Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Blots podcast.
Speaker 2: I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 3: And I'm Joe Wisenthal.
Speaker 2: Joe, the week's not over.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're recording this November sixth at ten point thirty
Speaker 3: three am. But one thing that is over is a
Speaker 3: lot of people expected that at this point there would
Speaker 3: be significant ambiguity about who had won the election, and
Speaker 3: actually that part is over. There's no ambiguity at all.
Speaker 2: It's been called Yeah, that's right. So Trump has obviously
Speaker 2: won the election, and we've seen a pretty big market reaction.
Speaker 2: Equities obviously up, but also bond yields are going up,
Speaker 2: which means prices are going down. And there's been lots
Speaker 2: of talk about the return of volatility in the bond
Speaker 2: market and the way investors or traders were sort of
Speaker 2: approaching event risk from this election. I wrote about it
Speaker 2: in the newsletter. There are other people who have been
Speaker 2: writing about it, and of course, as I said, the
Speaker 2: week isn't over yet. We still have that FED meeting
Speaker 2: on Thursday.
Speaker 1: No, that's right.
Speaker 3: You know you mentioned the event risk and the stock
Speaker 3: market rally and the bond move and I would say
Speaker 3: two things. I think there is probably just sort of
Speaker 3: generically probably a view among equity investors that Trump europolicies,
Speaker 3: probably less regulation, lower corporate taxes is good for stocks.
Speaker 3: That seems like something. On the other hand, it's interesting
Speaker 3: because the VICS has absolutely collapsed, and so I think
Speaker 3: part of the reason perhaps for this at least some
Speaker 3: component of this stock market reaction is probably just the
Speaker 3: end of that election, certainty being gone, the unambiguous outcome,
Speaker 3: and setting aside Trump versus Harris policies. Now, on the
Speaker 3: other hand, what's interesting is the move index, which may
Speaker 3: you know, like the great of the that's lower, but
Speaker 3: not dramatically lower, and it still remains at very high levels,
Speaker 3: at least relative to recent years, or at least over
Speaker 3: the last year. So there are sort of I would say,
Speaker 3: competing forces. You know, some aspects of uncertainty are gone.
Speaker 3: That's good. But then there, as you say, this sort
Speaker 3: of march up and rates, which is a global story
Speaker 3: by the way, is still a big thing out there.
Speaker 2: Yes, so we are going to be focusing on bonds today.
Speaker 2: We might record an equity specific episode later this week,
Speaker 2: but because of the upcoming FED meeting, and the election
Speaker 2: this week we felt, you know, let's look at bonds.
Speaker 2: Let's look at bonds, all right, and who better to
Speaker 2: look at bonds than Harley Bassman, managing partner at Simplify
Speaker 2: Asset Management and the creator of Convexity Maven, which is
Speaker 2: an awesome publication. If you're not already reading it, Harley,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for coming back on all thoughts.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Glad you're a wait today.
Speaker 3: So I was also the creator of the Move index,
Speaker 3: which in addition, oh yeah, it right, in addition creator,
Speaker 3: in addition to being the Convexity Maven himself, should anyway
Speaker 3: keep going traces?
Speaker 2: Well, okay, why don't we start with the Move index? Then,
Speaker 2: Harley explain or just give us a recap on what's
Speaker 2: been going on with the move, because there was one
Speaker 2: specific day where we saw a big move upwards ha
Speaker 2: ha ha. In the move.
Speaker 4: The move is the Vicks for bonds. It's basically a
Speaker 4: one month window and so last month when we went
Speaker 4: from October four to October seven, the election popped into
Speaker 4: that window and that's what and so that's when you
Speaker 4: had the big jump in the move. And from that
Speaker 4: you could then calculate the market's expectation of volatility from that,
Speaker 4: and when we crossed over a month ago, I said
Speaker 4: eighteen basis points. When we walked into yesterday it was
Speaker 4: at seventeen basis points. So the market kind of got
Speaker 4: it right. And as a Leco screen right now, tenure
Speaker 4: rates moved about eighteen so market kind of called this
Speaker 4: thing right on the move that was at one thirty ish,
Speaker 4: it's now one seventeen ish. It's going to drop again
Speaker 4: after the Fed on Thursday, because we still have the
Speaker 4: uncertainty of what they're going to go and do. We
Speaker 4: kind of think it's locked in, but not for sure.
Speaker 4: You'll see the move kind of dropped down after that.
