Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene Jay Lee.
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. Let's
Speaker 1: bring in Yan's Norfolk shows and to day to founder
Speaker 1: and CEO. Fair to say that summer never really got started,
Speaker 1: So I don't think we can say summer ended if
Speaker 1: it never started. Excuse me, and summer never got started?
Speaker 1: He came back from a sabbatical, okay, trust well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but I didn't have the romance of the images of you.
Speaker 1: I thought we were gonna wait at least twenty minutes
Speaker 1: before we started taking dicks at each Jans asked me,
Speaker 1: didn't Did he really claimbed the matter Horns taught to
Speaker 1: me about the morning so far, because it has been,
Speaker 1: fair to say, pretty crazy. So I think I think
Speaker 1: what's going on is that we've had a big drop
Speaker 1: in the equity market on Friday, and the U S
Speaker 1: authorities are keen to generate a bounce today and that's
Speaker 1: why the communication is how should we say, confusing, But
Speaker 1: the attempt to to talk up the equity market. That's
Speaker 1: what's going on. If I can make another comment on
Speaker 1: the dollar, like on Friday, obviously we had a lot
Speaker 1: of things going on. We've we've seen in a number
Speaker 1: of occasions that the dollar tends to now be weakened
Speaker 1: against the end and the euro when you have dramatic
Speaker 1: escalation on the trade fund because the Fed has now
Speaker 1: communicated that they are going to be potentially easing more
Speaker 1: aggressively when these things happen. So that's the kind of
Speaker 1: bounce you're having today, like the dollars coming back after
Speaker 1: after that set back on Friday. And that's what you're
Speaker 1: seeing in the euro cross and in the end cross
Speaker 1: in the general sort of cheat guide for foreign exchange
Speaker 1: over the last couple of years. And you and I
Speaker 1: have gone back and forth on this end a couple
Speaker 1: of times. When global risk appetite is good, the dollar
Speaker 1: is weaker. When it's bad, the dollar is stronger. But
Speaker 1: there's some extra nuance and you've touched on it. The
Speaker 1: way the euro behaves in global risk off. It's not
Speaker 1: the story this morning, but it's been the story over
Speaker 1: the last several months. Just walk out listeners through it.
Speaker 1: Yet why this is slightly different for the Euro just
Speaker 1: in terms of the risk mitigating characteristics of the single
Speaker 1: currency that maybe they didn't have several years back. Well,
Speaker 1: I think you can actually see it, and this is
Speaker 1: something we tracked closely in our data that over the
Speaker 1: last couple of weeks, we've had various types of repatriation,
Speaker 1: Like people normally invest outside their country in good times,
Speaker 1: and then we when we had tension, some of that
Speaker 1: money comes back. We've seen a lot of money, especially
Speaker 1: in equity space, come back to the US that was
Speaker 1: previously invested in the emerging markets, and in Europe you've
Speaker 1: had a little bit of the same. So essentially equity
Speaker 1: investors in Europe are getting more cautious and repatriating. That's
Speaker 1: why we've had both the euro and the dollar actually
Speaker 1: been quite strong at the same time in the month
Speaker 1: of all this. What we've observed in August, what we've
Speaker 1: observed Friday, what we see today, what we're going to
Speaker 1: see this coming Thursday, etcetera. Do you look at it
Speaker 1: is continuous functions of smooth vectors or is there a
Speaker 1: discontinuity in an instability right now at critical levels? Well, so,
Speaker 1: I would say We all know that Pounds spoke on Friday,
Speaker 1: and we all know there was tweets about tariffs, but
Speaker 1: there was actually a third thing that was news reporting
Speaker 1: about like things going on in the background to get
Speaker 1: the dollar to trade weaker. Right, So that almost didn't
Speaker 1: get any airtime on on Friday because there was so
Speaker 1: much else going on. But there is this talk about
Speaker 1: a currency tacks or things that would be done to
Speaker 1: essentially remove power from his position of power, all meant
Speaker 1: to weaken the dollar. So that was part of the
Speaker 1: reason why the dollar was weak against the end and
Speaker 1: the Euro on Friday. And the question is we come
Speaker 1: back and say, okay, is that just something that's being
Speaker 1: discussed or is it really something investors have to take seriously.
Speaker 1: So it is definitely unnerving as a global portfolio manager
Speaker 1: not knowing what the dollar policy is and it creates
Speaker 1: a lot of volatility. So where do you come out
Speaker 1: on that debate? Right now? Yin's because it's an important one.
