Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl Podcast. I'm Paul swing you.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Brahma Wicks. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor, find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: that Bloomberg dot com. Well. As we dig deeper into
Speaker 1: the two point four trillion dollars stimulus bill the US
Speaker 1: Congress past, we are finding all sorts of interesting provisions.
Speaker 1: One highlighted my President Trump himself the idea that there
Speaker 1: would be ten billion dollars that would go to the
Speaker 1: US Postal Service to help support and plug some of
Speaker 1: the gaps that have emerged in the wake of the coronavirus. However,
Speaker 1: President Trump saying that unless the Postal Service raises its prices,
Speaker 1: particularly on last mile delivery packages, it will instruct Secretary
Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary Stephen Manuchin to withhold that ten billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Tim O'Brien, who's a senior columnist with Bloomberg Opinion, joining
Speaker 1: us now. Tim always wonderful to hear what you have
Speaker 1: to say about this. How much of a surprise was
Speaker 1: this to people who saw President Trump pinpoint this specific issue. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a surprise that you know, he
Speaker 1: wants he's seeking change at the Postal Service. The Postal
Speaker 1: Service needs change. Uh. Nor is it a surprise that
Speaker 1: he's focused in again on the pricing the Postal Service
Speaker 1: charges for packages. However, the way he's focusing on it
Speaker 1: is incorrect. The package delivery piece of the post Office
Speaker 1: is business, is its most robust and profitable. It's mail
Speaker 1: carrying that's a problem for the post Office. I think
Speaker 1: what was surprising was he was in the Oval Office
Speaker 1: and he simply said what everyone has suspected has been
Speaker 1: on his mind for a long time, is that he
Speaker 1: singled out Amazon dot com as as one of the
Speaker 1: reasons he has um this animosity towards the Postal Service.
Speaker 1: President Trump has said that the Postal Service loses money
Speaker 1: on every package is that delivers. Is that right? Nope,
Speaker 1: it's not correct. Again, that's a that's a very profitable
Speaker 1: part of the postal services business and has been, you know,
Speaker 1: alongside the boom and e commerce. Uh. The Postal Service
Speaker 1: plays a really important role for commercial deliverers like FedEx
Speaker 1: and US and ups um delivering packages through the so
Speaker 1: called last mile to people's homes. It's not efficient or
Speaker 1: really profitable for the commercial carriers to use, so they
Speaker 1: rely on the post post office for that, and that
Speaker 1: has been a really bright spot in the postal services business.
Speaker 1: Over the last fourteen to fifteen years or so, mail
Speaker 1: carrying has really declined, and that's always been the lions share.
Speaker 1: The post Office is business and that's where they're really hurting,
Speaker 1: and that's what they need to fix. So the president's
Speaker 1: identifying the wrong thing. Tim, I want to switch gears
Speaker 1: a little bit and move from the postal service to
Speaker 1: just the general two point four trillion dollar bailout, In particular,
Speaker 1: the p p P the area that was in did
Speaker 1: to help support small businesses. How good is the oversight
Speaker 1: of that program, Given the fact that we're learning that
Speaker 1: a good proportion of the money has gone to either
Speaker 1: publicly traded companies or others who had other means of financing,
Speaker 1: it's clearly not good enough at all, Lisa, and this
Speaker 1: was something I think we talked about a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago when the first tranche of money launched the
Speaker 1: first billion. Um uh. You know, I personally think it's
Speaker 1: a good idea that we're we're supporting businesses in this crisis,
Speaker 1: but I think it has to be supported in a
Speaker 1: really efficient and rational way. And the problem with that
Speaker 1: first big trunch of money, as we now know, is
Speaker 1: it went to people who had either other resources, other
Speaker 1: companies that have other resources to raise funds, or we're
Speaker 1: simply too big to fit any of the definitions that
Speaker 1: program had for a small business, which was five hundred
Speaker 1: employees or left. Um. I think based on my own
Speaker 1: back of the envelope math, only about five percent of
Speaker 1: the country's small businesses got money in that first round.