Speaker 4: I guess the contrastor kind of zipping towards is that
Speaker 4: the vics at you know, fifteen ish now. It never
Speaker 4: got that high. It got like twenty ish two days ago,
Speaker 4: which is barely above its long term average. Stock market
Speaker 4: has not moved that much for this entire time. All
Speaker 4: the volatility has been in rates, the uncertainty of what
Speaker 4: the Fed's going to go and do, and that still
Speaker 4: is not over. We still have to figure out what
Speaker 4: is the terminal value. The terminal rate the Fed's that
Speaker 4: we get to, as well as where we're going to
Speaker 4: be this December, which is very interesting right now if
Speaker 4: you look at the market, we've had the market pricing
Speaker 4: in a lower rate than the dots, the Fed's prediction
Speaker 4: of policy going forward. That is now flipped over. We
Speaker 4: now have the market at forty basis points higher than
Speaker 4: the fed's most recent dot plot, and that's kind of new.
Speaker 4: So the market's kind of changing sentiment here about where
Speaker 4: we're going to land a December from now and then
Speaker 4: two years from now.
Speaker 3: Is that rare historically that here we have the vics
Speaker 3: really close to rock bottom levels and the move is
Speaker 3: still somewhat elevated if you go back historically. Is this
Speaker 3: common in period? Because intuitively, I would guess that if
Speaker 3: there's a high amount of uncertainty about what the FED
Speaker 3: is going to do over the medium term, I thought,
Speaker 3: you know, things like inflation and the FED mattered for
Speaker 3: stocks and therefore on some level that would translate to
Speaker 3: equity markets. How rare is that disconnect?
Speaker 4: In general? From thirty thousand feet the move and the
Speaker 4: vics go hand in hand. You can't trade them, don't
Speaker 4: ever do that, Okay, But they don't want to go
Speaker 4: hand in hand. As far as I can tell, this
Speaker 4: is the longest period of where there's been a disconnect
Speaker 4: between the two of them, which is not really a
Speaker 4: shock when you think about it, because all the uncertainty
Speaker 4: has been in the bond market. We had, we had QI,
Speaker 4: we had QT, we had zup. The FED take and
Speaker 4: makes some five hundred points in short order. The uncertainty
Speaker 4: has all been in the rates market and not in
Speaker 4: the stock market, and for reasons for that, the fiscal
Speaker 4: impulse of spending money has kept the stock market and
Speaker 4: the economy going well better than expected. So it's surprising,
Speaker 4: but when you look at the actual data, it's not
Speaker 4: that much of a shock. We still don't know where
Speaker 4: rates are going to settle, but we have a pretty
Speaker 4: good idea the stocks are going to be okay.
Speaker 2: So one thing I've been wondering is you often hear
Speaker 2: from Republicans that they think economic growth will offset things
Speaker 2: that increase the deficit. So you know, we can have
Speaker 2: big tax cuts because the economy is going to boom
Speaker 2: and so the US will get more income and that
Speaker 2: will ultimately help offset the deficit. I'm always curious from
Speaker 2: a bond trader's perspective, How do you actually incorporate like
Speaker 2: economic growth specifically into your outlook for rates.
Speaker 4: That's a challenge. I mean, you know, we have the numbers,
Speaker 4: but long and variable lags, as the expression goes, tends
Speaker 4: to dominate. Like I'm u Chicago, I'm a monitorist. I
Speaker 4: think you know, printing money cross inflation just takes time
Speaker 4: for it to happen. I mean, what you've seen recently
Speaker 4: is the FED basically printed created lots of money, and
Speaker 4: the last you know, four years, they set that pile
Speaker 4: of money ablaze. And here we go. We have higher rates,
Speaker 4: we have inflation, and you have a stock market doing okay,
Speaker 4: and it seems like that's not going to change going forward.
Speaker 4: Becomes very interesting the markets move to where it's supposed
Speaker 4: to kind of go to. I think we're fair value
Speaker 4: right now. Now you can go well above fair value,
Speaker 4: but we've kind of gotten to where we're supposed to
Speaker 4: go if you kind of take the FED at its
Speaker 4: word of where they're faking inflation is going to be
Speaker 4: and where the economy is gonna be. What we don't
Speaker 4: know right now is the push me, pull me effect
Speaker 4: between the fiscal impulse of theory that you know, Trump's
Speaker 4: kind of they advertise spending seven trillion dollars more versus
Speaker 4: immigration policy and tariffs which are negative. How is it
Speaker 4: going to work? That's unclear? I mean, which side is
Speaker 4: going to go and win? This is kind of why
Speaker 4: we have to go And really kind of the expression
Speaker 4: has been you take Trump seriously but not literally. I'll
Speaker 4: go with that. We don't know what he's actually going
Speaker 4: to do. When at the end of the day, is
Speaker 4: he going to deport ten million people? Kind of doubt it.
Speaker 4: But could he go and to port a million? I
Speaker 4: guess so? And will that be impactful? Yeah? Yeah, I
Speaker 4: mean is he gonna raise terrorists? He's good? Triple tariffs? No,
Speaker 4: could you take about twenty thirty percent? Yeah? And what
Speaker 4: will that be through the system?
Speaker 3: We don't know yet, right, and I think there's gonna
Speaker 3: there's just a tremendous amount of uncertainty on the specifics
Speaker 3: of this point, and obviously something we're going to be
Speaker 3: covering a lot really, I think in the years ahead,
Speaker 3: trying to understand how the economy evolves. Let's take it
Speaker 3: really short term for a second, because we do have
Speaker 3: that FED decision tomorrow. It seems like the market's basically locked.
Speaker 3: It's going to be a twenty five basis point cut.
Speaker 3: Is there anything that you'll be watching? You know, there's
Speaker 3: no dots that are going to come out tomorrow, so
Speaker 3: it's I don't know, maybe, especially in the context of
Speaker 3: this week, one of the least anticipated FED decisions I
Speaker 3: can remember in sometime. But there's always some signal. Is
Speaker 3: there anything in particular that you'll be watching or listening
Speaker 3: for tomorrow when that decision comes out.
Speaker 4: I've been saying for many many months now. I mean
Speaker 4: I have higher for longer. I will say that I
Speaker 4: was on the record thinking they would not cut last time.
Speaker 4: I thought they'd wait till after the election, you go
Speaker 4: and do it. But I still think we have to
Speaker 4: go and focus on what's really important here. The reason
Speaker 4: why we still agreed the Greek tragedies we still read
Speaker 4: Shakespeare is these guys captured, you know, the essence of mankind,
Speaker 4: which is hubris ego. J. Powell does not want to
Speaker 4: go down as Arthur Burns, who cut rates as inflation
Speaker 4: came down in the seventies and then inflation came roaring
Speaker 4: on back and he became you know, the dog of inflation,
Speaker 4: whereas vulgar is our saint. I think Powell wants to
Speaker 4: go out as the hero. And therefore, with what's going
Speaker 4: on and the proposed policies by Trump, I kind of
Speaker 4: think he's pretty worried about, you know, a resurgence of
Speaker 4: inflation and having his tombstone, say Arthur BYRNS reducts. So
Speaker 4: I kind of think he's going to want to go
Speaker 4: and sit back a little bit and kind of watch
Speaker 4: and see what Trump actually does. I just don't see
Speaker 4: if dropping rates as hard as everyone thinks. If he
Speaker 4: thinks he's going to go and reignite inflation and damage
Speaker 4: his legacy, I think his legacy probably matters more than
Speaker 4: anything else to him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one thing I wanted to ask you about, you know,
Speaker 2: you mentioned that idea of taking Trump seriously but not literally,
Speaker 2: and how that introduces a lot of uncertainty in the market.
Speaker 2: Some of that uncertainty, in addition to being captured in
Speaker 2: the move index, has been captured in the term premium,
Speaker 2: which has been going up. And term premium, I mean
Speaker 2: everyone has different definitions of it, but like a basic
Speaker 2: one is that it is the extra compensation or yield
Speaker 2: that investors demand to hold longer term debt. And the
Speaker 2: thinking here is that the term premium might be going
Speaker 2: up because we're going to have all that uncertainty that
Speaker 2: comes with a Trump win. How are you thinking about
Speaker 2: the term premium from here on out?