Speaker 1: What do you tell clients? Do you think that it's
Speaker 1: something that gets followed up with action? So, as as
Speaker 1: I mentioned with toma on on the TV, like a
Speaker 1: couple of minutes ago, we have to think about currents intervention.
Speaker 1: But we also have to acknowledge that if current intervention
Speaker 1: US unilateral current intervention is going to be effective, it's
Speaker 1: going to be a commitment to do unlimited amounts. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to do ten billion. Where does the limited
Speaker 1: come from? With a fiscal deficit, etcetera, etcetera. We we're
Speaker 1: very simple. Do we print? It's very simple, Like the
Speaker 1: only balance sheet that can offer unlimited potential just a
Speaker 1: fat balance sheet. So that's why it's crucial. Right in
Speaker 1: the past, it has always been the case that there
Speaker 1: was a chord in Asian between the Treasury and the Fed.
Speaker 1: There was even a kind of like rule thumb that
Speaker 1: they did half and half. So if the Trump administration
Speaker 1: wants to go ahead with currency intervention, they have to
Speaker 1: get the FED on board with it, otherwise it's going
Speaker 1: to be meaningless. I'm broke, dude, you have a trade
Speaker 1: that can get me to September? I mean, is there
Speaker 1: a trade right now in all this craziness? Well, so,
Speaker 1: I think one thing that's interesting is that because we
Speaker 1: have so much going on in terms of uncertainty about
Speaker 1: US policy, it has been forgotten that the e c
Speaker 1: B is probably going to deliver more quee on September twelve.
Speaker 1: So I think there's some trades around that that could
Speaker 1: be very interesting. If we can push the intervention risk
Speaker 1: and all that crazy stuff in the background. We're probably
Speaker 1: going to see the eurodrift lower as we get that
Speaker 1: que priced, and it would be a huge shock to
Speaker 1: investors if we trade below one ten now. So it's
Speaker 1: not very far from where we are, but that's we
Speaker 1: haven't seen. And thank you so much with you this morning.
Speaker 1: Up until the summer, we had a massive year for
Speaker 1: credit instore. The back half is looking a little bit
Speaker 1: more complex. Please to say that Markie Patol joins US
Speaker 1: now whilst Farco Asset Management Senior portfolio manager Markie walkers
Speaker 1: through it. What's the message from our listeners this morning
Speaker 1: in the world of US credit. Well, I think that
Speaker 1: everything looks okay for risk assets. That is how your
Speaker 1: bonds and invest in great corporate bonds and we clearly
Speaker 1: or in see treasuries in that trading range probably heading lowers.
Speaker 1: So that's a pretty good backdrop if powers committed to
Speaker 1: being passive, data dependent and not aggressively trying to tighten
Speaker 1: credit conditions. Marky now is a good opportunity to reflect
Speaker 1: on the speech from Chairman Poal on Friday. It has
Speaker 1: been overtaken by events. But what was in that speech
Speaker 1: for you that stood out that you think we need
Speaker 1: to pay a little bit more attention to. Well, two things. One,
Speaker 1: the FIT is clearly going to be a follower leader
Speaker 1: in determining credit conditions. And the second thing is they
Speaker 1: clearly are still working on an intellectual framework for where
Speaker 1: should they try to send interest rates? What's the neutral
Speaker 1: rate of interest with the economy growing? So I think
Speaker 1: they don't have a larger framework. So they're just sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, just taking it as it goes and looking
Speaker 1: at each data point. Mark follower, not a leader. This
Speaker 1: is really important. Financial conditions are loose, and are loose
Speaker 1: according to Chairman Pow because of the anticipated path of
Speaker 1: federal reserve policy. MARKI is that as close as we've
Speaker 1: come to an endorsement of market pricing from this chairman
Speaker 1: so far, I would say of any chairman that I
Speaker 1: can recall, yes, and I think that's positive. I'm looking
Speaker 1: at a thirty year investment grade piece. It has a
Speaker 1: four percent coupon price to perfection, yielding two point eight
Speaker 1: zero percent it's a famous American brand. We don't even
Speaker 1: bring up the name of the company. Why should I
Speaker 1: own that versus full faith in credit? Just for the
Speaker 1: extra yield that you get that extra two to two
Speaker 1: and a half percentage points, well, you'll simply compound more
Speaker 1: and you really aren't taking much risk in investment grade corporates,
Speaker 1: even with a huge premium of one one where it's
Speaker 1: going to roll out to a one hundred thirty years out. Yes,
Speaker 1: but you know that's the way the math works on bonds.