Speaker 1: And so now we have a second round that's larger billion,
Speaker 1: and there's still really isn't enough good oversighting place. The
Speaker 1: General Accountability Office is going to be um watching some
Speaker 1: of this. They're, you know, very well regarded bipartisan organization,
Speaker 1: but they don't report until the end of June at
Speaker 1: the earliest, and all of the other congressional and White
Speaker 1: House watchdog organizations aren't up and running yet. I was
Speaker 1: struck by a story today on the Bloomberg about study
Speaker 1: that showed that only of the money went to small
Speaker 1: businesses in areas that were the hardest hit by the coronavirus.
Speaker 1: Is your sense that this next tronch of financing that
Speaker 1: starts getting distributed this week will be more equally distributed?
Speaker 1: One would hope there's not enough transparency yet to know.
Speaker 1: And and so that's a great question you're raising LESA,
Speaker 1: and it's and and the and and Bloomberg News is
Speaker 1: reporting on that is is really important. I think the
Speaker 1: other thing we don't know is p p P is
Speaker 1: a payroll protection plan. It's meant to help workers get
Speaker 1: over this hump during this crisis, and we really don't
Speaker 1: have any auditing arm in place to know if the
Speaker 1: companies are even actually using it for payroll. And I
Speaker 1: have this, you know, lingering, journalistic, cynical kind of worry
Speaker 1: that at the end of the day, will never know
Speaker 1: if a god to the workers. So what should happen here?
Speaker 1: Tim from an oversight perspective, real quickly twenty seconds, um,
Speaker 1: I think I think it should happen at the federal
Speaker 1: level in the White House to begin with. I think
Speaker 1: they need to screen right out of the gate who's
Speaker 1: getting the money, and there should be really clear criteria
Speaker 1: for why and how they're getting it and how they're
Speaker 1: going to use it. Tim O'Brian, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. We appreciate your thoughts. As always Tim O'Brian's
Speaker 1: senior columns for Bloomberg Opinion. Check out his column UH
Speaker 1: today on the Bloomberg and Bloomberg dot Com. Trump views
Speaker 1: post office as a way to settle scores. Interesting column,
Speaker 1: interesting take on that on a big issue. There you
Speaker 1: can read all of Tim's work at Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Opinion or on the terminal at O P I
Speaker 1: n go for all of Bloomberg Opinion work. Well, we
Speaker 1: are now in probably week five or six of this quarantine,
Speaker 1: more and more of us working from home. The question is,
Speaker 1: are we more or less productive than we are when
Speaker 1: we are in our workplace? Uh Nicholas Bloom, professor of
Speaker 1: economics at Stanford University, has done a lot of work
Speaker 1: on this concept. We welcome uh Professor Bloom. So professor,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us. I know initially your
Speaker 1: work suggested that working from alms actually you could be
Speaker 1: more productive. Is that's still the case in the world
Speaker 1: of the coronavirus. Yes, I looked at you know, a
Speaker 1: number of studies, and normally working from home is at
Speaker 1: least to a big increase in productivity. But we're coronavirus.
Speaker 1: We've got four big issues. One many of us have
Speaker 1: our kids are home, which is she's distracting. Uh open,
Speaker 1: don't have our own and so a lot of people
Speaker 1: are staring living room. When I looked at working from home,
Speaker 1: we looked at people who chose to work from home,
Speaker 1: and you know, many of us did not show him
Speaker 1: would not like to do so. And then finally, um,
Speaker 1: we also looked at working from home part time, so
Speaker 1: something like of Americans with a graduate from home a
Speaker 1: day a week, but only super century full time. But
Speaker 1: we're now all forced at home full time. I will say, Nick,
Speaker 1: in a research recent research published that you you put
Speaker 1: out there. You said working from home with your children
Speaker 1: as a productivity disaster. My four year old regularly bursts
Speaker 1: into the room hoping to find me in a playful mood,
Speaker 1: shouting do do her nickname for me? In the middle
Speaker 1: of conference calls. We've all been there, Nick, And I'm
Speaker 1: wondering how much is this simply a parenting issue versus
Speaker 1: a non parenting issue or something broader about this idea
Speaker 1: of being more productive when you're face to face with
Speaker 1: coworkers and in an office environment. So there is a
Speaker 1: big issue, may you know, I thought year does burst
Speaker 1: in in fact, why you know, our older kids are
Speaker 1: learning to play the bagpipe, and though which is worse.
Speaker 1: Even setting that aside, there's a bigger issue. Once we
Speaker 1: go back post COVID, around one third of jobs only
Speaker 1: are suitable to work from home. So there's a study
Speaker 1: out of Chicago University that looked at jobs and you know,
Speaker 1: for managers, for a senior people, you know, for journalist
Speaker 1: for example, much of this can be done at home,
Speaker 1: but the large parts of the economy we can't do that.
Speaker 1: So for some of us it's fantastic when our kids
Speaker 1: are back at school and when we have you know,
Speaker 1: space and time. But I don't think it's ever going
Speaker 1: to be like it was now, which is free time.
Speaker 1: It turns out the evidence is strongly needs something like
Speaker 1: three days a week to be in the office to
Speaker 1: be motivating and creative. And the problem is now we
Speaker 1: just don't have that eye that's not even kids. There's
Speaker 1: no face efface interactions. So professor, I mean, some people
Speaker 1: have been suggesting that this is going to accelerate the
Speaker 1: work from home kind of Um, I guess migration that's
Speaker 1: been taking place really over the last ten fifteen years.
Speaker 1: Do you think that is reasonable to assume. Yes, definitely.
Speaker 1: So we we went from before COVID from a level
Speaker 1: of working from homers it was common one day a week,
Speaker 1: but it was extremely rare full time obviously even now
Speaker 1: all working from home full time to post COVID. But
Speaker 1: I think we're just back to a higher level, but
Speaker 1: a lot like we are now. So I think it
Speaker 1: would be most jobs will probably allow their employees to
Speaker 1: work from home something like two I doubt memory encourage
Speaker 1: all the time. And that's going to have a huge impact.
Speaker 1: Even how attractive is it to live in the center,
Speaker 1: don't have to commute in five those weeks, why not
Speaker 1: further out? So I think it's just going to be
Speaker 1: a huge impact. Um. You know. A great example is
Speaker 1: London after the London Olympics two thousand and twelve, they
Speaker 1: shot the center of London for three weeks to avoid
Speaker 1: congestion and those sort of mtic long run pickup and
Speaker 1: working from home because of the success that I think,
Speaker 1: because it's kind of like a bigger at so Nick,
Speaker 1: there's this question. The reason why this is so important
Speaker 1: to so many people right now, in addition to just
Speaker 1: what the future holds for people who do have the
Speaker 1: privilege of being able to work from home, is the
Speaker 1: fate of commercial real estate going forward? And you've had
Speaker 1: a lot of business leaders from Work in Stanley CEO
Speaker 1: to Black Black Rocks CEO come out and say that
Speaker 1: they think one of the bigger consequences of this is
Speaker 1: that companies will need less real estate. Does this sort
Speaker 1: of mark the death of commercial real estate, of the
Speaker 1: sort of big office given the fact that people will
Speaker 1: be able to work from home more frequently, or are
Speaker 1: those calls getting a little ahead of themselves. No, I
Speaker 1: think it's a you know, it's a bleak time for
Speaker 1: commercial real estate and also actually residential real estate in
Speaker 1: the center of cities. If we go from you know,
Speaker 1: working from home, that is very rare. So let's say
Speaker 1: two out of five days a week you continue, you
Speaker 1: probably need school blessed office space even can't perfectly hot
Speaker 1: death stands that, you know, that kind of top and demand,
Speaker 1: it's going to be problematic. It's not obvious by the
Speaker 1: way you want still maintain big officers. I just think
Speaker 1: we need less of them unless those headquarters. So that's
Speaker 1: going to be a big switch. If you look at
Speaker 1: firms that do working from home, they don't typically operate
Speaker 1: smaller satellite officers. They just required people are coming less
Speaker 1: presently to their may not. Nicholas Bloom, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us, and good luck working from
Speaker 1: home with the kids and the bagpipes. Nicholas Bloom, professor
Speaker 1: of economics at Stanford University, joining us from Stanford, California.
