Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferroll and Lisa Abramowitz. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: To find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. Let's move on
Speaker 1: right now. And we are guilty of this, and I
Speaker 1: am incredibly guilty of this. We look at well, the
Speaker 1: joke of me going below fifty ninth Street, or the
Speaker 1: idea that most of our audiences in three zip codes
Speaker 1: and a couple in London as well, and we forget
Speaker 1: about the open plains. Mike Rounds knows where the Missouri
Speaker 1: River is. He knows it. Getting from Pierre, not Pierre,
Speaker 1: but Pierre, South Dakota over to the Target store up
Speaker 1: by twenty nine north the Sioux Falls is actually something
Speaker 1: difficult to do. Evermore so five dollars a gallon gasoline.
Speaker 1: The senator from South Dakota, their former governor, joins us
Speaker 1: this morning, I want you to give me a visceral picture,
Speaker 1: real estate guy, of the emotion and Pier and the
Speaker 1: emotion at that target store Northsoux Falls. What's going on
Speaker 1: out there away from the fancy people like Global Wall Street.
Speaker 1: I know you like dollars and cents. The average South
Speaker 1: Dakota family right now is paying over six d and
Speaker 1: four dollars more per month in living expenses and what
Speaker 1: they were in January of that's seven thousand dollars plus
Speaker 1: per year more. And wages aren't going up that fast.
Speaker 1: When you start talking about that in places like South Dakota,
Speaker 1: the pain is real. And it's the same thing across
Speaker 1: the entire country. And the worst part about this whole
Speaker 1: thing is is this is policy induced. When you start
Speaker 1: driving up the price of fuels, diesel, natural gas and
Speaker 1: so forth by policy determination. Uh, and you start limiting
Speaker 1: the amounts of some applies that are being produced, and
Speaker 1: you recognize that that you're doing it, and you do
Speaker 1: it anyway, then it's a policy induced movement. We can
Speaker 1: do a lot to change that right now in the
Speaker 1: United States, and it's got to come back down to
Speaker 1: an administration recognizing that. Uh. You know, look, I know
Speaker 1: they're fighting climate change, but the bottom line is you've
Speaker 1: got to have a strong economy to do a good
Speaker 1: job on that. And they are hurting this economy with
Speaker 1: their policies, and people in South Dakota field that and
Speaker 1: they're not happy about it. Sent it around. Gerald Ford
Speaker 1: of the Republican Grand Rapids Michigan Persuasion years ago said
Speaker 1: he was gonna whip inflation. Now, what is the Republican
Speaker 1: prescription day one to stop this inflation? There are three
Speaker 1: parts of the policy. One is demand you can do
Speaker 1: that through action of the Federal Reserve. But it's because
Speaker 1: we put a huge amount of cash into the economy earlier.
Speaker 1: Uh and that was a president that was a Biden
Speaker 1: decision and he did it without the assistance of Republicans
Speaker 1: in January of last year. At number two, you have
Speaker 1: to read us the cost of energy, and that means
Speaker 1: you produce more energy all of the above, whether it
Speaker 1: be nuclear, whether it be more pumping, it means more
Speaker 1: leases being released. And then allowing them to get that
Speaker 1: that that crude oil out of the ground with additional
Speaker 1: licenses and then allow them to be able to actually
Speaker 1: move that to the marketplace with pipelines. That would be
Speaker 1: an immediate thing. And finally, you have to address the
Speaker 1: workforce issues right now. And I know that this isn't
Speaker 1: a popular thing to talk about, but we have to
Speaker 1: have legal immigration reform. We need visas, we need H
Speaker 1: two B visas, we need H two A visas right now,
Speaker 1: and we've got legislation in place right now that we're
Speaker 1: recommending that would do that. All of those would help
Speaker 1: to reduce inflation in this country and the effects would
Speaker 1: be immediate. Well, just a senator, just to push back
Speaker 1: a little bit. You're talking about the issues with certain
Speaker 1: policy prescriptions that led to the inflation. But a lot
Speaker 1: of this, a lot of economists say, is driven by
Speaker 1: some of the supply disruption is whether it's in China
Speaker 1: or particularly the war in Ukraine. How much do you
Speaker 1: see as inflation staying high as a results certain national
