Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jayleie. We bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance, an Apple podcast, Suncloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal way important that
Speaker 1: we talked to John Gollub than Jerome Paul I agree
Speaker 1: this morning. That is the story Credit Sweets. We were
Speaker 1: just having a nice casual Friday morning, Lisa night, Tom
Speaker 1: was away. It was very relaxing, I have to say, Tom.
Speaker 1: And then the email came through from the team at
Speaker 1: Credit Sweets SMP five hundred to forty six hundred on
Speaker 1: Stronger Learning. So let's bring in Jonathan Gollob right now, John,
Speaker 1: why the change? Let's start there. Well, I mean, more
Speaker 1: than anything else, this is an earning story that our
Speaker 1: earning's estimate, which we put it out at a hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty five dollars and earnings for the SMP was
Speaker 1: the highest on Wall Street and it's just too low.
Speaker 1: The the the the numbers are coming in just too strong,
Speaker 1: and it's not in one group. Banks are beating by
Speaker 1: thirty five percent. Um tech is beating by almost thirty percent.
Speaker 1: Industrials discretionary companies are up fifty on average. And you know,
Speaker 1: ultimately we needed to know increase the earnings outlook. That
Speaker 1: was with drove it and then we as we see
Speaker 1: that the the overall stock market price was right on
Speaker 1: our tails, and so we moved our numbers up. John,
Speaker 1: you know, I gotta congratulate you folks. You're looking at
Speaker 1: the guy who came out in January and said if
Speaker 1: you sell tech and go to everything else, you're gonna
Speaker 1: be out of your minds. In hindsight, John, you look
Speaker 1: like a genius. What do I do with tech? Is
Speaker 1: Lisa mentioned they didn't move on earnings? No surprise there?
Speaker 1: Are they part of your lift to five thousand? Yes?
Speaker 1: And no, Tom, I mean we actually think that boring
Speaker 1: old economies that listen. I've been a growth guy, a
Speaker 1: tech guy for a very long time, and every kind
Speaker 1: of stock has its moment in the sun. I don't
Speaker 1: know if this is the moment in the sun for tech.
Speaker 1: I think this is the time for old economy stocks
Speaker 1: because these are companies with big fixed overhead. With that
Speaker 1: the tend to respond war to the kind of stimulus
Speaker 1: that we're seeing proposed by the Biden administration and generally
Speaker 1: the kind of overheating we're seeing the general economy. Can
Speaker 1: we see earnings like this continue and the four four
Speaker 1: six thousand, four six d excuse me for six thousand
Speaker 1: maybe next year for the S and P without a
Speaker 1: commensurate rise in yields, without a commensurate read through to
Speaker 1: the bond market. And how much is there a feedback
Speaker 1: loop here? Well, first of all, Uh, my expectation is
Speaker 1: that we're going to see interest rates rise a little
Speaker 1: bit from here. And if you actually look at how
Speaker 1: stocks respond, they want higher interest rates. And that's because
Speaker 1: what we're seeing right now with with the tenure bond
Speaker 1: yield at one point six and we fed funds at zero,
Speaker 1: it's a sign that the economy is not yet on
Speaker 1: stable footing, and so the market wants to see the
Speaker 1: demand for capital strong as a sign that things are
Speaker 1: are healthier. So if we had interest rates, you know,
Speaker 1: closer to two percent by the end of the year,
Speaker 1: the stock market is higher, not lower. Aps to fifteen,
Speaker 1: that's an upgrade too. And John, the interesting thing about
Speaker 1: this note is that it includes a tax handcut as well.