Speaker 1: And actually, in my experience, those very high dollar bonds
Speaker 1: tend off for the investor a little bit of value
Speaker 1: because the yield is greater than because no one wants
Speaker 1: to pay the big premium. Folks, that is margat Patel
Speaker 1: one oh one that you just heard there, do not
Speaker 1: be a feared of premium. Are there any bonds out there,
Speaker 1: Margaret discount? They were very, very few, and typically they're
Speaker 1: distressed or they the doll. Let's talk about the young
Speaker 1: character than Daniel Fuss. He's at UH in Boston at
Speaker 1: Looma Sales, and Margie, I look at you and the
Speaker 1: heritage of Fuss and Patel and and all that. There
Speaker 1: was a point where you you bought bonds at a
Speaker 1: discount and you made a credit upgrade as you went along,
Speaker 1: and you actually made some snappy total return. Will we
Speaker 1: ever get back to that? I don't think in our lifetime. Now, wow,
Speaker 1: I mean that you know these are important statement life.
Speaker 1: Well this, John, this goes to the heart of your show,
Speaker 1: the real yield, I mean, Margaie, do let me rephrase,
Speaker 1: do we ever get back to a legitimate, really yield
Speaker 1: where our listeners who are saviors, savers can actually look
Speaker 1: up twelve months and say, hey, I made a little money. Well,
Speaker 1: they can make a little money. And of course, if
Speaker 1: you compare to inflation, if you make eight percent on
Speaker 1: a bond but inflation was seven, you haven't really made
Speaker 1: that much. And today you're making one or two percent
Speaker 1: over inflation, So that's not That reminds me of a
Speaker 1: conversation I had about a year ago with Mike Collins
Speaker 1: of p JIM and I raised the following question. I
Speaker 1: said to Mike, how will we look back at this
Speaker 1: bond market in ten years time? Looking back in ten
Speaker 1: ten years ago and saying all that negative yielding debt
Speaker 1: sixteen trillion dollars worth wasn't this crazy? And I remember
Speaker 1: Mike turning around to me and saying, never mind that.
Speaker 1: What you'll do in ten years looking back ten years
Speaker 1: is look at the treasury market and wish you'd bought
Speaker 1: a thirty year with a three percent coupon because you
Speaker 1: probably won't be able to get it. And guess what
Speaker 1: a hundred basis points south. Here we are at Margie.
Speaker 1: All of the concerns about the deficit, about the debt pile,
Speaker 1: it's just not in the treasury market, Markie, is this it?
Speaker 1: Are we heading to the japanification? Not at the bund
Speaker 1: market will beyond that. But is that the direction of
Speaker 1: travel for the treasury market too? I think it is.
Speaker 1: We've seen Japan go first, in Europe second, we're on
Speaker 1: that same trail. We have a little bit more robust
Speaker 1: economic condition, so we're behind them. But you know that
Speaker 1: burden of death is simply weighing on returns and growth
Speaker 1: and as legislationary force. That's just the way it is.
Speaker 1: Do you have equities within your portfolio, within your blended portfolio,
Speaker 1: Wells Fargo. Do you have equities for dividend growth? Yes?
Speaker 1: I do right now, it's about at fifteen hil bonds.
Speaker 1: That's where the return will be. I mean, that's where
Speaker 1: the return will be. What's an appropriate dividend growth for
Speaker 1: our listeners? I mean everybody's addicted to double digit growth
Speaker 1: or the big fat coupon and say telephones whatever. But
Speaker 1: what's an appropriate dividend growth for Margie patell? Is it
Speaker 1: nominal GDP? Well, the standard poor is a dividend yield
Speaker 1: is a touch under two percent, and so for me
Speaker 1: one and a half percent is good enough if I
Speaker 1: think I can get capital appreciation to be a lot
Speaker 1: more than the total. But do you model and dividend
Speaker 1: growth off a one percent yield? Uh? No, because I
Speaker 1: think it's really more important is what's the earnings growth
Speaker 1: cash flow the whole company that dividend. That's really important
Speaker 1: statement folks on the Monday morning, I mean financial planning
Speaker 1: one oh one. Uh it's simple. Do you look at
Speaker 1: the company as a whole in its financial metrics or
Speaker 1: do you focus in on the dividend growth mantra and
Speaker 1: you just mislay and market. Just as a final question,
Speaker 1: there'll be many listeners looking at the equity market and
Speaker 1: saying those safe bond type proxies in the equity market
Speaker 1: is where the biggest appreciation has been. They look expensive
Speaker 1: right now. We don't want exposure to that area market.