Speaker 1: security decisions being made that you've supported. Yeah, First of all,
Speaker 1: I think the actual inflationary trends with regard to the
Speaker 1: supply chains and so forth, a lot of that has
Speaker 1: to do with the cost of transportation of those items. Now,
Speaker 1: can you have supply disruptions, We had it. We had
Speaker 1: it during the previous administration, but you did not see
Speaker 1: that driving up inflation. You saw inflation begin almost immediately
Speaker 1: upon the recognition that we were going to have increases
Speaker 1: in the cost of energy within this country, and they
Speaker 1: were going to be increased by policy determination. Once again,
Speaker 1: if you take back and you look at the actual
Speaker 1: costs of energy and the impact of that has on
Speaker 1: all types of pricing for services and for products, it's
Speaker 1: a no brainer that you can begin to reduce inflation
Speaker 1: if you address the cost of energy. It's in all
Speaker 1: those products aside from just the energy issue. Though, I'm wondering, Senator,
Speaker 1: would you agree with potentially relaxing certain tariffs in China
Speaker 1: or perhaps changing certain stances in order to reduce inflation domestically,
Speaker 1: even if on a national security level it was viewed
Speaker 1: to be prudent to keep certain things in place. I
Speaker 1: think that there there is always the possibility of looking
Speaker 1: at modifying policy with regard to needed items. But remember
Speaker 1: there's a reason why we put those in place in
Speaker 1: the first place, and that was to try to develop
Speaker 1: domestic production. But if you can't do it domestically and
Speaker 1: you've tried it, then to look at other alternatives with
Speaker 1: other countries. It's not that we want to produce everything
Speaker 1: in the United States. We'd love to have good trading partners,
Speaker 1: but we also have to recognize it. Simply going back
Speaker 1: to China does not get into the long term scheme.
Speaker 1: And as long as they're going to try to continue
Speaker 1: to steal the i P in this country, we've got
Speaker 1: to continue to to recognize the need for enforcement of
Speaker 1: trade deals and the limitation of trade with China whenever
Speaker 1: possible until they come around and recognize that they can't
Speaker 1: be stealing the i P, the copyrights and so forth.
Speaker 1: So yeah, look, I I'd be very stingy about going
Speaker 1: back on what we've already done with China. I try
Speaker 1: to develop some of those products, those product lines with
Speaker 1: our other allies and other people that literally want to
Speaker 1: do business with us under the rule of law. Senator,
Speaker 1: thanks for your time today. We appreciate it, Senator. My
Speaker 1: grants there on the story at d C and Worldwide.
Speaker 1: Love Hano joins US now Global Chief Investment Officer of
Speaker 1: State Street Global Advices. Laurie, you've got that big cash position.
Speaker 1: You can talk to us about how big that is.
Speaker 1: What do you want you for to deploy it? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, there's a lot of uncertainty out there,
Speaker 1: So I would say the biggest theme around our portfolios
Speaker 1: right now is less about the directional trade and much
Speaker 1: more about the relative value. So we've been trading around
Speaker 1: different markets, deploying capital into the US, which we thought
Speaker 1: was still a bit of a safe haven relative to
Speaker 1: other regions, but also looking at places like commodities, looking
Speaker 1: like at places like gold and as you say, holding
Speaker 1: a bit of a five percent cash position right now, Laura,
Speaker 1: you are the perfect one to talk about right now.
Speaker 1: And folks, this is the esteem Shairman of Bloomberg Peter T.
Speaker 1: Grower telling me in times of stress you see transactions
Speaker 1: and combinations calls is flat on their back. They have
Speaker 1: just announced within all the troubles of calls over decades,
Speaker 1: board thoroughly testing standalone strategic plan. Are we going to
Speaker 1: see one big roll up, Laurie of American Financing corporations
Speaker 1: out of these risks and challenges, Well, every situation is.
Speaker 1: It is socratic. And one of the things that striking
Speaker 1: about the recent announcements on the consumer side is that
Speaker 1: we've known for a while that consumers were likely to
Speaker 1: move from more goods oriented purchases to more service oriented purchases.