Speaker 1: Can you set the states for twenty two already? John, Well,
Speaker 1: you know this was you know, this was actually a
Speaker 1: big discussion point. What the convention is on Wall Street
Speaker 1: is until the tax changes happened, you ignore them. But
Speaker 1: the reality is the markets not ignoreing it. So we
Speaker 1: basically said, we know that this tax thing is likely
Speaker 1: to happen. Um. The consensus view is that that that
Speaker 1: that Biden doesn't get is twenty eight percent, but that
Speaker 1: the tax rate goes to that's about a four percent
Speaker 1: hit to earnings. Now four percent hits earnings is a
Speaker 1: big deal, but the earnings this season are beating by
Speaker 1: so um. We moved our number from to ten to
Speaker 1: two fifteen. But if you compare me to other strategists
Speaker 1: on Wall Street who haven't done that, I'd be a
Speaker 1: two five if you if you ignore the taxes, so
Speaker 1: big numbers. Did you move on a revenue gross up
Speaker 1: or was it margin resiliency or both? You know? In general, Tom,
Speaker 1: first of all we're seeing is is that both revenues
Speaker 1: and margins are seeing a lot of flexibility. But the
Speaker 1: whenever you see an economy reopening after recession, it's always
Speaker 1: the margin line, which is where all of that incremental
Speaker 1: upside is going to be. And the one mistake that
Speaker 1: analysts and investors portfolio managers doesn't matter, they always underestimate
Speaker 1: is operating leverage. How much a small change in economic
Speaker 1: growth creates huge change in profit margins. And that's that
Speaker 1: was really the big deal here. Before you go, I
Speaker 1: just a gage sentiment. When you hit send to clients
Speaker 1: on Friday. How I received was this? What was the response? Like,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you that. You know you're gonna laugh at
Speaker 1: The single biggest um comment we got back to people's
Speaker 1: come on, you don't think we can get to five down.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying we're gonna go there, but we're eventually
Speaker 1: gonna get there. But okay, quote that eventually we'll get
Speaker 1: there without the time forecast. Just pick one. John is
Speaker 1: gonna catch up, as always, Jonathan, It's gonna catch up.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna turn to pros like Bruce Kasman. Let's
Speaker 1: bring in Bruce Kasman right now. JP Morgan, chief Economists
Speaker 1: ahead of Global Economic Research. Bruce, let's start there. How
Speaker 1: difficult it is to forecast in this environment? For you?
Speaker 1: Right now? Well, I think it's difficult to tie down
Speaker 1: exactly how strong the economy is doing, but I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty simple to recognize that we're in the midst
Speaker 1: of a boom here in the US. And you know
Speaker 1: what I also want to emphasize is, partly off the
Speaker 1: conversation you just had is Europe's about to join us.
Speaker 1: So there's gonna be fairly broad based strength in the
Speaker 1: global economy for the next six months or so. Bruce Kevin,
Speaker 1: Good morning, Tom Keenan in York. I want to go
Speaker 1: to Cassan Economics, which is your twenty six page must
Speaker 1: read Friday evening. The world stops. Everybody sneaking looks at
Speaker 1: it as they pretend they're doing social work, and bruth
Speaker 1: the first chart is always the most important. You have
Speaker 1: a spectacular US chart of the partition of inflation of
Speaker 1: goods and services. When does service inflation catch up? Um, well,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna fully catch up, partly because, as you've
Speaker 1: been noting, there's supply shortages and goods prices are going
Speaker 1: to continue to rise rapidly. But I think March was
Speaker 1: the first month where we started to see service price
Speaker 1: inflation pick up, and I think it's gonna be the
Speaker 1: big event in the next few months that overall inflation
Speaker 1: is going to be lifted both by service prices normalizing
Speaker 1: and goods pricing staying strong. John, I think this is
Speaker 1: the absolute key metric with that job report that we're
Speaker 1: gonna see Friday as the path of service inflation. There
Speaker 1: is a real mystery tour and wages the compositional story,
Speaker 1: Bruce picking up again. We've got to talk about wages
Speaker 1: and whether wages will be useful for the next several months.
Speaker 1: How much longer will we have to look at a
Speaker 1: labor market that is distorted by the events of the
Speaker 1: last twelve months. Well, I think when you look at
Speaker 1: the big gains and jobs, you're also seeing I think
Speaker 1: the rotation back towards the depressed service sector, and I
Speaker 1: think in terms of wage inflation, that's actually gonna be
Speaker 1: a depressing effect. I do want to emphasize, especially if
Speaker 1: we're talking about inflation. There's two very different stories here.
Speaker 1: One is how much pressure we getting as we get
Speaker 1: this booming growth and we normalize, and we think we're
Speaker 1: gonna get a fair amount of inflation pressure in the
Speaker 1: near term off of that. But I think if you
Speaker 1: look at what's happening in the wage measures that are
Speaker 1: not distorted. If you look at where levels of service
Speaker 1: price inflation are, we're still pretty low. So I think,
Speaker 1: as the FED has been doing, you want to look
Speaker 1: through some of the near term dynamic, which I think
Speaker 1: is going to be powerful, and recognize we still got
Speaker 1: a way to go before we normalize inflation. And I
Speaker 1: hear that although near term dynamic is difficult to say
Speaker 1: when you talk about the Intel CEO coming out over
Speaker 1: the weekend and saying that the chip shortages are going
Speaker 1: to continue for years, he doesn't see it easing very
Speaker 1: much at all. How do we decide this is transitory?
Speaker 1: At what point in the year can we say, Okay,
Speaker 1: now we have a true assessment of the post pandemic economy. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to be easy, um and
Speaker 1: quite frankly, I think what we're gonna see in the
Speaker 1: next few months is not going to be very very
Speaker 1: indicative of the trend. However, I do think if we're right,
Speaker 1: that we can carry strong growth into next year, given
Speaker 1: where the labor market is, given what the FED is
Speaker 1: trying to do, I'm a big buyer the fact that
Speaker 1: we're going to have a trajectory of higher inflation. I
Speaker 1: just think this year's move is not going to be
Speaker 1: particularly indicative of the magnitude of that acceleration, but it's happening.
Speaker 1: I think this is not what we've been living through
Speaker 1: for the last twenty years on the underlying dynamics. Just
Speaker 1: don't buy how strongly the near term is gonna be
Speaker 1: sending a signal. We've stopped talking about a K shaped
Speaker 1: recovery a bit, Bruce, and I'm wondering how much the
Speaker 1: K shape recovery not only has persisted, but will hamper
Speaker 1: some of the full employment metrics that we see later
Speaker 1: in the year. Well, we do have an economy in
Speaker 1: which there still are some sectors that have really badly
Speaker 1: hurt that haven't recovered. And even with what we're looking
Speaker 1: at over the next three six months, we're still not
Speaker 1: expecting jobs to get back to where they were before
Speaker 1: the pandemic, at least till sometime early next year. So
Speaker 1: there's still a lot of damage they're scarring. I think
Speaker 1: the important point about scarring is a macro economist is
Speaker 1: this is scarring that is going to be very painful
Speaker 1: in some parts of the economy, but it's not hitting
Speaker 1: the financial sector. It's not reflecting an overhang of housing
Speaker 1: or capex. Uh, it's not hitting major e M economies.
Speaker 1: This is not gonna hurt the macro economy the way
Speaker 1: the scarring after the Global financial crisis did so. Recognized starring,
Speaker 1: but recognized it's not the same kind of macro driver
Speaker 1: either growth or inflation going forward. Bruce, I know you
Speaker 1: took your call from James Diamond yesterday afternoon. He was
Speaker 1: sort of thinking about two thousand and twenty one and Ford.
Speaker 1: Let me ask the same question, Jamie Diamond, ask you
Speaker 1: do the wealthy escape higher taxes? Do you just assume
Speaker 1: if we get the tax policy we're talking about, that
Speaker 1: the fancy people somehow ex escape the tax burden. Well,
Speaker 1: I think taxes need to go up if we're gonna
Speaker 1: be financing this infrastructure built and and other things, and
Speaker 1: it's built into our forecast that there is an increase
Speaker 1: um in taxes. I do think we should understand that
Speaker 1: against the backdrop of what we're seeing in terms of
Speaker 1: wealth gains, against the backdrop of what we're seeing in
Speaker 1: terms of the economy overall, that's not going to be
Speaker 1: a near term drag on the economy. We can have
Speaker 1: a long debate about or the optimal level of taxation is.
Speaker 1: But I don't think either on the capex side from
Speaker 1: higher corporate taxes or on the household side, that tax
Speaker 1: increases in the next year or two are going to
Speaker 1: be a drag for this economy. I probably's always gonna
Speaker 1: catch up, gonna catch up this Monday morning, Jap Morgan.
Speaker 1: Right now, we talked to Conference Board. Going back to
Speaker 1: before World War One, Conference Board was absolutely definitive in
Speaker 1: corporate America addressing the labor arrest of this nation across
Speaker 1: a hundred years plus. Dana Peterson is their chief economist. Dana,
Speaker 1: you just did a definitive study of the great divide
Speaker 1: in America that only the Conference Board can do, and
Speaker 1: that is I have a job, things are great. I'm
Speaker 1: out of a job, things are really bad. Has that
Speaker 1: divide been ever greater. I'm sure they're other times it's
Speaker 1: been greater, but certainly we have been talking about the
Speaker 1: case shape to call to me here where you had
Speaker 1: people who never lost their jobs, they received stimulus checks,
Speaker 1: and they were able to save and pay down debt
Speaker 1: and even spend on goods. Meanwhile, you had many people
Speaker 1: who did loose jobs and they were on unemployment and
Speaker 1: certainly are still. We still have eight and a half
Speaker 1: million people who are still unemployed in America. If we
Speaker 1: do eight and a half months of one million job
Speaker 1: formation and we get back to that point, then we
Speaker 1: have to grow from there. Do you see an economy
Speaker 1: that can grow jobs once we get back to February, Well,
Speaker 1: I've seen a comedy economy where we can grow jobs.
Speaker 1: Right now, we're seeing labor shortages amongst certain industry, certainly trucking, manufacturing, construction,
Speaker 1: and even when you look at services, gyms are reopening,
Speaker 1: restaurants are reopening, and they just can't find people. Um.
Speaker 1: Some of that's a function of people still being afraid
Speaker 1: to go out, uh for fear of getting sick, um,
Speaker 1: but also because of skill shortages, and also it's just
Speaker 1: it's just really of a wild market here. Danna. Do
Speaker 1: you think that services inflation, that the that the actual
Speaker 1: job increases maybe more persistent, longer lasting than people are
Speaker 1: currently accounting for. Well, that's certainly something that Chair Powell
Speaker 1: talked about. There could be some wage pressures here, certainly
Speaker 1: as we get into later on in the year where
Speaker 1: more people are more willing to go out. Businesses in
Speaker 1: person services are reopening, and we could see prices go
Speaker 1: up there. And also in terms of inflation, Um, we're
Speaker 1: already seeing uh hearing rather that corporations are thinking about
Speaker 1: raising prices due to the fact that you have the
Speaker 1: supply chain bottlenecks. You also have commodity prices rising, especially
Speaker 1: for energy, and they're looking to pass all that on
Speaker 1: to customers. So we're potentially going to see faster prices
Speaker 1: both in consumer prices and wages. Jenny Ellen seemed to
Speaker 1: weigh in siding with the FEDS line so far, saying
Speaker 1: that this is all transitory, that we're gonna return to
Speaker 1: a lower inflation standpoint, and that Joe Biden's spending plan
Speaker 1: won't materially juice inflation going forward because it will be
Speaker 1: spread out over a decade. Do you buy that argument, Well,
Speaker 1: there are two parts of that argument. One is transitory factors.
Speaker 1: And indeed, we do think that some of the inflation
Speaker 1: pressors were going to see in the second quarter and
Speaker 1: over the course of this year and maybe a little
Speaker 1: bit next year are transitory. They related to the pandemic. Uh. Certainly,
Speaker 1: they're also related to supply chain UH disruptions, which are
Speaker 1: also related to the pandemic, and those things are probably
Speaker 1: going to fade. But other types of inflation, especially with
Speaker 1: respect to UH inflation around building homes is probably here
Speaker 1: to stay. People are working remotely, people looking for more space,
Speaker 1: and we don't have enough homes. Meanwhile, the chip shortage,
Speaker 1: semiconductor chip shortage, that's not going to be solved overnight.
Speaker 1: You can't build a chip plant overnight. And so some
Speaker 1: of these types of inflation that we're seeing are going
Speaker 1: to be more persistent. When we're looking at the administration's plans. Well, certainly,
Speaker 1: if you have much faster growth, you're probably going to
Speaker 1: see some inflation pressures UM, and that's more or less
Speaker 1: what we're expecting. What do you hear from the clients
Speaker 1: the corporations of the conference board, Dana, there's so many
Speaker 1: walls of worry you just beautifully laid out. Some of
Speaker 1: those the worries now are comical within this boom economy.
Speaker 1: What do you actually hear from business people? Well, we're
Speaker 1: hearing that they think this year is going to be
Speaker 1: great in terms of growth. Our own forecast is six
Speaker 1: percent growth. Other people, but for next year, UH we're
Speaker 1: hearing that they're very much concerned about inflation pressures. They're
Speaker 1: also concerned about trade just given the fact that the
Speaker 1: US and China are still uh having somewhat frosty relations
Speaker 1: around trade and intellectual property matters, that this is going
Speaker 1: to spill over into next year and that we're going
Speaker 1: to see potential slow and growth material slowing. Tom, that's
Speaker 1: what happens when you cut off the guests. They stopped talking.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, this is really really important. Respective
Speaker 1: is really really important, tomm Ethan Harrison, Bank America just
Speaker 1: publishing it, was just going through the note quickly, so
Speaker 1: let's bring it to our audience. Unfortunately, there is a
Speaker 1: trade off between the speed of the recovery and its length.
Speaker 1: Then it goes for a number of bullet points. Ironically,
Speaker 1: the much faster US recovery likely means a shorter expansion
Speaker 1: than in other countries and other cycles. And of course,
Speaker 1: reflecting on the very very exceptionally long cycle that we
Speaker 1: had long cycle we had in the previous one. Then
Speaker 1: I want to bring you in on this because Morgan
Speaker 1: Stanley have pushed this idea to shorter, hotter this time around. Denna,
Speaker 1: what's your view on that, Well, I think that makes
Speaker 1: sense just given the fact that this was a recession
Speaker 1: unlike any other. We essentially just kind of cut the
Speaker 1: piggots off right and then we're turning them back on.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't the case that we had some asset
Speaker 1: price blow up or something really major underlying a structural
Speaker 1: factors that cause the recession. It was a pandemic and
Speaker 1: basically government said, well, this is dangerous, so let's shut
Speaker 1: off half of the economy, the services sector. Now we're
Speaker 1: turning things back on. So, yes, things are gonna be
Speaker 1: hotter for a shorter period of time, but most likely
Speaker 1: we're probably going to get back to pre pandemic levels
Speaker 1: of activity and then probably settle in at a lower
Speaker 1: growth rate, a growth rate that's probably more consistent with
Speaker 1: where the economy was just before the pandemic. So the
Speaker 1: destination is not a bust. You don't subscribe to the
Speaker 1: boom bust argument. It's a return to trend. Yes, Indeed,
Speaker 1: Danna Patterson always gonna catch up. Danna, thank you, Conference
Speaker 1: Point chief Economist, and Danny, you know how it was
Speaker 1: when Tom Spakes just kept talking right now in the pandemic,
Speaker 1: Howard Foreman joins us. He is a radiologist, but far
Speaker 1: more than that is the builder of public health and
Speaker 1: public service studies at Yale Universe City Professor of Radiology, Economics,
Speaker 1: and Public Health were thrilled the Dr Foreman could join
Speaker 1: us this morning, Hawd Foreman, there is a pandemic. But
Speaker 1: what's so different now is in this modern America and
Speaker 1: our modernity, we use technology. We have a technocratic solution
Speaker 1: to everything. How does the technocracy of America try to
Speaker 1: come out of a pandemic? Well, it's not easy because
Speaker 1: we have you know, we have different classes of people now,
Speaker 1: people that were able to work very well from home,
Speaker 1: who had very low exposure and infection rates to the
Speaker 1: to the virus, but nonetheless had their lives turned upside down.
Speaker 1: And then you had a lot of people that we
Speaker 1: refer to as essential workers, and probably more than that
Speaker 1: are essential workers. But they had to run the buses,
Speaker 1: they had to run the trains, they had to sort
Speaker 1: of move the food and other goods back and forth
Speaker 1: between people, and their infection rates were much higher. And
Speaker 1: we decimated large population throughout this country. And so we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to rationalize that over time, but recognize that
Speaker 1: we do suffer almost as a country from post traumatic
Speaker 1: express disorder of a type. We've been through a trauma,
Speaker 1: We're continuing to feel the reverberations and the anxiety that
Speaker 1: exists even after the trauma is starting to wane. There's
Speaker 1: so much work still to do. To doctor, I just
Speaker 1: wander from your perspective whether you think we have an
Speaker 1: irrational fear of COVID nineteen of this country as we
Speaker 1: are here today. I think we do now, and I
Speaker 1: certainly have not said that before. I think we're getting
Speaker 1: to a point now where what we are seeing and
Speaker 1: experiencing is much closer to a bad flu than it
Speaker 1: is to what we experienced earlier or what places like
Speaker 1: India are experiencing right now, and we should start to
Speaker 1: think about how we manage a bad flu as opposed
Speaker 1: to how we manage the pandemic that wiped off about
Speaker 1: six hundred thousand people and maybe more if you really
Speaker 1: look at the numbers from the United States dr They
Speaker 1: are really strong words to come from someone like yourself,
Speaker 1: As you say, this is not something you've said before
Speaker 1: on a program like this. What would you suggest undepends
Speaker 1: the reluctance of health officials to say what you just said.
Speaker 1: You know, we've made a lot of mistakes over the
Speaker 1: last fourteen months, and nobody wants to full prey to
Speaker 1: hubrists that. You know. You look at at Moody in
Speaker 1: India saying in March that this is now over. I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone wants to full prey to that. And
Speaker 1: it's a lot easier for me to opine and and
Speaker 1: know that I have ninety or likelihood or higher of
Speaker 1: being correct than it is for a public official who, um,
Speaker 1: you know, really holds that very very strong responsibility to
Speaker 1: the entire public in their hands. Um. So I don't
Speaker 1: really dismiss their difficulty in moving faster in that way.
Speaker 1: I do think that what we've learned is that the
Speaker 1: f d A as an as an entity within government
Speaker 1: can move very quickly. The CDC seems to be much
Speaker 1: more deliberate, and maybe given the fact that this is
Speaker 1: a pandemic, this is a crisis, we need to hold
Speaker 1: them accountable to being a little bit quicker and analyzing
Speaker 1: data in a manner that befits the fast moving nature
Speaker 1: of this pandemic. Dr Foreman, you say that there is
Speaker 1: basically you know, what wants to say it's over and
Speaker 1: be the person out there saying that. But there is
Speaker 1: a difference between saying it's over and saying this is
Speaker 1: something we're going to have to live with and we're
Speaker 1: going to have to exist with the coronavirus being here
Speaker 1: in a perpetual fashion. And how much do you say
Speaker 1: that at this point because we've gotten to a place
Speaker 1: where the most at risk people are not going to
Speaker 1: be necessarily at the biggest risk for dying because they've
Speaker 1: been inoculated, and that the risks of continuing with social
Speaker 1: distancing and not having kids in school is greater. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: and I think we are moving that way. I think
Speaker 1: that the people that we're equivocating about school three six,
Speaker 1: nine months ago, which included me early in the pandemic,
Speaker 1: are those that now feel that we must be back
Speaker 1: to school. UM. Yale University, my employer, is going to
Speaker 1: be back to a very close to normal function by
Speaker 1: the end of August and probably mostly over the summer
Speaker 1: as well. I think that we're gonna see them and
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to watch the way private actors respond
Speaker 1: um as well, because private actors, including the Yale University,
Speaker 1: are the ones that can make the bold moves and
Speaker 1: show the public that this works, just as they were
Speaker 1: able to do bold moves a year ago relative to
Speaker 1: where we were in the pandemic at that time. Talking
Speaker 1: about bold moves, Dr Foreman, what would you do with
Speaker 1: respect to some of the travel restrictions currently in the
Speaker 1: United States with some of the guidance from the CDC
Speaker 1: as to what people who are vaccinated can do. Um. Look,
Speaker 1: most of those are being lifted in most regions. There
Speaker 1: are parts of the country where the pandemic is still worse.
Speaker 1: Michigan was, Oregon is UM So it's really hard to
Speaker 1: make a blanket proposal. But I do think lifting travel,
Speaker 1: you know, travel restrictions in keeping with vaccination, I think
Speaker 1: is a reasonable thing. And I think it also signals
Speaker 1: to people that we know that once you're vaccinated, you
Speaker 1: are very safe. You're not perfectly safe, but you're not
Speaker 1: perfectly safe from the flu either in a typical season,
Speaker 1: So you are very safe at this point once you're vaccinated.
Speaker 1: There is you know, one big uncertainty ahead is what's
Speaker 1: the durability of the immunity. Immunity from vaccination, is it
Speaker 1: going to waite? I'm one of the earlier people to
Speaker 1: be vaccinated. I completed vaccination on January six. Is my
Speaker 1: immunity gonna wane by September, October, November December, or when
Speaker 1: is it gonna wane? So there is a lot of
Speaker 1: uncertainty still out there, but I think we have plans
Speaker 1: for that as well, in terms of booster shots, in
Speaker 1: terms of managing and monitoring variants. I think that we're
Speaker 1: gonna do well with that. How A Place come back soon.
Speaker 1: It's been good to catch up, good ahead from how
Speaker 1: it fulman That Universities. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to
Speaker 1: ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: each day from six to nine am for insight from
Speaker 1: the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course on the terminal. I'm Tom Keene,
Speaker 1: and this is Bloomberg