Speaker 1: We know this too, cute. G D print is going
Speaker 1: to be ugly. The question is how ugly and how
Speaker 1: long will it remain at those depressed levels of Welcome
Speaker 1: Tom or Like, chief economist for Bloomberg Economics, he joins
Speaker 1: us on the phone. Tom, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: I know Bloomberg Economics is that with some new research.
Speaker 1: What is your update and current economic outlook as we
Speaker 1: await the second quarter GDP print. Um, So it's a
Speaker 1: pretty bleak outlook, Paul Um. Globally we are now looking
Speaker 1: at a contraction of four for the year. That's our
Speaker 1: base case. UM. Now, if we think back to two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, the Great financial crisis that was a
Speaker 1: pretty bad year. The global economy that year only shrank,
Speaker 1: not point two. So our base case is actually something
Speaker 1: substantially more negative. If we look in more detail at
Speaker 1: the United States, looking at the looking at the first
Speaker 1: quarter number, well, it kind of depends how much the
Speaker 1: lockdown hit. It came right at the end of March.
Speaker 1: We'll see how much it it took off that first
Speaker 1: quarter of print. The second quarter, certainly we're looking at
Speaker 1: a very steep contraction. Our US team is penciling in
Speaker 1: a thirty seven annualized drop in the second quarter. I'm
Speaker 1: struggling to pair these increasingly bleak outlooks with the optimism
Speaker 1: that we're seeing in markets right now, at least in
Speaker 1: equity markets, and a lot of people are saying traders
Speaker 1: are just looking past the second quarter and even the
Speaker 1: third quarter and looking into the fourth quarter when we
Speaker 1: should get a resurgence in economic activity. I'm wondering how
Speaker 1: much that's your base case that we're not going to
Speaker 1: get necessarily a second wave of the coronavirus and we'll
Speaker 1: get meaningful pickups in growth heading towards September, November, December. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's a great question question Lisa and I
Speaker 1: to see a disconnect between some fairly bleak or rather
Speaker 1: historically bleak economic numbers coming down the line UM and
Speaker 1: the and what's going on in the equity market UM.
Speaker 1: So our base case is the eytbreak comes under control
Speaker 1: in the second quarter, and we see a reasonably rapid
Speaker 1: pick up in the third quarter as lockdown's ease. Now
Speaker 1: that's our base case, but it comes with some unusually
Speaker 1: large caveats UM. The first one is what happens to
Speaker 1: the virus. Well, it seems like from what happened in China,
Speaker 1: a lockdown can be successful in essentially permanently bringing it
Speaker 1: under control. But we don't know if that can be
Speaker 1: replicated around the world, and we don't even really know
Speaker 1: if it will stick in China, So it's entirely possible
Speaker 1: we could see cases popping back up again in the
Speaker 1: third and fourth quarter, a lockdown coming back in in
Speaker 1: the final weeks and months of the year, and even
Speaker 1: our four percent contraction calls for global GDP could turn
Speaker 1: out to be too pessimist, too optimistice, Sorry, carry on,
Speaker 1: pool go ahead, Sorry, I was The second big risk
Speaker 1: is well, we think that the underlying economy is actually okay,
Speaker 1: and so once you get rid of the virus and
Speaker 1: you get rid of the lockdown, people can come back
Speaker 1: to work and growth comes back pretty quickly. That's actually
Speaker 1: also an optimistic assumption. We're seeing twenty six million people
Speaker 1: losing their jobs in the United States, similar impact across
Speaker 1: other big economies, businesses going bankrupt. It's possible that this
Speaker 1: is going to be a scarring recession and high unemployment.
Speaker 1: Business bankruptcies, perhaps even some bank failures are going to
Speaker 1: mean that the recovery in the third and fourth quarter
Speaker 1: intoe just isn't that robust. So time just quickly. How
Speaker 1: bad do you think this unemployment rate is going to be?
Speaker 1: And then I guess how permanent? I guess you were
Speaker 1: kind of touching on that a little bit. How permanent
Speaker 1: do you feel like it will be? Are we at
Speaker 1: a higher level of just annallywing unemployment going forward? So
Speaker 1: we think that the unemployment rate in the second quarter
Speaker 1: is going to push close to um that's an extraordinarily
Speaker 1: high level. Back in the Great Financial Crisis, it got
Speaker 1: to so we're looking at a really really high level
Speaker 1: of unemployment. The question for the longer term is, well,
Speaker 1: have businesses just said, Okay, take a break, we'll call
Speaker 1: you in three months, and when the lockdown is over,
Speaker 1: people can basically get back to work and its business
Speaker 1: as usual. Or are we looking at a more damaging
Speaker 1: break in the labor market if we see people being
Speaker 1: furloughed and then those furloughs turning into permanent unemployment, and
Speaker 1: that's going to be a much more serious drag on output,
Speaker 1: and we'd be looking at a creeping recovery in the
Speaker 1: second half and into Tom more like thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us, Tom, or like chief economists
Speaker 1: for a Bloomberg Economics joining us from Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: In five weeks, the US labor market erased what took
Speaker 1: more than a decade to build more than twenty six
Speaker 1: million jobs lost as the coronavirus rereaked havoc across the
Speaker 1: United States. We're expecting millions more in the filing initial
Speaker 1: jobless filings come Thursday. A question about how quickly these
Speaker 1: jobs will return and what businesses could and should and
Speaker 1: would be doing to bring these people back online as
Speaker 1: we get signs that the virus is subsiding. James Sinclair
Speaker 1: on the front lines of all of this chief executive
Speaker 1: officer of Enterprise Alumni based in Los Angeles. James, you
Speaker 1: talk with employers, how much are they planning for the reset,
Speaker 1: the post coronavirus re jiggering of the economy as they
Speaker 1: try to get a greater proportion of their employees back online.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Lisa, Thanks for having me. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: So we work with some of the largest companies in
Speaker 1: the world, and we're seeing this massive influx of new
Speaker 1: customers across retail and tourism, travel, and so we do
Speaker 1: have a good pulse of what's next and what's needed
Speaker 1: to restart, and we are seeing a lot of organizations
Speaker 1: leveraging Enterprise Alumni to start their rehiring plan. This concept
Speaker 1: of who's available um not only people who used to
Speaker 1: work for them just before the crisis, but also historically
Speaker 1: and their ability to be able to ramp up very
Speaker 1: quickly by using alumni or former employees who used to
Speaker 1: work for the organization. So, James spaced upon kind of
Speaker 1: what you're hearing some of the companies that you talked to.
Speaker 1: How quickly do you think this restart will occur, will
Speaker 1: be a gradual type of thing, or are these companies
Speaker 1: chomping at the bit. So I think there are two conversations.
Speaker 1: Number one, it's how do we manage the community today?
Speaker 1: All of these people that we followed, all these people
Speaker 1: that we need to communicate with and place into a
Speaker 1: central resource to have that conversation. But I think people
Speaker 1: are chomping at a bit is almost an understatement. I
Speaker 1: think we're all chumping at a bit. And the question
Speaker 1: is what does that recovery look like and how are
Speaker 1: they going to potentially make up for lost time? But
Speaker 1: how are they going to start really quickly? Because they
Speaker 1: can't afford a three to four week productivity cycle. They
Speaker 1: need people that are going to hit the ground running. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so to that to a lot of customers we're
Speaker 1: speaking to, that tends to be the biggest priority now
Speaker 1: that when we get the go ahead or the green light,
Speaker 1: how can we scale up very very rapidly. James, we're
Speaker 1: talking about the jobs market in the United States as
Speaker 1: though we're a modelist, and obviously so not. In different
Speaker 1: industries have gotten hit harder than others. I know that
Speaker 1: your company makes software that are used that's used by
Speaker 1: a variety of different companies and industries. NESTLYE p and G.
Speaker 1: Marriat HSBC. I'm wondering how specific will the restart be
Speaker 1: two companies that are better positioned to weather this. In
Speaker 1: other words, could we see everyone get back online yet
Speaker 1: the hotels remain with furload employees for a lot longer.
Speaker 1: I think from what we're seeing from the staffing plans
Speaker 1: that organizations are leveraging in our in our application is
Speaker 1: that it is going to be gradual, that even though
Speaker 1: there's going to be a green light and a mass
Speaker 1: re higher, it is going to be industry specific. You
Speaker 1: take the airlines overnight, They're not suddenly going to have
Speaker 1: fil rates on their planes, same as occupantcy for hotel,
Speaker 1: same as restaurants. Just because the market is reopening, it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean everyone's going to feel comfortable suddenly going to
Speaker 1: a sports game, going to a conference, or jumping on
Speaker 1: a plane. So so they are expecting that when they
Speaker 1: do reopen, they're going to reopen as smaller organizations. So jameson,
Speaker 1: how about some small business owners We've seen, you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of pain there on Main Street USA. Any
Speaker 1: sense of how they are trying to manage to do this,
Speaker 1: how they plan on reopening once they do get that
Speaker 1: green light. I think the smaller and medium sized businesses
Speaker 1: across the US, this is really going to be leveraging
Speaker 1: their community, leveraging all the goodwill they've built over the
Speaker 1: number of years. You know, we're hoping that as many
Speaker 1: businesses as possible will survive post this, but I think
Speaker 1: the recovery is going to be really again leveraging this community.
Speaker 1: So again, whether you're a small business or a large
Speaker 1: cust a large customer of ours, you're still thinking about
Speaker 1: that network and all the people that used to work
Speaker 1: for you that you've had a relationship with, because also
Speaker 1: right now they become your brand advocates. We see a
Speaker 1: lot of customers right now recognizing that the ad spend
Speaker 1: is so small, So how can we leverage all of
Speaker 1: our former employees to push our messaging, push our programming
Speaker 1: and kind of give us the reach that we would
Speaker 1: normally have to pay for. James how much goodwill, though,
Speaker 1: has been lost for some of these employees who have
Speaker 1: lost their jobs. So I think this becomes company to
Speaker 1: company where this is an opportunity to really see the
Speaker 1: type of organization for what they are, their culture and
Speaker 1: their values. We have one retail company that has whisked
Speaker 1: up a platform for Enterprise Alumni for all of their
Speaker 1: former employees, for all of those furloughed, and one of
Speaker 1: the things they're doing is every week the CEO is
Speaker 1: doing a town hall talking to them about what's happening
Speaker 1: in the market, what they can expect, how they might
Speaker 1: up skill. We have another customer in tourism who is
Speaker 1: offering all of their furloughed employees access to an MBA program,
Speaker 1: access to learning, access to skills. So I think you're
Speaker 1: seeing a lot of companies using this opportunity to a
Speaker 1: be great employers and ensure they're offering those furloughed employees
Speaker 1: access to resources to help them up skill and be
Speaker 1: better post crisis, but also be great communicators because none
Speaker 1: of us really you know, you know what that date
Speaker 1: is for for rebound. Jameson Claire, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. We appreciate you talking to us about
Speaker 1: how when the governments and corporations reopen, how will they
Speaker 1: staff themselves. James Sinclair, CEO of Enterprise Alumni based in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, So at least that's gonna be very interesting.
Speaker 1: I'm really focused on kind of these small and midsized
Speaker 1: businesses you know, yeah, yeah, I hope that they can
Speaker 1: uh survive this, and you hope some of those fiscal
Speaker 1: stimulus actually gets to them, uh to help them bridge
Speaker 1: the gap and then uh, you know, when they do
Speaker 1: get the green light, you know how many of them
Speaker 1: will be able to come back. That's gonna be really key.
Speaker 1: It's such a complicated process, I gotta say. And to
Speaker 1: sort of predict how many employees you may need, knowing
Speaker 1: that the people you don't hire won't be able to
Speaker 1: go out and spend and accelerate the economy bends your mind. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it really does. It really does. And that we've never
Speaker 1: had this economy obviously has never had to do anything
Speaker 1: like this, I would argue, even with the Great Depression.
Speaker 1: So we'll have to see how this plays out. But
Speaker 1: key is going to be fiscal stimulus, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: get some more is on that this week. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg pen L podcast. You
Speaker 1: can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or
Speaker 1: whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Paul Sweeney, I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa Abram Woyds I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Lisa Abram woits one before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio