Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferroll and Lisa o Brawmowitz Jay Lee. We
Speaker 1: bring you insight from the best and economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcast, Suncloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com and of course on the Bloomberg Terminal. Davos, Switzerland.
Speaker 1: Are David Weston with James Gorman. David, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tim Well, I don't hear what you're calling car Lissa o'bramowitz,
Speaker 1: and we do, indeed have James Gorman, the chair and
Speaker 1: CEO of Morgan Stanley said, James, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us here in Dabos. Your earnings came out everybody
Speaker 1: pay attention to him. And I heard a story you
Speaker 1: can tell it's true or not that once some time
Speaker 1: ago you're recruiting senior executives that you know. Wealth management
Speaker 1: may not be as exciting, but over time you do better,
Speaker 1: more steady. Is that what we saw? I noticed your
Speaker 1: stock one up six percent when when Goldman's went down
Speaker 1: six pers on the same day. Well, firstly, thank for
Speaker 1: having us um you know it was a good day
Speaker 1: because I told our board a couple of years ago
Speaker 1: what I'd really like to see selfishly is a very
Speaker 1: difficult environment. I don't want to see it for the country.
Speaker 1: I mean it's not fair, but but for Morgan Sending,
Speaker 1: because I wanted to prove the business model would do
Speaker 1: fine when things are really difficult. And in fact we
Speaker 1: had our second best year ever in revenues and net income,
Speaker 1: third best in EPs in our history. So you know
Speaker 1: what what it proved was the volatility of the markets business.
Speaker 1: Everybody understands the volatively of underwriting I p o s
Speaker 1: are not happening when things are very uncertain, trading on
Speaker 1: the like. But what we proved is by having you know,
Speaker 1: between five and six three and dollars of people's money
Speaker 1: under management that is stable. And that's that was the
Speaker 1: design twelve years ago and we've got there. One thing
Speaker 1: that you said was you are planning to expand some
Speaker 1: of the wealth management aspect even as you cut back
Speaker 1: other parts of the business acquired each trade eating vance.
Speaker 1: Is there another acquisition that you're trying to target or
Speaker 1: is it going to be just sort of organic growth. No,
Speaker 1: I think it's a mix of both. I mean we
Speaker 1: started off with Smith Bunney fourteen years ago. Then we
Speaker 1: acquite a wonderful little company in Calgary, Canada called Sling,
Speaker 1: which did all the sort of workplace stock plan businesses
Speaker 1: for a lot of the SMP companies. Then we bought
Speaker 1: each Trade. Then we bought Eating Vans, and we bought
Speaker 1: Masa West, which is another company. So we've we've been
Speaker 1: we've been building them, and those opportunities come up, we
Speaker 1: keep we keep acquiring those spaces. Is a room for
Speaker 1: another large acquisition, there's always room, um, But we like
Speaker 1: things that aren't balance sheet intensive. We like things that
Speaker 1: help grow scale in spaces that we understand and um,
Speaker 1: you know, we like things when we know what the
Speaker 1: capital picture looks like. So we you know, at the moment,
Speaker 1: we've been quite aggressive with our buy back. Doubled our
Speaker 1: dividend two years ago, we increased the eleven per cent
Speaker 1: last year. But we're also dealing with changing regulatory environment.
Speaker 1: So you're managing between what are the capital demands regulators require,
Speaker 1: how do you distribute it through dividends and through buy backs,
Speaker 1: and then what do you need to do to invest
Speaker 1: in the business. And part of that investment, of course,
Speaker 1: his acquisitions, so it's a multi sort of chess game
Speaker 1: that we're playing. James said, it was some there were
Speaker 1: some difficulties, and you were happy that you could manage
Speaker 1: those difficulties and show that your map model works. Some
Speaker 1: of the difficulties were highly leveraged loans for some acquisitions
Speaker 1: and things like that. Is that crimping your ability going
Speaker 1: forward to make some of those highly leveraged loans. Are
Speaker 1: you changing the risk calculus? No, we've We've been I
Speaker 1: would say um urd conservative over the last two years.