Speaker 4: I'm thinking about what is what it's called fair value,
Speaker 4: which is almost a meaningless number. But let's just what's
Speaker 4: fair value. Let's just say inflation comes in at two
Speaker 4: and a half those a two, which is not shock
Speaker 4: pcees two to seven. The Fed slaps on thirty forty
Speaker 4: basis points of real rate, right, and then you go
Speaker 4: and put on the proper curve, and historically going back
Speaker 4: thirty five years, including all the stuff up and down,
Speaker 4: all the bear's panics and kiwis, basically you average one
Speaker 4: hundred and fifty basis points one hundred and forty seventy
Speaker 4: precise between FED funds and the tenure. Well, if that
Speaker 4: fund is going to be two eighty eight, which is
Speaker 4: the long term dots we have right now, which is
Speaker 4: thirty eight basis points above inflation of two and a half,
Speaker 4: so or a real rate of almost a half point there,
Speaker 4: that just tens at four thirty five. You know we're
Speaker 4: four forty five. We're kind of there right now. What
Speaker 4: I see happening is the FED will take rates down
Speaker 4: slower and expected the ten years. We're kind of in
Speaker 4: the in the kill zone right now, although something crazy
Speaker 4: happens and we have nominal GDP coming in like at
Speaker 4: five ish, Okay, I mean nominal GDP should kind of
Speaker 4: equal ten year rates in the grand scheme of the world.
Speaker 4: As a U Chicago person, and so I kind of
Speaker 4: think the term premium as we calculate it will expand
Speaker 4: as the front end comes down, and we'll all be
Speaker 4: right with the world, except for a few bumps and
Speaker 4: bruises along the way. Once again, we really don't know
Speaker 4: what's going to happen between immigration and tariffs and immigration.
Speaker 4: I don't even hung about the politics of it, but
Speaker 4: I want to be very clear at the upper level,
Speaker 4: the econ me is people times, hours, test productivity, people
Speaker 4: hours productivity. I think what's happened in the last two
Speaker 4: years is we've had more people come in via immigration,
Speaker 4: legal or otherwise. That's supported the economy. Thus we have
Speaker 4: numbers coming in better. And then if we start deporting people,
Speaker 4: you'll have less people. You'll bless GDP. Is that bad?
Speaker 4: Maybe not. I mean, if you if that's how you
Speaker 4: view the world, you want to have reduce immigration, if
Speaker 4: you're willing to go pay a higher interest rate for it,
Speaker 4: that's fine. I'm not going to debate the concept. I
Speaker 4: was going to say, what happens at the end of
Speaker 4: the road when you do that? And we're always willing
Speaker 4: to go in and make cost benefit payoffs when we
Speaker 4: make decisions. Nothing's free in the world. So green policy,
Speaker 4: if you want to transfer from oil to solar and
Speaker 4: wind right now cost more money to do that. I'm
Speaker 4: not saying it's a bad policy, but we're willing to
Speaker 4: go pay it to go get that climate under control.
Speaker 4: That's okay. Just remember you're paying a price for it,
Speaker 4: and what's what price you're wanting to pay.
Speaker 3: You mentioned Powell and the ghost of Arthur Burns, which
Speaker 3: of course is something that people have talked about at
Speaker 3: Fairmount and he doesn't want to go down as the
Speaker 3: person who really let inflation run wild again. And you know,
Speaker 3: earlier this year it seemed like okay, that had been cemented.
Speaker 3: They did the fifty bases point cut. Since then, the
Speaker 3: economy has been a little stronger than perhaps people had expected.
Speaker 3: Then there's all the Trump uncertainty, et cetera. That being said,
Speaker 3: this gets to trick taking Trump seriously versus literally, and
Speaker 3: the uncertainty about what we don't know what he's gonna do.
Speaker 3: One thing we do know that he did last time
Speaker 3: was Browbie J. Powell on Twitter and other platforms about
Speaker 3: lowering rates. When you think about that time period specifically
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen twenty nineteen, I think it was more eighteen.
Speaker 3: Did that have an effect? And should we think about
Speaker 3: the pressure that would probably likely emerge in twenty twenty
Speaker 3: five again if there's not significant rate cuts.
Speaker 4: I suppose, But I think the much bigger event around
Speaker 4: that time was that when Powell's time came up for renomination,
Speaker 4: the government dragged their feet by like nine months on
Speaker 4: that because there was so much you know, I guess
Speaker 4: think does Biden wanted to put in a moreduvish person.
Speaker 3: But in twenty eighteen specifically, that's when Paul was still
Speaker 3: hiking rates. We got the far away from neutral comment,
Speaker 3: which eventually had to get reversed. And that was when
Speaker 3: Trump was doing a lot of tweeting about rates, and
Speaker 3: so there was that pressure from the White House to
Speaker 3: the you know, nominally independent Federal Reserve or the independent
Speaker 3: Federal Reserve. And what I'm curious is whether you think,
Speaker 3: as you were called back at that time, that that
Speaker 3: pressure had least at the margin, some effect on the
Speaker 3: policy setting.
Speaker 4: I don't think it had that much. And I don't
Speaker 4: because now we've had another, you know, four or five
Speaker 4: eight years to look at this thing. It's unclear to
Speaker 4: me that what Trump was saying in Twitter was the
Speaker 4: same thing he was saying, you know, via Treasury Secretary.
Speaker 4: It seems to me that that there's a there's a
Speaker 4: dual level over here of what he actually wants to
Speaker 4: do versus what he says using the bully pulpit. So
Speaker 4: it could be it could have been going. Let's say
Speaker 4: he's telling pell to keep going, to keep everything constant,
Speaker 4: but in public he's saying, take him down to go
Speaker 4: and you know, sound good root for the home team.
Speaker 4: It's unclear to me if that wasn't the case.
Speaker 2: Joe had a great piece in our new daily newsletter
Speaker 2: last week, or maybe it was two weeks ago.
Speaker 3: I think it was too lost track of time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, time is a flat circle at this point, but
Speaker 2: it was about potential constraints on Trump that are introduced
Speaker 2: from the rate market. So, for instance, we know that
Speaker 2: mortgage rates broadly track US treasury yields, and so those
Speaker 2: have been going up recently, and most people don't like
Speaker 2: it when mortgage rates go up.
Speaker 1: Are there any.
Speaker 2: Political complexities that are introduced for Trump from the rate market?
Speaker 2: The sort of real world impact of the rate market.
Speaker 4: I think the real world is going to have to
Speaker 4: be real money, which means the rates go up, and
Speaker 4: therefore the deficit goes up because our interest payments go
Speaker 4: up because we have so much of our debt is
Speaker 4: front loaded that keeps rolling over. So you know, it's
Speaker 4: not that we put out so much ten or thirty
Speaker 4: year paper where the rates locked in. We have most
Speaker 4: of the debt in the front end. So if rates
Speaker 4: go up by one hundred, that almost immediately goes into
Speaker 4: deficit spending. I think those kinds of things where the
Speaker 4: real money hits the road, could be a bumper for
Speaker 4: how he operates. I don't think the actual rate moving
Speaker 4: itself will be the cause. I think we have to
Speaker 4: see see the whites of their eyes for it to happen.
Speaker 3: I just have one more question I think, but you know,
Speaker 3: you mentioned the sort of multiple messages from the last
Speaker 3: Trump administration, and he may have on Twitter been browbeating
Speaker 3: Powell about lowering rates. But I think his Treasury secretary,
Speaker 3: Steve Manuchen, operated as what I would say is like
Speaker 3: a fairly normy treasury secretary, not a lot of populism,
Speaker 3: policy adventurism, et cetera. Seemed to actually in retrospect at
Speaker 3: the time, but also in retrospect, have a fair degree
Speaker 3: of respect among people, I would say, on both sides
Speaker 3: of the aisle in the weeks ahead, like how much
Speaker 3: are you going to be keying onto personnel decisions when
Speaker 3: you're thinking about the medium term or longer term trajectory
Speaker 3: of this stuff that the new administration makes in terms
Speaker 3: of how that will feed through into things that would
Speaker 3: affect interest rates.
Speaker 4: I think you have stumbled over the truth. I think
Speaker 4: I think who he picks for his cabinet and his
Speaker 4: senior leadership team is almost vastly more important than Trump himself.
Speaker 4: We saw who he picked last time, said, I want
Speaker 4: to say established with people, but seasoned people who knew
Speaker 4: the game. The extent he brings in less seasoned people
Speaker 4: that brings in uncertainty. It doesn't mean it's bad, It
Speaker 4: just means it's uncertain market d uncertainty. So I think
Speaker 4: we're gonna still see a lot of volatility in the
Speaker 4: market until we see the slate of who's going to
Speaker 4: bring in for the key positions.
Speaker 2: All right, Harley Bassman of Convexity Mave and the Convexity Maven,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for coming on All Thoughts at
Speaker 2: short notice to talk about the bond market.
Speaker 4: Thanks, thank you.
Speaker 2: Joe. Harley is great and I think he was truly
Speaker 2: the perfect guest for this particular conversation. One thing, I'm wondering,
Speaker 2: how many times do you think we said uncertainty in
Speaker 2: that podcast.
Speaker 3: We'll have to go back to the transcript. And look, no,
Speaker 3: he was because look it's the Wednesday morning after the election,
Speaker 3: and there are so many questions in so much time
Speaker 3: in space for sort of big picture future of the country,
Speaker 3: future of the Democratic Party. Who all these thoughts and
Speaker 3: it's like, I'm not really into trying to figure that
Speaker 3: stuff out less than twelve hours after we got the result.
Speaker 3: So Harley was great because then of course we have
Speaker 3: this FED decision and so nice, a nice stop a
Speaker 3: nice little snapshot of this moment in politics, economics, and
Speaker 3: rate market uncertainty.
Speaker 2: I do think though, when it comes to rates, the
Speaker 2: move upwards that we've seen recently, there was discussion about
Speaker 2: whether or not they were moving in line with Trump's
Speaker 2: chances of winning or signs that the economy was still
Speaker 2: going relatively strong and that might imperil the FED cuts.
Speaker 2: But I think like maybe that argument is settled somewhat
Speaker 2: today with that reaction, because we pretty much know that
Speaker 2: the Fed's going to cut tomorrow. Yeah, still rates start
Speaker 2: moving up, So at least that's that's one thing I
Speaker 2: think that's been kind of settled.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, but there are Look I'm yeah, maybe I'm.
Speaker 2: Clutching at straws at this point.
Speaker 3: We're looking for something real, you know. I would just
Speaker 3: go back to two things, which is, it is interesting,
Speaker 3: as hardly confirmed, this disconnect between stock volatility and rates volatility,
Speaker 3: and it'll be interesting to see how long this gap persists.
Speaker 3: And then the other thing I would say is, you know,
Speaker 3: we talk a lot about bond market vigilantes, and I've
Speaker 3: never loved that term because I think it prescribes a
Speaker 3: certain level of agency to individual investors that I don't
Speaker 3: think is necessarily warranted. But two things to your point,
Speaker 3: I still think people really don't like higher mortgage rates,
Speaker 3: and I think this is going to be a on
Speaker 3: some level political challenge for the Trump administration. And b
Speaker 3: even though we didn't really talk about equities very much,
Speaker 3: people like higher stock price higher sixty one percent of
Speaker 3: American households, according to Gallup, owned stock. Stock is how
Speaker 3: people fund college education. Stock is how people fund retirement.
Speaker 3: And one thing that I'll be curious about is what
Speaker 3: I would call the stock market vigilantes and the degree
Speaker 3: to which equity markets act as a constraint on policy
Speaker 3: adventurers and particularly on things like tariffs, et cetera, that
Speaker 3: you could imagine a lot of companies in the US
Speaker 3: really won't like for various reasons. I just think it
Speaker 3: like financial market vigilantes in general, I think it'll be
Speaker 3: really interesting to see what kind of limit they impose
Speaker 3: on a Trump administration that may be stocked with potentially
Speaker 3: different type of personnel than the first one.
Speaker 2: Well, I guess the only certainty at this point is
Speaker 2: that we will have lots to talk about. Yeah, sure,
Speaker 2: shall we leave it there.
Speaker 3: Let's leave it there.
Speaker 2: This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast.
Speaker 2: I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 3: I'm Joe Wisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart.
Speaker 3: Follow our guest Harley bass and he's at Convexity Maven.
Speaker 3: Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen armand dash Ol
Speaker 3: Bennett at Dashbot and kill Brooks at Kilbrooks. Thank you
Speaker 3: to our producer Moses Ondam. From our Oddlots content. Go
Speaker 3: to Bloomberg dot com slash Odlots, where we have transcripts,
Speaker 3: a blog, and a newsletter and you can chat about
Speaker 3: all of these topics twenty four to seven in our
Speaker 3: discord Discord dot gg slash od lots.
Speaker 2: And if you enjoy Adlots, if you like it when
Speaker 2: we look at the bond market with veterans like Harley Basman,
Speaker 2: then please leave us a positive review on your favorite
Speaker 2: podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber,
Speaker 2: in addition to getting our new daily newsletter, you can
Speaker 2: also listen to all the Oddlots episodes absolutely ad free.
Speaker 2: All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel
Speaker 2: on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening,
Speaker 2: Benea