Speaker 1: And while we certainly have had some of the news
Speaker 1: out on on some of those retail uh franchises. The
Speaker 1: other side of it is you've got airlines and other
Speaker 1: service providers that are actually saying very good demanded actually
Speaker 1: having the chrising power. So there's it's not just a
Speaker 1: one size so it's all there's gonna be a out
Speaker 1: of idiosyncratic behavior and companies that can think about what
Speaker 1: their exposures are and how to hedge those and where
Speaker 1: they do have pricing flexibility or power, those are the
Speaker 1: ones that are going to survive. I can't emphasize Lisa enough.
Speaker 1: They need here to see one size is wrong. Target
Speaker 1: four fifty thousand employees Calls thirty five thousand, and yet
Speaker 1: people like to compare the two are completely different into
Speaker 1: in a ten year total return, Target gets it. Calls
Speaker 1: has been a disaster, right, And we can talk more
Speaker 1: about the two distinct stories, but they're responding to the
Speaker 1: same macroeconomic backdrop. And Lorie, when you take a look
Speaker 1: at this multifascinated backdrop that is not just one narrative,
Speaker 1: what gives you conviction that, frankly, the market is right
Speaker 1: that the FED is going to blink well before it
Speaker 1: raises rates to restrictive territory, which seems to be the
Speaker 1: zeitgeist right now in markets. Well, the big contectrum is
Speaker 1: we've talked about, and I've heard you talking about this
Speaker 1: morning as well, is that on the one hand, we
Speaker 1: still have inflation with we could argue whether we've hit
Speaker 1: peak inflation or not, but the numbers are still quite
Speaker 1: eye popping. We all know that eventually that wears itself
Speaker 1: out because the comps here over you get harder and harder.
Speaker 1: But that's happening at the same time that growth in
Speaker 1: the from a macro standpoint is slowing. And so this
Speaker 1: delicate balancing act is what the Fed's got to navigate,
Speaker 1: what all central bankers have to navigate, and everybody is
Speaker 1: afraid that they're going to get it wrong, and the
Speaker 1: chances are that they will get it wrong. We actually
Speaker 1: are a little bit more dubbish in terms of what
Speaker 1: we think the Fed's going to do, and if they
Speaker 1: move in the summer and then actually do take a
Speaker 1: bit of a pause, then there's a chance that we
Speaker 1: get out of this without a recession. Laurie, thank you
Speaker 1: for your perspective. As always. Lori Hano, the of State
Speaker 1: Street Global Advices, this is an example of what you're
Speaker 1: seeing on the street he maintains outperform on target, but
Speaker 1: lowers the price target big time from a three oh
Speaker 1: five down to two. Those are the microadjustments being made.
Speaker 1: Patrick Palfrey is cohead of Quantitative Research and senior equity
Speaker 1: strategistic Credit Squeeze and is looking at the macro adjustments.
Speaker 1: How are you using the micro changes of your cell
Speaker 1: side research team, Patrick, this morning, Well, when we talk
Speaker 1: with our analysts and we go through the transcripts and
Speaker 1: we look at where earnings estimates are moving, everything on
Speaker 1: the fundamental front seems very much intact. Estimates continue to
Speaker 1: rise their certain sectors communications in particularly what you're seeing pressure,
Speaker 1: but generally speaking, estimates are holding up quite well, including revenues.
Speaker 1: Margins a little bit less weaker, but but still enough
Speaker 1: to propride the earning sport in a meaningful way. Were
Speaker 1: this is important, folks, because Credit Squeeze hit the ball out.
Speaker 1: So we hit the ball out of the park eighteen
Speaker 1: months ago with a wonderful Barbell strategy of bullishness. Patrick,
Speaker 1: if you've got a constructive view like that, are we
Speaker 1: over focusing on margins and not looking at a pretty
Speaker 1: good or good revenue lift based on nominal g d P.
Speaker 1: We'll talk it. I think you're absolutely right. Companies live
Speaker 1: in a nominal world. I know, as as economist, individuals
Speaker 1: like to talk about real activity and they're like the
Speaker 1: piece out inflation. But companies, for the most part don't
Speaker 1: really matter. They are oftentimes in most cases able to
Speaker 1: pass that on and we're seeing that come through with
Speaker 1: revenues UH this year expecting to be plus tempers that
Speaker 1: that's an incredibly strong number. So with revenues that strong,
Speaker 1: there's an ability to give up very incremental margin to
Speaker 1: see the range pictures still be up eighth to nine percent,
Speaker 1: and that is spectacular for this point in the cycle.
Speaker 1: What are you counting on in terms of rates to
Speaker 1: get you to that level in equities based in the
Speaker 1: fact that not only do you have, yes, you've got
Speaker 1: denominal growth, but you also have a revaluation based on
Speaker 1: higher inflation and frankly based on a FED willing to
Speaker 1: raise rates much beyond what people had imagined a year ago. Well,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's a great question. And I think really
Speaker 1: what people are trying to understand there's a lot of
Speaker 1: pieces moving around here in our focus is really here
Speaker 1: on valuation that's really where the biggest distortions were. At
Speaker 1: the beginning of the year, we started with the twenty
Speaker 1: one point five multiple. We're down to a sixteen point five.
Speaker 1: That's roughly in line with long term averages. But more importantly,
Speaker 1: expensive companies were extremely expensive, and that's where all the
Speaker 1: pain has been. You see that in secular growth themes,
Speaker 1: you see that in technology and communications. When you look
Speaker 1: outside of those groups, valuations look a lot more reasonable
Speaker 1: if the pain looks a lot less meaningful in those groups.
Speaker 1: This has been a valuation rerating because of higher interest rates,
Speaker 1: and that's a meaningful part of the discussion, which sounds
Speaker 1: all very logical, and it's easy to then come on
Speaker 1: and say, look, if I like those stocks before they've
Speaker 1: been on sale, let's buy them. But it doesn't count
Speaker 1: for the behavior of investors who see their statements and say,
Speaker 1: holy cow, we've got to get rid of this. We've
Speaker 1: got to actually start selling. We haven't seen those kinds
Speaker 1: of mass sales. How much of an over suits the
Speaker 1: downside could we see before we get to what you
Speaker 1: expect to be a rally. Well, I think we're pretty
Speaker 1: much getting close to that bottom now, Like like we
Speaker 1: piloted earlier in the show. Right now is really where
Speaker 1: the SMP is down historically, and and bear bear markets,
Speaker 1: we see it down a little bit more. But that
Speaker 1: tends to be recessionary. Right now, we have an incredibly
Speaker 1: strong economic outlook. Certainly inflation is a concern and I
Speaker 1: agree with that. But right now, nominally GPS expect to
Speaker 1: be nine percent this year with real gene being three percent.
Speaker 1: That doesn't feel reflection, That doesn't feel recessionary to me.
Speaker 1: This is really important folks that are hearing here, this
Speaker 1: nominal versus real argument. Patrick. Let's say we've got a
Speaker 1: nominal glide path. I'm going to call it a harmonic
Speaker 1: You go from nine percent as you stayed, to four
Speaker 1: and a half percent. Maybe we get down to two
Speaker 1: and a quarter percent at some point japan like. But
Speaker 1: within that time frame, corporations adjust and they adjust use
Speaker 1: of cash. What are you, as optimists feel use of
Speaker 1: cash will be starting now into this summer, and then
Speaker 1: there's a budget outlook the corporation's frame for two thousand three. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, companies are always very rational. What's how they
Speaker 1: deploy their capital? Right now, we've seen shifts towards the dividends,
Speaker 1: we've seen increasingly shifts towards five backs. We've also seen
Speaker 1: a shift towards capex. I think all three of those
Speaker 1: areas are going to continue to see growth. We're seeing
Speaker 1: areas like dividends and like in capex get rewarded a
Speaker 1: lot more than five backs. So companies shifting that way
Speaker 1: are going to likely see better returns than perhaps going
Speaker 1: directly towards five backs. But there's ample capital on many
Speaker 1: of these companies, particularly large cap companies, given how strong
Speaker 1: for capitalism, were expected to continue to use that well.
Speaker 1: A router way to ask Tom's question is they could
Speaker 1: start to lay off people in order to save costs
Speaker 1: in order to increase their margins, especially as you get
Speaker 1: the likes of Amazon and Walmart talking about how basically
Speaker 1: they have too many people paid too much. Based on
Speaker 1: the shift in appetite by consumers, I think as long
Speaker 1: as the demand is their companies are staffing to meet
Speaker 1: the level of demand. They're not staffing to meet stock
Speaker 1: market gyration. So yes, the markets down, and I think
Speaker 1: investors are assuming that's going to impact company's decisions. But
Speaker 1: a company doesn't say I'm not going to need your
Speaker 1: order because my stock is up. They say, no, you
Speaker 1: want an order, I'm going to supply you with that order.
Speaker 1: Depending on how much demand declines from here, that's ultimately
Speaker 1: to depend on how much tapping they need. Right now,
Speaker 1: the GDP backdrop still remains quite wherebust. Labor market remains
Speaker 1: incredibly tight. Does that weaken incrementally, perhaps, But I don't
Speaker 1: see that as being a huge catalyst in the story here. Actually,
Speaker 1: just to jump in because I think this is really important.
Speaker 1: I know that companies don't face what they need to
Speaker 1: supply the company with face on what's handing in the
Speaker 1: equity market. But I would say some of the C
Speaker 1: suite right now they are worse calling their own company
Speaker 1: than some people are on this show calling this market.
Speaker 1: And that's been the problem. These companies have set them
Speaker 1: sunds up for the demand of last year, and it's
Speaker 1: not there anymore. We saw that with Target, we saw
Speaker 1: that with Amount was sort with Amazon. Patrick, We've got
Speaker 1: some stuff to work through here, don't you agree? I
Speaker 1: do think we agree, And I think there's areas of
Speaker 1: market that are particularly under pressure. Discrection areas is an
Speaker 1: area that's probably going to be weaker. I think technology
Speaker 1: is area that's going to be weaker as well. I
Speaker 1: think investors need to be selective and when where they
Speaker 1: look at the opportunities for companies. I mean, we're we're investing.
Speaker 1: We're encouraging investors to look at cyclical oriented companies like energy, materials, industrials,
Speaker 1: things that benefit more from this backdrop and are less
Speaker 1: exposed to some of the issues that are happening perhaps
Speaker 1: with technology and and and with some of the issues
Speaker 1: with the consumer at the moment. Great to catch on
Speaker 1: Patrick as always to get your your perspective and send
Speaker 1: out best to Jonathan as well. Patrick Putrey the credit
Speaker 1: sways this should be a three hour discussion. His ability
Speaker 1: in our international relations linked to our economy is formidable
Speaker 1: with his work at Goldman Sex International for years. Robert
Speaker 1: Harman's US now a tite of an advisor and a
Speaker 1: course of service to the nation in the State Department.
Speaker 1: Ambassador Hormats, I want to cut to the chase right now.
Speaker 1: I am hearing in every interview we will see a
Speaker 1: defense build out by Germany. We will see a defense
Speaker 1: build out by the United States of America. The President
Speaker 1: waltzes off to the Pacific rim. What do we need
Speaker 1: to rebuild in the Pacific, to show the flag in
Speaker 1: an appropriate manner. Well, two things. One, I'm glad he's
Speaker 1: doing this now because I think there was a feeling
Speaker 1: in the Pacific, in some countries at least, that we
Speaker 1: were so preoccupied with Ukraine and Europe that we had
Speaker 1: more or less forgotten about the Pacific. This trip will
Speaker 1: demonstrate that we have not forgotten, that we realize that
Speaker 1: it's important. Second, he's got to get this set of
Speaker 1: alliances organized. And there's been a lot of talk about
Speaker 1: coopera Aracian coordination, but there really hasn't been much progress
Speaker 1: on on trade, UM, the cooperation between the United States,
Speaker 1: Japan and Australia, New Zealand UM are all all these
Speaker 1: are important, and he has got to demonstrate that this
Speaker 1: is a sustainable alliance. Pulling out of t p P
Speaker 1: was one of the worst possible things we could have done,
Speaker 1: because it showed not only a trade set of actions
Speaker 1: that was a pulling, but it showed that we really
Speaker 1: were not committed to a sustainable embassador. I want to
Speaker 1: get through this quickly because Lisa's got some really important
Speaker 1: questions away from this. This is your wheelhouse all Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats are against t p P. My guess is
Speaker 1: there against Indo Pacific. Let's go granular to the reported
Speaker 1: victory of Marcos Jr. In the Philippines and what we
Speaker 1: do at Subic Bay and at Clark how and we
Speaker 1: shift our modern behavior back to what you and I
Speaker 1: knew in our ute. This is a critically important point.
Speaker 1: They're the way to look at Asia is there two
Speaker 1: island chains. One is the one that's very close to China.
Speaker 1: The Chinese really have increased their domination over that with
Speaker 1: their small islands and their new air force spaces that
Speaker 1: they put in. We have to demonstrate that we have
Speaker 1: credibility in that so called second island chain, which is
Speaker 1: the Philippines, which is the Marianas, Guam and Um Australian
Speaker 1: New Zealand. We have to show that we are strong,
Speaker 1: a strong presence there and working with the Philippines, which
Speaker 1: is critically important. It was in World War Two, it
Speaker 1: is now and that's going to be I think extremely
Speaker 1: important to demonstrate that we can work with young Marcos
Speaker 1: and and develop our main structure which was as you know,
Speaker 1: virtually eliminated. But how optimistic are you that the political
Speaker 1: noise will be able to dovetail the national security issues
Speaker 1: of shifting around some trade partnerships at a time when
Speaker 1: inflation is very much at the forefront and people are
Speaker 1: more concerned about how quickly prices are rising as a
Speaker 1: result in part at least for some of the supply
Speaker 1: chain disruptions and realignments. A very good point. I mean,
Speaker 1: the presidents in a difficult spot. On one hand, it
Speaker 1: is clear that a lot of the tariffs that we've
Speaker 1: imposed on China do contribute. They're not the main contributing factor,
Speaker 1: but they do contribute to higher prices in the United States.
Speaker 1: And yet if the president were to appear to be
Speaker 1: weak on that, it would look like he was weak
Speaker 1: on on China. The priority here, it seems to me,
Speaker 1: is to deal with the inflationary issues. We can demonstrate
Speaker 1: that we're still resolute on China by strength in our
Speaker 1: alliances in the region, which gives the president more flexibility
Speaker 1: to lower some of the tariffs on China, which really
Speaker 1: have not had any impact on China anyway, but certainly
Speaker 1: have had an impact on prices in certain sectors in
Speaker 1: the United States. So if he's if he's tough enough
Speaker 1: and firm enough in building our alliances. It gives them
Speaker 1: a little more wable room to take action to reduce
Speaker 1: UH tariffs on certain Chinese items. And he needs to
Speaker 1: develop these trade relationships that we threw away when we
Speaker 1: got out of t p P. He's got to resurrect
Speaker 1: those and make sure that we don't just talk about them,
Speaker 1: that we have a firm and and sustain program of
Speaker 1: trade cooperation with these countries in the Indo Pacific. Well,
Speaker 1: just real quick here, we just have a little bit
Speaker 1: of time left. What grade would you give this administration
Speaker 1: in terms of reaffirming some of these alliances. M I
Speaker 1: give them very high marks. I think the fact that
Speaker 1: the president, now in the middle of what's going on
Speaker 1: in Europe, is making a major trip to Asia is
Speaker 1: going to be very important. There's gonna be a G
Speaker 1: twenty meeting coming up. Whether he goes is not clear,
Speaker 1: but I think that anything he can do to demonstrate
Speaker 1: with these friends and allies in the region um that
Speaker 1: we're back and credible is important. The one thing he
Speaker 1: also has to do is make sure that he can
Speaker 1: get bipartisan support for sustaining this because a lot of
Speaker 1: these countries say, well volume is going out there doing this,
Speaker 1: making this good trip. But if the house flips and
Speaker 1: if you get another administration a couple of years from now,
Speaker 1: that could pull back American the alliances in the region.
Speaker 1: So we have to show a not only that we're
Speaker 1: doing this and we're and we're firm in doing it,
Speaker 1: but be this is a sustainable proposition. You've got to
Speaker 1: figure out how to deal with the Chinese shoes that
Speaker 1: it really matters, really have no real impact on China.
Speaker 1: There has to be other stuff, which is particularly intellectual property,
Speaker 1: trade secret Inbassador, I don't mean we are out of time.
Speaker 1: We will continue this just discussion. Robert Harmas are particularly
Speaker 1: strong in the Pacific Rim with Tiaman advisers. This is
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join us live
Speaker 1: weekdays from seven to ten a m. Eastern on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day from six to
Speaker 1: nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance Podcast on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course on
Speaker 1: the terminal. I'm Tom Keene and this is Bloomberg