Speaker 1: What's the message for those individuals this morning. I think
Speaker 1: the messages you should dial back income for friends in
Speaker 1: favor of capital appreciation. I think capital appreciation is still
Speaker 1: undervalued by investors of yesteryear. Terrific Monday briefing, Margaret Patel,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Capital Management greatly greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Josh Allencott joins us down from Janis Sanderson. Dr Alan
Speaker 1: Carr is always a joy to listen to with his
Speaker 1: work at m I T and Chemical Engineering and also
Speaker 1: at Berkeley UH as well. Ash writes a hyper detailed
Speaker 1: note as he is global asset allocation and portfolio manager
Speaker 1: for Janis Ash. I'm a big, big believer in sharp
Speaker 1: ratios because beta, the volatility of the market really isn't
Speaker 1: in there. There's a purity to the sharp ratio. You
Speaker 1: go further and you normalize the sharp ratios. What that
Speaker 1: signal within the market hysteria of the last two weeks. Great?
Speaker 1: Thanks Tom for the other kind words. Um So we
Speaker 1: do normalize or we adjust the sharp ratio. Um and
Speaker 1: we adjust the sharp ratio very quickly for what turns
Speaker 1: out to be the most important driver of portfolio performance,
Speaker 1: which are the large moves um. The average moves UH
Speaker 1: don't impose as big of an impact on how your
Speaker 1: overall portfolio performs in the long run, but it's the
Speaker 1: tails that matter the most. So one of the problems
Speaker 1: with the sharp ratio is the fallacy of averages. Right
Speaker 1: I could, for example, if I didn't know how to swim.
Speaker 1: I'm not a very good swimmer, and I was trying
Speaker 1: to cross a river and Tom, you told me the
Speaker 1: river on average has a depth of three feet. Should
Speaker 1: I feel comfortable crossing that river or not? I'm probably
Speaker 1: not going to be comfortable because what if the cross
Speaker 1: section I'm sitting at right now is not a three
Speaker 1: ft foot depth, but rather it's twenty um. So we
Speaker 1: look at the insurance markets to give us an idea
Speaker 1: of the potential expected large upside um as well as
Speaker 1: the potential large downside um, using a combination of call
Speaker 1: prices and put options and put prices and what these
Speaker 1: option contracts are telling us. Which are insurance contracts they
Speaker 1: tell us today risky assets aren't offering a very attractive
Speaker 1: risk premium UM UH equities globally, from US equities, UH,
Speaker 1: non US developed equities, emerging market equities, they all are
Speaker 1: showcasing not much upside given the downside risk you bear UM.
Speaker 1: And I think that's all an artifact of what's going
Speaker 1: on in the markets today with UH uncertainty obviously on
Speaker 1: the trade front, uncertainty on the political front UM, and
Speaker 1: slowing economic um real economic numbers so actual. Was there
Speaker 1: anything coming out of Jackson whole last week from FED
Speaker 1: Chairman Poal that might suggest that the FED has an
Speaker 1: opportunity here to really help markets now? I actually think
Speaker 1: that the biggest takeaway UM from the FED was and
Speaker 1: I believe this is the first time Powell directly said
Speaker 1: this monetary policy may not be able to do much
Speaker 1: to quell the uncertainty UM to cushion the blows on
Speaker 1: the trade front UM. That that's something which is outside
Speaker 1: of the purview, outside of the toolkit of monetary policy
Speaker 1: UM so, so I think he took a stand in
Speaker 1: a call to action that don't look at monetary policy
Speaker 1: um UM to be able to be the panacea for everything.
Speaker 1: It's just not going to help much when you have
Speaker 1: these structural risks that that are potentially hitting UM global
Speaker 1: trade and the fabric UM that that really has um
Speaker 1: UM led to to this great expansion over the last
Speaker 1: I don't know, two decades, three decades. And so unfortunately
Speaker 1: it sounds like, I mean, there's some of the market
Speaker 1: that are kind of coming to the conclusion that they're
Speaker 1: likely won't be resolution into this trade uncertain until after election.
Speaker 1: If that's in fact the case, then is the best
Speaker 1: move just to stay on the sidelines here. I think
Speaker 1: that's right. UM. There's a lot of noise, and I
Speaker 1: actually think you're correct. UM. I do believe UM, and
Speaker 1: the data supports this. The parallels that people are drawing
Speaker 1: today between the trade issues that exist today and the
Speaker 1: trade issues UM and the trade problems that came about
Speaker 1: during the Great Depression UM and the use of terroiffs
Speaker 1: and a protective stance taking by countries globally UM intensified
Speaker 1: the recession into a Great depression are unfounded. UM. What
Speaker 1: the data shows is it was the gold standard. It
Speaker 1: was the inability of countries to control the value of
Speaker 1: the currency that really accelerated this recession into a great depression. UM.
Speaker 1: And the fact is those countries Ease which were off
Speaker 1: the gold standard or abandoned the gold standard very quickly
Speaker 1: only suffered mild recessions by e Japan. It was only
Speaker 1: those countries that stayed on the gold standard, such as
Speaker 1: the US, such as Germany, will suffered the Great Depression. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Ken Rogost done a ton of work on this, on
Speaker 1: the advantage. Do you guys at Jennis Henderson have a
Speaker 1: confidence in floating right right now to compensate for all
Speaker 1: the uproar were in? Yeah, I think you see that.
Speaker 1: I think that's the power. And that's the characteristic of
Speaker 1: an efficient market. What an efficient market does for you
Speaker 1: and why an efficient market is so powerful. It figures
Speaker 1: out ways to get around artificial barriers, just like gravity
Speaker 1: will figure out a way. And Tom, you try to
Speaker 1: um prevent water from flowing down a hill. Um, Sure,
Speaker 1: you might be successful for a couple of days, but
Speaker 1: gravity will figure out a way to get that water
Speaker 1: to the bottom of the hill. Um. And that's what
Speaker 1: the capital markets. So if there's an artificial embaran imbalanced
Speaker 1: artificial years such as Harris, currencies will adjust. And that's
Speaker 1: what you're talking in China right now. Well, we're going
Speaker 1: to run out of time, Ash, we needn't make a
Speaker 1: note your cong Can you make a note that we
Speaker 1: could drag drag dr Alan Car on again? Soonest with
Speaker 1: Janisonder said, because I got like, I got like forty
Speaker 1: two more questions and only four of them have to
Speaker 1: do with the Greek letters. We get you got your
Speaker 1: shop ratio question, and so they always leave it the
Speaker 1: strongest AshEL and car Where this is, Janiser said, love
Speaker 1: having him on to talk about the dynamics in the market.
Speaker 1: John Hudack speaks I think fourteen languages. He's at Brookings
Speaker 1: where he dissects American policy. John help us with one
Speaker 1: of the themes this weekend, which is the durability or
Speaker 1: the longevity or the entrenchment of various presidential policies we've
Speaker 1: seen in the last three years. Is there a durability
Speaker 1: to Trump foreign policy? I don't think there's a durability
Speaker 1: necessarily to Trump foreign policy, in large part because it
Speaker 1: has been fairly scattered from one moment to the next.
Speaker 1: On a given issue, we're not entirely sure what the
Speaker 1: president believes is best. I think one of the best
Speaker 1: examples of that is the president's position on troops in Afghanistan. Um,
Speaker 1: we have gone from a president who is now saying
Speaker 1: there's no timeline to pull troops out, um, coming all
Speaker 1: the way from a president who was ready to pull
Speaker 1: all the troops out very quickly. And so because of that,
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine that a set of policies that
Speaker 1: are so volatile could possibly be durable. So, John, as
Speaker 1: we take a look at the waning moments of the
Speaker 1: G seven meeting, it's at you know, when we think
Speaker 1: about the global trade here obviously that was discussed um
Speaker 1: probably at length there at the G seven. Is it
Speaker 1: realistic to believe that any country could enter into a
Speaker 1: substantive trade agreement with the United States given how President
Speaker 1: Trump has been so I guess, you know, back and
Speaker 1: forth on so many key issues. You know, I do
Speaker 1: think it is possible for a country or for um,
Speaker 1: the EU UH to enter into a trade agreement with
Speaker 1: the President. Certainly there are mutual interests that extend among
Speaker 1: countries and the possibility really exists. I think you're right
Speaker 1: Paul that because of the President's vacillation, it's hard to
Speaker 1: nail him down. And of course when it comes to
Speaker 1: a trade agreement, everyone needs to be very firmly on
Speaker 1: the same page. But I do think it's possible, maybe
Speaker 1: not grand trade agreements, but something more narrowed in on
Speaker 1: the fuss of things that you can nail the president
Speaker 1: down on John twice today, At least I haven't watched
Speaker 1: all of the president's actions. He turned a secretary minution
Speaker 1: and and lined up officers for whatever the answer was
Speaker 1: as having to do with China and the dialogue with China.
Speaker 1: How engaged are they in the Trump messaging that we
Speaker 1: saw him particularly observed on Friday. You know, I think
Speaker 1: that the team around the president is critical to however
Speaker 1: the trade talks will proceed with China. The reality is
Speaker 1: that the president often speaks off the cuff. Um. It
Speaker 1: appears that that sort of conversational style approach to presidential
Speaker 1: rhetoric is not always one informed. And while I think
Speaker 1: that some might view the president constantly turning to someone
Speaker 1: like the Treasury Secretary as a signal of weakness, I
Speaker 1: actually think it's the president at least UH substituting uh
Speaker 1: better judgment for his own when it's not fully informed.
Speaker 1: And so I think the more that the president turns
Speaker 1: to his advisors and asks for a more firm answer
Speaker 1: is much better for UH, this country and for the
Speaker 1: world than the president just simply saying whatever comes to
Speaker 1: the top of his mind. So, John, given some of
Speaker 1: the vacillations of this administration, what incentive do you think
Speaker 1: the Chinese have for actually engaging in meaningful discussions and
Speaker 1: trying to get a deal done? Or are they kind
Speaker 1: of on the flip side saying we'll just wait. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think this is something that the Chinese
Speaker 1: are still figuring out. Ideally, um, they are going to
Speaker 1: strike a trade deal when it is most opportune for them.
Speaker 1: And I think for President she he has had moments
Speaker 1: during the Trump administration where he has thought, you know,
Speaker 1: this is the administration to strike this deal with, and
Speaker 1: then those moments passed. I think over the next six months,
Speaker 1: probably the Chinese are really going to start to game
Speaker 1: this out and say, is Donald Trump the person we
Speaker 1: need to do this with or is there a democratic
Speaker 1: nominee emerging who might be easier to work with and
Speaker 1: more stay to work What is their lobbying effort in Washington?
Speaker 1: I mean, with Brookings and all your connections. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the idea that China's in Beijing and they
Speaker 1: get an airplane and they fly over here is pretty naive.
Speaker 1: What's there political thrust in lobbying in Washington, you know,
Speaker 1: I would get I mean, I don't have an inside
Speaker 1: track on that, but from the outside, I would say, obviously,
Speaker 1: the Chinese have tremendous leverage with regard to the interests
Speaker 1: of American companies. Any two economies on this planet the
Speaker 1: size of the U. S. And China are going to
Speaker 1: have a lot of overlapping interests. And I think they're
Speaker 1: using both their leverage in China but also their leverage
Speaker 1: among American companies and consumer references to to move this
Speaker 1: forward again. Bloomberg Surveillance worldwide. Of course, on Bloomberg Radio today,
Speaker 1: we're waiting for the press conference of the President Republic
Speaker 1: of France Mr McCall and the President the United States
Speaker 1: Donald Trumpet. They it's that will be coming up in
Speaker 1: a bit. Paul, this is like um with Roper, with
Speaker 1: Brooks Sutherland. I mean, it's fifty employees in Shanghai. It's
Speaker 1: not Boeing, No, it's not seem as of Germany, but
Speaker 1: all these little companies at up exactly, and so John
Speaker 1: kind of going on that, you know, what do you
Speaker 1: make of the president's call. I think I'm not sure
Speaker 1: how to really describe it, that U S companies should
Speaker 1: leave China. This is very confusing. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: not the type of rhetoric that you would expect out
Speaker 1: of a free market conservative. This is not something you
Speaker 1: would expect out of a Republican president. And I think
Speaker 1: the irony, of course, is that the president's favorite attack
Speaker 1: on Democrats in this country is to call them socialists.
Speaker 1: And it's it's odd to imagine the president trying to,
Speaker 1: you know, sees the means of production abroad for American
Speaker 1: companies to advance his own personal interests. And so I
Speaker 1: think we've only seen the beginning of the blowback that
Speaker 1: the president is going to get from this, and I
Speaker 1: think part of it will be whether this was one
Speaker 1: tweet and then it dies off, or whether the President
Speaker 1: really considers pursuing it um That will tell us the
Speaker 1: extent to which this blowback is going to happen. John Hudeck,
Speaker 1: thank you so much with Brookings today. Just terrific perspective here.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane Before
Speaker 1: the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio