're quite there yet. A lot will
Speaker 1: depend on what the Chinese decided to do over the
Speaker 1: next few weeks, not months, weeks. Yeah, I hate you
Speaker 1: talk about trade, and I have to say, you come
Speaker 1: on the more optimistic side of the debate. You think
Speaker 1: there is a real chance and you can talk about
Speaker 1: talk to me about what probability you allocate to it,
Speaker 1: but you think there is a real chance of having
Speaker 1: what you've described as a Reagan moment. What's a Reagan
Speaker 1: moment and what's the chance of actually ham Nick, So,
Speaker 1: a Reagan moment is an event that changes the landscape
Speaker 1: in a permanent way and in a way that's beneficial
Speaker 1: to the US. That is what Reagan did in the
Speaker 1: eighties with the Soviet Union. He completely changed the geo
Speaker 1: political landscape. My probability, Jonathan, are percent we end up
Speaker 1: in a very damaging trade war, sixty percent that we
Speaker 1: end up with the same outcome of China as we've
Speaker 1: had with Korea, Mexico, Canada, which is tweaks but nothing revolutionary,
Speaker 1: and a fifteen percent probability that we end up with
Speaker 1: the Reagan moment. So that's how I see the probabilities.
Speaker 1: But as I say, the longer this goes on, the
Speaker 1: more worried I will be about going higher. What's the
Speaker 1: market position for I think the market's position for what
Speaker 1: it has seen, which is that we get tweaks. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day. This is not a trade war,
Speaker 1: this is a skirmish, and that it will be solved
Speaker 1: because after all which countries would voluntarily go into a
Speaker 1: global trade war. That's how the market. How do you
Speaker 1: respond to the gloom crew? Friday afternoon, all the articles
Speaker 1: come out, World's coming to an end? There's that, There's
Speaker 1: what John Themes look at the Bank of American Mary
Speaker 1: Lynch fund manager server that came at this morning the
Speaker 1: most bearish on the global outlooks. How do you respond
Speaker 1: to that? So and yet your Bloomberg survey that came
Speaker 1: out yesterday on the metric markets suggested a majority of
Speaker 1: people feel like it's time to fade the divergence trade,
Speaker 1: which I find, which I find interesting. The way I
Speaker 1: respond of that is very simply to say, differentiate between
Speaker 1: baselines and risk scenarios, right, and make a difference. And
Speaker 1: I your WIS scenarios are there, but let's not forget
Speaker 1: the baseline. And that's how I do it. But this
Speaker 1: is this is a more fluid and to use Ben
Speaker 1: Bernanke's term, unusually uncertain time than we've seen for a
Speaker 1: long Time've got been and a half left with you,
Speaker 1: and then you're gonna go after one of John Farroll's
Speaker 1: other properties, which I fully understand. You manage money for
Speaker 1: a small school up on the Charles River in Massachusetts
Speaker 1: a few years ago. I was flabbergasted by a Yale
Speaker 1: University article the other day on use of alternative investments?
Speaker 1: Are they done? Are we done with relatively ill liquid
Speaker 1: alternative investments? Is everybody going back to block and tackle
Speaker 1: endowment investing? There still going to be a place for alternatives. Oh,
Speaker 1: they'll definitely be a place for alternatives. I mean in
Speaker 1: in a in a period where there's ample liquidity, then
Speaker 1: giving up liquidity is not something that you get rewarded for.
Speaker 1: And that's why we have seen a general tone change
Speaker 1: against that. But we are we are exiting that regime.
Speaker 1: And I think that endowments have to remember that their
Speaker 1: edge is that quasi permanent capital, and that's a really
Speaker 1: important you don't you know this, Tom? You know this, Johnathan.
Speaker 1: You don't get involved in the investment world if you
Speaker 1: don't know what your edges. John is entourage or two
Speaker 1: of them will help you get out of your chair,
Speaker 1: and the other two will help John get out. How
Speaker 1: much small AMO entourages compared to yours? Well, yeah, but
Speaker 1: I got that, Bill, you know got that right. We
Speaker 1: have a tool to two people after Muhammad Laren. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Scribe and listen to interviews on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio