Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Hi Claudia, Hello, how are you doing good? How are
Speaker 2: you doing pretty good? It's a little calmer this week, so.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah last week. Last week was a little nuts.
Speaker 1: Last week was nuts. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so good to catch breath.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I wonder if you have a Google alert set
Speaker 1: up for some and if it's just like going off constantly.
Speaker 1: You know, in the past ten days.
Speaker 2: There were several hits of my Google alerts, the last couple.
Speaker 2: I don't have one on the Sam rule. I think
Speaker 2: that probably would have been even more out of control.
Speaker 3: I did a deadlift one two, Jimmy, Okay, what's.
Speaker 2: Uh, Barges?
Speaker 3: This isn't after school special, except.
Speaker 1: I've decided I'm going to base my entire personality going
Speaker 1: forward on campaigning for a strategic pork reserve and the.
Speaker 3: Where's the Best with imposta.
Speaker 1: These are the important question. Is that robots taking over
Speaker 1: the world. No.
Speaker 3: I think that like in a couple of years, the
Speaker 3: AI will do a really good job of making the
Speaker 3: Odd lotch podcast. And people say, I don't really need
Speaker 3: to listen to Joe and Tracy anymore. We do have.
Speaker 1: Touching you're listening to lots More, where we catch up
Speaker 1: with friends about what's going on right now, because.
Speaker 3: Even when the odd lots is over, there's always lots more.
Speaker 1: And we really do have the perfect guest. We are
Speaker 1: speaking with Claudia Salm, of course, the creator of these
Speaker 1: PSALM rules. She is chief economist and New Century Advisors
Speaker 1: and also a columnist at Bloomberg. And you've been in
Speaker 1: the news a lot recently, Claudia, because actually I can't
Speaker 1: figure this out. Has your rule actually triggered or not?
Speaker 2: It has. The way that I calculated this rule, and
Speaker 2: it's very it was very close to the trigger. So
Speaker 2: the value in July is zero point five three and
Speaker 2: the threshold is point five or above. And there have
Speaker 2: been people doing various calculations off the same principle, a
Speaker 2: change in the unemployment rate a relative to the past
Speaker 2: twelve months, and you can get very small differences depending
Speaker 2: on how you do it. I think that just says
Speaker 2: I mean, it's right at the edge. But the official
Speaker 2: Saw rule is triggered.
Speaker 3: And every time I write about the sum rule, I'm
Speaker 3: always like, only ninety nine percent sure or ninety percent try.
Speaker 3: I remember what it is and I always go look
Speaker 3: it up. But it's what it basically states is that
Speaker 3: when the three month moving average of the unemployment rate
Speaker 3: is zero point five percent above the twelve month low,
Speaker 3: then historically in post World War two recessions, every single
Speaker 3: time that has happened, every time it's written above gotten
Speaker 3: above half of a percent, a recession came soon thereafter.
Speaker 3: Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have a half a percent or more. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it can. And that's historically, and in particular, that very
Speaker 2: kind of precise record is in the data as it
Speaker 2: was published at the time, right so right around. But
Speaker 2: in principle, yes, and you know the important things. You
Speaker 2: take the three month moving average, so you smooth out
Speaker 2: over time. You take that currently three month average, look
Speaker 2: at the low of the three month averages over the
Speaker 2: prior twelve months, not including the current the prior, and
Speaker 2: those are the changes. And but it all is I
Speaker 2: think like the formula, the thresholds very much go back
Speaker 2: to the purpose of it, which was to create an indicator,
Speaker 2: a simple one to initiate fiscal relief. Right, so like
Speaker 2: stimulus checks extra jobless payments. So it need to be
Speaker 2: something simple, and it needed to happen in the recession.
Speaker 2: So like the recession is already here. The song rule
Speaker 2: is not a forecast. It typically has triggered about three
Speaker 2: months in to recessions historically, and it's not meant to
Speaker 2: get ahead of it. It was meant to like it's here,
Speaker 2: the unpoint rate has started to rise. We know in
Speaker 2: recessions it continues to rise. A half a percentage point
Speaker 2: increase down point rate is not a big deal. This
Speaker 2: is not a worrisome feature in and of itself. It's
Speaker 2: where it tends to go from there that makes the
Speaker 2: recessions damaging.
Speaker 1: So this is important. So the origin of the rule
Speaker 1: is that you wanted something that was dependable that you
Speaker 1: could use as more or less immediate guidance for the
Speaker 1: government to actually come in and do something about recession.
Speaker 1: But because the rule is also encoded and calculated in
Speaker 1: a very specific way, so the US is entering recession
Speaker 1: whenever unemployment is running zero point five percentage points higher
Speaker 1: than the prior twelve months flows. Because it's set in stone,
Speaker 1: it also cannot take into account I guess, differences in
Speaker 1: the current economic environment or maybe nuances that are not
Speaker 1: necessarily captured by those hard numbers.
Speaker 2: Right, it's because again the goal was looking back over history,
Speaker 2: what is the formula the rule that would get to
Speaker 2: turn on fiscal relief, so stabilization as early as possible
Speaker 2: in a recession, so it could do the most good
Speaker 2: and also be as accurate as possible, right as looking
Speaker 2: back over history. So in the United States, you can
Speaker 2: look back over several decades. I mean, I'm moving across
Speaker 2: several different recessions, different kinds of features. And yet there
Speaker 2: have been and this is a theme of this entire
Speaker 2: cycle since the pandemic began, some very unusual disruptions that
Speaker 2: the pandemic kicked off, and this rule is now in
Speaker 2: a long list of our kind of macroeconomic tools that
Speaker 2: have fallen victim to features particularly supply very abrupt supply
Speaker 2: shocks that just aren't they aren't there to the same
Speaker 2: extent in the historical record. So you like, that's where
Speaker 2: the pattern, it relies on a pattern and the dynamic
Speaker 2: that's really powerful. It's happened for post World War two period,
Speaker 2: and yet it is not infallible. And had an opportunity
Speaker 2: to talk about this for I found posts from two
Speaker 2: years ago explaining why this sum rule might break and
Speaker 2: certainly like this is where it's been headed. But that's
Speaker 2: instructive too about what's actually going on right now in
Speaker 2: the economy. And it is not to say that all
Speaker 2: is good with the labor market, even if the SAM
Speaker 2: rule says it's a recession and we do not have
Speaker 2: a recession. Right, there is information here about the health
Speaker 2: of the labor market, some concerning signs in the labor market. Right.
Speaker 3: So you developed this role in part to guide countercyclical
Speaker 3: fiscal policy. Right now, it's pretty clear that we're nowhere
Speaker 3: near any sort of political will. We're going to start
Speaker 3: sending checks it and so if there's going to be
Speaker 3: a response to the weakness, it's going to come on
Speaker 3: the monetary policy side. Expectation is for some sort of
Speaker 3: rate cut. In September, when we got that last unemployment
Speaker 3: report and the some rule did technically trigger, there was
Speaker 3: a lot of debate. Is it different this time? This
Speaker 3: isn't really driven by layoffs. It's about the fact that
Speaker 3: there's a lot of entrance into the labor force and
Speaker 3: the hiring rate has slowed down, et cetera. I guess
Speaker 3: what I would start is what is from your perspective. Okay,
Speaker 3: the rule is triggered. What is the case for sort
Speaker 3: of quibbling or people trying to explain away or oh,
Speaker 3: the headline unemployment isn't quite that bad this time, and
Speaker 3: oh layoffs are still pretty low. That strikes me as
Speaker 3: a sort of risky line of dialogue. But I'm curious
Speaker 3: your take.
Speaker 2: Yes, so it is always risky to go down that
Speaker 2: this time is different. And there's a long historical record
Speaker 2: of explaining away bad news that that ends up being
Speaker 2: actually it was bad news and that was your chance
Speaker 2: to see it. So no, I take this very Yeah,
Speaker 2: this is this is tough, right, It's been tough to
Speaker 2: think about what's wrong here and pull out the actual
Speaker 2: like what's the right message from the labor market, and
Speaker 2: it's new once there's not a simple message. I push
Speaker 2: back pretty strongly on the idea of, oh, well we
Speaker 2: haven't seen the layoffs. If you look and some of
Speaker 2: this is like the these measures, like these things where
Speaker 2: you're looking at these small changes unemployment rate. These are
Speaker 2: features early in recessions. Right, recessions do have a they
Speaker 2: turn on right, it is actually the economy charge to contract.
Speaker 2: It's a subjective decision of the National Peer of Economic
Speaker 2: Research experts on when we go into a recession and
Speaker 2: we come out, but there is a the economy starts
Speaker 2: to contract, and the early phases of a recession, like
Speaker 2: the early six months save a recession often twenty twenty
Speaker 2: was an exception, but often are a slow grind into it. Right.
Speaker 2: You can see the signs of the contraction, but the
Speaker 2: unemployment rate often usually peaks gets to its highest level
Speaker 2: after the economy has come out of the recession. Right,
Speaker 2: So those layoffs, if you wait to see mass layoffs,
Speaker 2: you are typically well in to a recession. Right Again,
Speaker 2: COVID came just out of nowhere and so rapidly that
Speaker 2: if our mind is set on what COVID, doesn't even
Speaker 2: look like a recession like it just because of it
Speaker 2: just looks like a shock to our system, which it
Speaker 2: was so this whole like, oh, we don't see it
Speaker 2: in the layoffs. I don't buy that. I worry. One
Speaker 2: of the things that even when I push back on
Speaker 2: my own rule and saying it's not it's overstating the
Speaker 2: weakness is one feature. I mean, we've seen right now
Speaker 2: that the firing rate is still very low. Right, so
Speaker 2: from like the job opening, labor turnover survey, we're still
Speaker 2: very low levels. The hiring rate has come down, have
Speaker 2: been very high class come down, and it's now at
Speaker 2: levels that are like twenty fourteen levels, which wasn't a
Speaker 2: particularly good labor market. So you do have businesses who
Speaker 2: really got burned from mass layoffs under COVID labor shortages
Speaker 2: trying to hire back all of this difficulty. Now they're
Speaker 2: holding onto workers. So what does that tell us? Employers
Speaker 2: to some extent have likely changed the way, like that
Speaker 2: pattern of how they adjust to their demand for workers. Right,
Speaker 2: you can do it through and often hiring will show
Speaker 2: up much sooner in terms of it weakening. So I
Speaker 2: it's the firing rate being very low right now. It
Speaker 2: doesn't give you much cover because the firing rate tends
Speaker 2: to go up as the recession proceeds. Like in no way,
Speaker 2: shape or form, am I arguing the recession started six
Speaker 2: nine months ago, right, that's not relevant comparison. And then
Speaker 2: I think we have some evidence that that margin of
Speaker 2: holding onto workers versus hiring workers may have shifted some
Speaker 2: from the pandemic. So it's kind of like you get it.
Speaker 2: It has to go all ways, right, if you have
Speaker 2: a pattern, if COVID has really disrupted a pattern in
Speaker 2: the labor market that works in favor of saying, oh, well,
Speaker 2: it's actually not as bad this time as it would normally. Look, well,
Speaker 2: you've got to be careful. There aren't stories that unwind
Speaker 2: it just the other way. Joe.
Speaker 1: You've talked about this, right, the idea that in some
Speaker 1: ways unemployment can be exponential and can kind of start
Speaker 1: filtering on itself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And to Claudia, I mean to your point, which
Speaker 3: is is, technically, I think the recession, the financial crisis,
Speaker 3: recession ended like in the summer of two thousand and nine,
Speaker 3: the unemployment rate in that cycle, it actually technically peaked
Speaker 3: in the October two thousand and nine report at ten percent,
Speaker 3: so that was after To your point, Claudia, so why
Speaker 3: would it be different this time? I mean, like you say,
Speaker 3: there's this danger, and yes, COVID messed with stuff, et cetera.
Speaker 3: But I just looked pulled up the hiring chart, the
Speaker 3: hiring rate, it's you know, back in twenty fourteen levels, Like,
Speaker 3: why shouldn't we take the signal that your rule says,
Speaker 3: quite seriously.
Speaker 2: We should take the increase in the unemployment rate seriously
Speaker 2: in terms of the direction, right, it is rising, there
Speaker 2: is weakening demand for labor, yes, and that is so
Speaker 2: like setting all of this aside about the Samari recession
Speaker 2: not a recession, like the direction we are on is
Speaker 2: a until it levels out is a problem, okay, right,
Speaker 2: and we can talk about there are reasons, you know,
Speaker 2: the Federal Reserve has interest rates high because they are
Speaker 2: fighting inflation. It should not be a real surprise that
Speaker 2: the unemployment rate is drifting up, right in that sense,
Speaker 2: So there's that aspect of we can chuck the sam
Speaker 2: rule if you'll want to, But it's like, keep an
Speaker 2: eye on the unemployment rate and what it's doing and why,
Speaker 2: what's going on underneath it? And the piece that right
Speaker 2: now is this puzzle and this is the thing that
Speaker 2: the sambrale was too simple, too simplistic in trying to
Speaker 2: get at, is that separating out changes in unemployment. So
Speaker 2: unemployment rate rising because there's a weakening demand for labor,
Speaker 2: and that can show up in a lot of ways.
Speaker 2: Doesn't just have to be layoffs, can also be lack
Speaker 2: of hiring. Right, So anything that's weakening demand of labor
Speaker 2: that pushes up the unemployment rate and that can be
Speaker 2: very pernicious because a worker without a paycheck or a
Speaker 2: smaller paycheck buys less, right, and then that business needs
Speaker 2: for your work. So that's the dynamic we're trying to
Speaker 2: shut off. Okay, so that's a bad dynamic. That's clear,
Speaker 2: it's in there. And yet what's also in there this
Speaker 2: time is you have shifts in the supply of workers.
Speaker 2: So labor supply and the same rule works. It looks
Speaker 2: like the changes in the unemployment rate, which you have
Speaker 2: to do with the history, because we have gone into
Speaker 2: recessions at all different levels of unemployment. Like a low
Speaker 2: level of employment does not protect you from a recession, right,
Speaker 2: It's about these dynamics. So when there are two things
Speaker 2: have happened with the SAMER and there are other indicators
Speaker 2: I think that are out there kind of labor market
Speaker 2: that are struggling with the same issue is that early
Speaker 2: in the pandemic we had a plunge in the labor force.
Speaker 2: Millions of people just walk away from work. Okay, some
Speaker 2: of them came back, but many didn't, you know, or
Speaker 2: retirements or other just we lost And you'll see a
Speaker 2: lot of times in beginning recessions there's a decline in
Speaker 2: the labor force. Right, there are patterns of labor supply
Speaker 2: back in history around recessions, and yet this like is huge.
Speaker 2: And what then happened is when customers came back quickly,
Speaker 2: some of those workers did not come back or came
Speaker 2: back much more slowly, and we had labor shortages the
Speaker 2: unemployment rate early in the recovery. When you get to
Speaker 2: the depths of like three point four percent unemployment rate
Speaker 2: and you're in a labor shortage, one of the reasons
Speaker 2: that unemployment rate is so low is because you have
Speaker 2: too few workers. Right, it's pushed like labor supplies pushing
Speaker 2: it down. So we've got like starting points that are
Speaker 2: probably pushed down because we've been missing workers. And then
Speaker 2: we get to a place that you know, we've seen
Speaker 2: in the last few years those labor shortages. Amazingly, the
Speaker 2: labor shortages were addressed with more workers, not fewer customers,
Speaker 2: which is like the thing the FED can get us
Speaker 2: fewer customers, but it got more workers. And there's a
Speaker 2: portion particularly this very big abrupt change was in immigration
Speaker 2: into the United States, and that's actually made it hard
Speaker 2: in our measurement, even like it's very hard for me
Speaker 2: to with any conviction to quantify exactly how much of
Speaker 2: this labor supply affect because it's not just that there's
Speaker 2: increasing labor supply. We've had recessions. Nineteen seventies had increases
Speaker 2: in labor force, we had entrance into the labor market contributing,
Speaker 2: as you know, the saw will triggered. But what we've
Speaker 2: had this time are just these big swings in one
Speaker 2: direction the other direction, and so then when that piece
Speaker 2: is in there, you get now we have what looks
Speaker 2: like some of the increase in the unemployment rate is
Speaker 2: coming from more labor supply over the intrum. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's higher unemployment is always bad for the unemployed person,
Speaker 2: right like they're looking for a job. But when we
Speaker 2: look at that unemployment highnemployment and think about where it's headed,
Speaker 2: if it's coming primary from labor supply, and it's and
Speaker 2: especially an abrupt then it's more of a matching, like
Speaker 2: we need the jobs to catch up now, and as
Speaker 2: they catch up, well, then the unemployment rate will drift
Speaker 2: down or at least settled out right. And then once
Speaker 2: you're getting workers, when you get more workers into the economy,
Speaker 2: it's the exact opposite of a recession dynamic, it's an
Speaker 2: expansion dynamic. Because you've got more workers, you can make more,
Speaker 2: so you have like totally opposite. You know, is this
Speaker 2: increasing unemployment rate a really bad sign? Is this increased
Speaker 2: unemployment rate a really good sign? Unfortunately? I think the
Speaker 2: best we can do right now is to say that
Speaker 2: these two things are both in play and to watch
Speaker 2: them carefully. And that's where I think taking seriously the
Speaker 2: weakening part of the labor market, because there are policy
Speaker 2: levers to pull with the Federal Reserve can get those
Speaker 2: under control and then help that kind of catch up
Speaker 2: process of jobs. Like the stronger the job market is,
Speaker 2: the faster we can bring in these workers.
Speaker 1: So this is kind of the other reason why your
Speaker 1: some Google alert would have been going off like crazy
Speaker 1: over the past week or so. There's also so like
Speaker 1: everything in the world nowadays, at least in the US,
Speaker 1: there seems to be this intense politicization of this particular
Speaker 1: economic rule and of the jobs market end of what
Speaker 1: the FED should do. And I think like some of
Speaker 1: the irony of the current moment is you see accusations
Speaker 1: that the FED is behind the curve. You see accusations
Speaker 1: that if it cuts in September before an election. That's
Speaker 1: because it's trying to support the Democrats and support Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: And you've been kind of on the receiving end of
Speaker 1: some of that commentary. What do you say to people
Speaker 1: who think this is all about politics and justifying downwards
Speaker 1: momentum in the labor market at a very politically sensitive time.
Speaker 2: So to be honest, I haven't tried to engage in
Speaker 2: that discussion because I didn't think, I mean, it's this rule,
Speaker 2: it's a tool. I might this is a really important
Speaker 2: time to have a robust discussion about what's happening in
Speaker 2: the US labor market from the vantage point of policymakers
Speaker 2: or businesses, households. Right, so that it is timed with
Speaker 2: an election year, that's unfortunate, But I had, you know,
Speaker 2: I had been aware, like realizing this dynamic before last week.
Speaker 2: You know, there had been as an example, people had
Speaker 2: looked at these state level changes in unemployment rates, so
Speaker 2: like kind of state sam rules, and I've written about
Speaker 2: this also, like there were some states like California that've
Speaker 2: had larger increase in unemployment rate, and there were quite
Speaker 2: a few that had hit the half a percentage point.
Speaker 2: There is no state samrule, but you know, using that trigger.
Speaker 2: And I started, and this was several months ago, like
Speaker 2: in the spring, writing about this, and I got a
Speaker 2: lot of pushback from some people that I wasn't being
Speaker 2: true to my rule because there was a Democrat in
Speaker 2: the White House and I wasn't willing to say a recession.
Speaker 2: And you know, for all this, it's like I wouldn't
Speaker 2: wish a recession on anyone, Like I don't care who's
Speaker 2: in the White House, but it is an election year
Speaker 2: and I'm not that naive, and I understand that people.
Speaker 2: And recession is a very charged I mean, it's a
Speaker 2: very bad experience, and it also has meaning beyond its
Speaker 2: actual definition. So I'm not surprised it's unfortunate, and I
Speaker 2: certainly I mean the thing with looking at these these
Speaker 2: I mean it's called a rule them because it's a
Speaker 2: policy prescription. Right, It's not a rule we must have
Speaker 2: a recession. It's supposed to be a prescription of policy.
Speaker 2: And this is not creating panic or a concern where
Speaker 2: I think if you look broadly at the economic conditions, output,
Speaker 2: consumer spending, income, like the US economy is not contracting
Speaker 2: and even after we go through revisions. I think it's
Speaker 2: going to be hard to say July twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: was a recession. I just don't see that.
Speaker 3: This is my summary of your views, and tell me
Speaker 3: if I'm wrong. There are reasons to think that, unlike
Speaker 3: past times when the sum rule has triggered, we may
Speaker 3: not be in a recession because other economic data looks
Speaker 3: good and much of the upward push and the unemployment
Speaker 3: rate is due to the influx of labor supply. Yet
Speaker 3: on the other hand, there is this clear deceleration in
Speaker 3: demand for labor. And so regardless of the recession question
Speaker 3: or not in the specific trigger, in what it says
Speaker 3: that from a sort of policy and risk management move,
Speaker 3: it's a good time for the FED to essentially go
Speaker 3: in the other direction or essentially engage in stimulative policy
Speaker 3: one running it one way or another.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at this point they can just take their foot
Speaker 2: off the brake a little bit. This isn't even because
Speaker 2: again this is where when FED policy makers or FED
Speaker 2: cher J. Powell the last press conference, Bioko, we got
Speaker 2: the July data, essentially saying we the FED don't want
Speaker 2: to see more weakness in the labor market or weakening,
Speaker 2: and it's like, well, you left rates uncut, right, It's like,
Speaker 2: what do you think is going to happen? The direction
Speaker 2: here is really clear, and what I have a very
Speaker 2: hard time of without appealing to the FED reducing interest rates.
Speaker 2: I think it's a hard story to tell as to
Speaker 2: what it is that levels it out?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 2: What is it that helps us stay at this place?
Speaker 2: And yeah, it creates the demand for labor, yeah, or
Speaker 2: just yeah, creates the demand levels out this weakening? Wait,
Speaker 2: I agree, the labor market was really firing on all cylinders,
Speaker 2: and labor shortages were very disruptive. So we were going
Speaker 2: to see job gains slow, we were going to see
Speaker 2: the unemployment rate drift up some. But you're getting to
Speaker 2: a place now where yeah, the level looks really pretty good,
Speaker 2: I mean not really pre pandemic good levels. But the
Speaker 2: direction is a problem. That's the piece I think has
Speaker 2: to have a focus in policy maker's mind. But then
Speaker 2: there is an I this a very useful discussion about
Speaker 2: how much of that direction, that'd say, the increase in unemployment, right,
Speaker 2: how much of that is coming from these good factors
Speaker 2: and from these more problematic ones.
Speaker 1: Claudia, did you see Ben emons he did a some
Speaker 1: role with initial job as claims. Did you look at that?
Speaker 2: I am thrilled to have warned particular on this, Like
Speaker 2: we are in a recession indicators things, so I still
Speaker 2: think there's a long there's a long way to go
Speaker 2: in a lot of work to do on say these
Speaker 2: semi automatic stabilizers, fiscal policy put on autopilot. I think
Speaker 2: it's still worth pursuing. And it's clear like if this
Speaker 2: WORL didn't work, right, there's something better out there. So
Speaker 2: it is I think it is really helpful to look
Speaker 2: at the other indicators at this point, because the labor
Speaker 2: market has these features, right like when we're talking about
Speaker 2: this problem of like there's this labor supply and it's
Speaker 2: masking what we typically look at as the labor demand
Speaker 2: that's with a cycle. I just I don't think at
Speaker 2: this point we're going to get a clear signal just
Speaker 2: from the labor market claims has some issues, vacancies have
Speaker 2: issues in similar ways.
Speaker 3: We'll find out one day in the long future what
Speaker 3: the NBER says was really going on in summer twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four.
Speaker 1: That's the great thing about the current economic moment is
Speaker 1: like we are actually going to learn a lot of
Speaker 1: things from it.
Speaker 3: Someone will be proven right, someone will be proven wrong,
Speaker 3: and then there will be a new set of debates
Speaker 3: all over again. It never it will never end.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it goes.
Speaker 1: Lots More. Is produced by Carmen Rodriguez and Dashel Bennett,
Speaker 1: with help from Moses onom kel Brooks.
Speaker 3: Our sound engineer is Blake Maples. Sage Bauman is the
Speaker 3: head of Bloomberg Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Please rate, review, and subscribe to add Lots and Lots
Speaker 1: More on your favorite podcast platforms.
Speaker 3: And remember that Bloomberg subscribers can listen to all of
Speaker 3: our podcasts add free by connecting through Apple Podcasts. Thanks
Speaker 3: for listening.