Speaker 1: In fact, it was September I think September year, year
Speaker 1: and a half ago that I met with the management
Speaker 1: committee and said, let's let's all just pull it in
Speaker 1: five ten per cent, right um and our our w
Speaker 1: A is a risk weighted asset. It's actually declined at
Speaker 1: the end of the year. So we did that, and
Speaker 1: so within the leverage loan space, again ear a little conservative,
Speaker 1: but we have a large portfolio obviously going to take
Speaker 1: some losses in these markets. Within that they are absorbed
Speaker 1: in our numbers, but you're also generating a lot of
Speaker 1: interest income, a lot of fees on it. So I balanced, David,
Speaker 1: I think we're reasonably well positioned, but we're definitely not
Speaker 1: trying to be aggressive in this environment. There is one
Speaker 1: high profile loan that rhyme with Twitter that we're going
Speaker 1: to have to talk about, the Twitter loan that I
Speaker 1: know Morgan Stanley lead on. Could Morgan Stanley end up
Speaker 1: owning Twitter? Could Morgan that I've never been asked that question. No,
Speaker 1: we could not end up owning true. Do you play
Speaker 1: on offloading those loans or do you just flater that? Firstly,
Speaker 1: Twitter is a great company, and and let's be fair,
Speaker 1: Elon musk Is is one of the greatest entrepreneurs and
Speaker 1: business people you know, in the last century, and that's
Speaker 1: something that's something exaggeration. Look what he did. Just take
Speaker 1: the boring company alone, let alone SpaceX, let alone Tesla.
Speaker 1: I mean this, this person has extraordinary capabilities. Twitter is
Speaker 1: a great company. Obviously, it's gone through restructuring. Um uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's part of our I'm not going
Speaker 1: to talk about the specific loan position we have, but
Speaker 1: we're very comfortable with that position. So there are things
Speaker 1: we don't know about the economy going forward. One thing
Speaker 1: that people see the reasonably coveted the rates are gonna
Speaker 1: be higher interest rates are going to be higher than
Speaker 1: they have been in the past. How does that basic
Speaker 1: fact change your business? How do you manage your business
Speaker 1: differently when you've got rates at four or five six
Speaker 1: percents that have zero to one half percent? Well, we
Speaker 1: had we had an artificial environment, you know. I remember
Speaker 1: when I came to the United States. I mean obviously
Speaker 1: as as an unsecured student, it wasn't a great credit
Speaker 1: and the bank loan reflected it. I paid My first
Speaker 1: mortgage was fourteen and a half percent. So we've lived
Speaker 1: in a sort of we've lived in a surreal world
Speaker 1: for a decade, which is the legacy of the financial crisis.
Speaker 1: To get the economy back to where it was, central
Speaker 1: governments around the world kept rates nes eerra and along
Speaker 1: came COVID, which delayed what would have been a natural
Speaker 1: rising rates clearly. Then long came the Russian invasion the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: which further delayed it. Finally you turned the corner in
Speaker 1: two thousand two, mid twenty two, when the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: and other central banks around the world, um not by coordination,
Speaker 1: just by need, had to normalize rates back to neutral.
Speaker 1: They've gone higher than that. They had to go higher
Speaker 1: in order to take some of the fluff house the economy.
Speaker 1: So I see it as sort of a natural consequence.
Speaker 1: I don't think of it's particularly alarming, a natural consequence.
Speaker 1: But which parts of Morgan Stands business are hurt by
Speaker 1: higher rates and which are helped by higher rates? Well?
Speaker 1: Were benefit net interest income? In the wealth business, we
Speaker 1: you know, we manage over dollars to deposits um and
Speaker 1: you know rate rate volatility obviously helps your macro trading
Speaker 1: businesses in foreign exchange in rates. It hurts companies trying
Speaker 1: to wanting to do deals because the cost of financing
Speaker 1: is higher. It hurts your marginal loan business people bring
Speaker 1: down their margin loans because it's more expensive. So there
Speaker 1: there gifts and gets, if you will. But what I
Speaker 1: loved about the performance of the business last year, which
Speaker 1: again wasn't a record uh but was a great year,
Speaker 1: was that with those gifts and gets, we came out
Speaker 1: in a position of ROTC and attracted over three hundred
Speaker 1: billion of new money from clients. Here Davos, there seems
Speaker 1: to be an incredible amount of optimism and people have
Speaker 1: noted the shift in tone and that suddenly things seem
Speaker 1: to be moving around the corner, and I had asked
Speaker 1: you, you you know, do you think it's overplayed? You said,
Speaker 1: you're the most optimistic person you know, So why are
Speaker 1: you so optimistic? What does optimistic look like here? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I've seen I've seen a lot of cycles
Speaker 1: in my career, and I've seen some really really dark periods.
Speaker 1: You know, the financial crisis after September eleven, even though
Speaker 1: you know the early recessions in the US, the market
Speaker 1: bust and seven year I go back up a lot
Speaker 1: olderan you. I go back a long way and and um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think what we've been through if you
Speaker 1: stack up the negative stuff that happened, first land war
Speaker 1: in Europe in forty years, first global pandemic in a century,
Speaker 1: first lamb or in Europe in seventy years, first global
Speaker 1: pandemic in a century, and highest rate increase because of
Speaker 1: inflation in forty years, that's a lot to throw up people.
Speaker 1: And where are we now? So bad? That debate is
Speaker 1: will it be a recession? Will it be shortened? Shall
Speaker 1: nobody's saying we're going depression right, everybody's saying we can
Speaker 1: kind of deal with this. And two things I think
Speaker 1: have changed in the last month, which has caused this
Speaker 1: echo chamber we live in here and doub us where
Speaker 1: everybody's basically repeating back to each other what they've heard
Speaker 1: from the last person. Let's be honest. I'm not hopefully,
Speaker 1: but most people are. Is two things have changed. Number One,
Speaker 1: the inflation numbers are definitely there's clear evidence inflation has
Speaker 1: in fact peaked and is coming down right how quickly
Speaker 1: whether it will get us to two percent and when
Speaker 1: remains the debate, but it is clearly the slope of
Speaker 1: the line is positive. Is to everybody's favorite. And the
Speaker 1: second is not just the opening up of China, but
Speaker 1: China has embraced the rest of the world more aggressively
Speaker 1: in the last few weeks, witnessed by the Vice Premier
Speaker 1: meeting with Treasury Secretary yell on this morning things this
Speaker 1: morning um in a way that we haven't seen for
Speaker 1: some time. So the big question coming out of the
Speaker 1: Party Congress and President she uh you know, being real
Speaker 1: reelected by the Congress was where does China go from here?
Speaker 1: Does common prosperity mean effectively dividing the pie up so
Speaker 1: everybody gets a piece of it, or by growing the pie?
Speaker 1: And what we're seeing is the tilter is now from
Speaker 1: divide the pie to grow the pipe. Does that mean
Speaker 1: you've got more confidence to expand in China? We've We've
Speaker 1: got We've got a very good business in Greater China. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we have a huge business in Hong Kong. Um, and
Speaker 1: we you know, we continue to have I think on
Speaker 1: the main land up to a thousand people in various
Speaker 1: various functions. But no, I think we need to see
Speaker 1: a little more clarity of Chinese policy, a little more
Speaker 1: you know, sober discussion around global trade relations. Um. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know, right now, I think we're certainly in in
Speaker 1: a watch, but tilting more positive than we would have
Speaker 1: been three six months ago. We've come all the way
Speaker 1: over the Switzer and I'm struck at least by the
Speaker 1: fact that and I'll talk about Washington to be a
Speaker 1: debt ceiling a lot of concerning I hear two things.
Speaker 1: One is it's ridiculous, and two is it would be catastrophic.
Speaker 1: What is your reaction that's saying, how do you take
Speaker 1: into account the possibility of US default? Well, um, it
Speaker 1: was a Churchill who said the Americans eventually get it
Speaker 1: right after, you know, and I can't remember thee. Yeah, so, um,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm confident that I'm confident that uh, politics
Speaker 1: will finally get to the right place on this. I'm
Speaker 1: confident about that because the the other option is just
Speaker 1: not an option. One thing, as the people have also
Speaker 1: been talking about, is the new normal for work from home.
Speaker 1: We heard a bit of a retracement from City Group
Speaker 1: in an interview that David did here with Jane Fraser.
Speaker 1: What's the new normal? Is it coming into the office
Speaker 1: four days a week, Is it flexible? Is it work
Speaker 1: from home more freely? I think it's very very specific
Speaker 1: to what you do. Um. You know, if you're a
Speaker 1: tax attorney, UM, who doesn't work with other teams, then
Speaker 1: obviously you can spend a lot more time by yourself.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter if you're in office or not. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are different kinds of jobs. Is where I'd start with.
Speaker 1: The main point is post COVID, we learned you can function.
Speaker 1: I ran Morgan Centy for three months from my home
Speaker 1: office seventy three people, so that's it's pretty remarkable. We
Speaker 1: proved you actually can do it by not going into
Speaker 1: the office. But should you do it by not going
Speaker 1: to the office? Now that clearly to me, the big answer,
Speaker 1: big answer that is no, Um, we won't put the
Speaker 1: genie back in the bottle. Five days in the office
Speaker 1: for everybody's not going to happen again. For some people,
Speaker 1: of course, and Morgan standing, we're kind of business univate
Speaker 1: business unit, it's three or four days in the office.
Speaker 1: My rule has always been on this. If you're not
Speaker 1: spending a majority of your working time in the company
Speaker 1: of your colleagues, you are missing out on mentorship, on development,
Speaker 1: on EQ, on just reading the signals of being in
Speaker 1: a meeting and watch how people you know, handle the
Speaker 1: stresses that go on and the you know, the unspoken
Speaker 1: body language and so on. So it's three or four
Speaker 1: days a week. I don't think that changes in a hurry.
Speaker 1: Some people in some businesses are trading for is a
Speaker 1: cheek to job. You go in there there five days
Speaker 1: a week. So it's very business specific. But my my
Speaker 1: golden rule is don't put the genie back in the bottle.
Speaker 1: You can't. On the other hand, it's not a complete
Speaker 1: This is not an employee choice. They don't get to
Speaker 1: choose their compensation, they don't get to choose their promotion.
Speaker 1: They don't get to choose stay home five days a week.
Speaker 1: I want them with other employees at least three or
Speaker 1: four days. So, James, you've talked about some of the
Speaker 1: responses with the CEO, which are formidable alcant in capital
Speaker 1: making sure you're right there people sitting around corners. One
Speaker 1: of the jobs is succession for every good CEO, and
Speaker 1: we've seen it done well. We've seen it done that
Speaker 1: so well. A couple of years ago you said, maybe
Speaker 1: three more years. How do you approach the question of succession?
Speaker 1: How do you set it up for the good of
Speaker 1: the institution of Morgan Stanley very intentionally. Firstly, you should
Speaker 1: always have a sort of an envelope for God forbid
Speaker 1: something horrible happens. We've done that from a very first
Speaker 1: board meeting in January of two thousand and ten. Um.
Speaker 1: But more realistically, you plan a generation people who can
Speaker 1: take over with Morgan. Sandy have now three executives whoper
Speaker 1: replace me. They're all very, very talented executives and we're
Speaker 1: trying to fill out their skill base and ultimately the
Speaker 1: board will decide who is the best qualified to run
Speaker 1: our particular company. At this point in time, I'm extremely
Speaker 1: intentional about it. Um, I would definitely step down. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not going to stand this job for life.
Speaker 1: I've no us in that and it's unhealthy for our
Speaker 1: organ the way we're constructed. Right, We've we've got to
Speaker 1: focus on what's right for Morgan sounding and it's to
Speaker 1: grow the next generation. I work on a ten year
Speaker 1: and twenty year plan in talent planning, and that's how
Speaker 1: far out I'm thinking about it. And you know, I've
Speaker 1: been in this job, well, this is my four ent years,
Speaker 1: so I've had plenty of opportunity to developed folks. And
Speaker 1: the great news is, David, we've got some unbelievable talent.
Speaker 1: JS Garman, thank you so much for being with us,
Speaker 1: the head of Morgan Stanley, We're gonna get some good
Speaker 1: news later this summer. The debt ceiling standoff looms in Washington.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinions. Bill Dudley wrote the following, the debt limit
Speaker 1: doesn't contribute meaningfully to fiscal discipline. It encourages political grandstanding.
Speaker 1: It risked the default of the world's wealthiest and most
Speaker 1: powerful nation, Tom it should be abolished. The words are
Speaker 1: built Dudley on Bloomberg a strong strong language. William Dudley
Speaker 1: is an important economist, yes, the former president of New
Speaker 1: York FED, but someone more than any of the Feds
Speaker 1: stealed in the grind of market economics and actually working
Speaker 1: day to day through policy realities. Bill Dudley joins us
Speaker 1: this morning writing for Bloomberg Opinion, A huge contributor. Bill,
Speaker 1: I was talking with our Michael McKee and this goes
Speaker 1: back to McKelvey and you on the fiscal state of
Speaker 1: the nation at Goldman Sachs in two thousand eleven and
Speaker 1: even more recently in two thousand and fifteen, the Fed
Speaker 1: was proactive in modeling out debt ceiling outcomes. Do you
Speaker 1: just presume they will do that this time? And how
Speaker 1: wild your own Powell and Company assist Congress in measuring
Speaker 1: those tail risks? I will definitely be contingency playing. What
Speaker 1: do you do if there was a default on the debt?
Speaker 1: What do you do if there's non default? But prioritize payments?
Speaker 1: The way it works is, if you actually run out
Speaker 1: of money, the treasural just what payments to present to
Speaker 1: the Fed. Presumably the treasure will decide to prioritize debt
Speaker 1: repayment and interest payments, so there isn't a technical to
Speaker 1: fall and then the FED will basically honor the payments
Speaker 1: that the that the Treasury presents. But what the Fed
Speaker 1: can do also is actually shore up market functioning and
Speaker 1: the treasury market. Uh. What we saw in two thousand
Speaker 1: eleven is the treasury market got unset, very unsettled as
Speaker 1: we got close to the deadline. People don't want to
Speaker 1: buy treasury bills. That are worrying. Right around the time
Speaker 1: when the debt limit could be binding money market funds,
Speaker 1: there were outflows from treasury money market funds into commercial
Speaker 1: banks and so the Fed FED does have a responsibility
Speaker 1: here to try to preserve market functioning. And there's also
Speaker 1: the question, of course of the debt auctions themselves. The
Speaker 1: Treasury is auctions the debt, but the Fed actually runs
Speaker 1: the auction process, and it's really important. And we have
Speaker 1: those auctions that there are more bids than what's on offer.
Speaker 1: If if there if there were not enough bids, uh,
Speaker 1: an auction would fail and that would be a terrible
Speaker 1: blow to the financial markets. Yeah, I look at this bill,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna go to your Berkeley Economics and the
Speaker 1: great Berry Iken Green and what he said about gold
Speaker 1: and the emotion of gold. How do you respond to
Speaker 1: the moral consequences of our debt? The emotion of the
Speaker 1: right And they had a huge response to your Bloomberg essay,
Speaker 1: the moral consequences of this debt. How do you respond
Speaker 1: to that like Iken Green would respond to gold? Well,
Speaker 1: very simple. Uh. The point is that, look what's happened
Speaker 1: to death in deadness over the last twenty thirty years Sword,
Speaker 1: even though we've had this debt limit ceiling in place
Speaker 1: all during that time. So the debt limits clearly doesn't
Speaker 1: restrain spending. We've tripled the amount of government debt relative
Speaker 1: to the economy over the last thirty or forty years,
Speaker 1: and you know, so the debt limit is not really
Speaker 1: doing much to actually constrain things. Uh, As I think
Speaker 1: you don't really want to mess around with the credit
Speaker 1: worthiness of the United States, because if you do mess
Speaker 1: around with it, even if you avert a disaster in
Speaker 1: the end, it can have consequences. In two thousand and eleven,
Speaker 1: the debt limit was raised at the end of the
Speaker 1: day in a time and barely in a timely way,
Speaker 1: and yet the SMP downgraded the reading in the United
Speaker 1: States from triple A to double A plus. So there
Speaker 1: was a consequence even when there wasn't a technical default
Speaker 1: on the dead But will you experienced this when you
Speaker 1: were at the FED. My McKay was talking to us earlier.
Speaker 1: You just messaged me said the f WEMC in game
Speaker 1: down possible FED responses to a default. What did you
Speaker 1: think you could do back then? Well, I think there's
Speaker 1: a couple of things that I can do that FA
Speaker 1: can basically tell tell market participants that we're going to
Speaker 1: continue to engage in the treasury market, will take you know,
Speaker 1: we'll take defaulted securities as collateral just as well as
Speaker 1: the securities that haven't defaulted. You know, you don't want
Speaker 1: the market to start to really uh lock up because
Speaker 1: people can't raise money against treasury collateral because they're worth
Speaker 1: that collateral could be in default. So the FED is
Speaker 1: basically said, we're going to treat, We're gonna treat, We're
Speaker 1: gonna take defaulted treasure securities and all our operations. The
Speaker 1: only difference wing defaulted securities and non defaulted securities would
Speaker 1: be we value default as curious at market prices. So
Speaker 1: the FED basically saying we're going to keep the repo
Speaker 1: market functioning. We're gonna keep the treasury build market functioning.
Speaker 1: Now things got bad enough, the Feder Reserve could also
Speaker 1: engage in, you know, in interventions in the secondary treasury market.
Speaker 1: They can actually coming in and buy, like we saw
Speaker 1: during the early stages of the COVID pandemic. FED would
Speaker 1: not want to do that because they don't want to
Speaker 1: get involved in the middle of a political controversy. But
Speaker 1: if the treasury market really started to melt down, the
Speaker 1: FED would probably come in and and and participate in
Speaker 1: the secondary market. The FED can't do anything about the
Speaker 1: auctions themselves because the FED is precluded from buying directly
Speaker 1: from the U. S. Treasury. So but let's just build
Speaker 1: on this. The attitude of people on Wall Street, as
Speaker 1: you know and we're all familiar with, is that this happens,
Speaker 1: we get through it, and if it gets dicey, guess
Speaker 1: what we do. We buy treasuries now. But you get
Speaker 1: all those kinks of various tennis at the very front
Speaker 1: end of the curve on tables, but they'll ultimately people
Speaker 1: still buy treasuries. Do you see that change in whatsoever?
Speaker 1: I think that that's what generally happens, and I think
Speaker 1: that's mostly right. I mean, basically what people assume that
Speaker 1: is that there's gonna be a lot of drawing, but
Speaker 1: at the end of dead limit will be raised in time. Now,
Speaker 1: So what that what that means is if all, if
Speaker 1: we mess up, even just one time and don't raise
Speaker 1: the debt in the timely way, it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: huge market surprise. So you go from the probability of
Speaker 1: default is you know, point zero one percent to all
Speaker 1: of a sudden there is a technical default, be a
Speaker 1: huge blow to financial markets. Bill tell me about our
Speaker 1: ratios is compared to the maximum doom and gloom of
Speaker 1: Japanese ratios. To our listeners and viewers in a debt
Speaker 1: ceiling debate, the three or the four or the five
Speaker 1: ratios that matter? Are we fiscally constrained or are we
Speaker 1: doing okay? Well? I think the big difference between US
Speaker 1: and Japan is we very much depend on the kindness
Speaker 1: of strangers that could hold our our government debt. The
Speaker 1: U s is run as you know, current account deficits
Speaker 1: for you know, decades, and so a lot of the
Speaker 1: US assets are held by foreigners. Foreigners don't have to
Speaker 1: hold US debt obviously, and so there is a risk
Speaker 1: that they can just idea that maybe the US isn't
Speaker 1: sell credit worthy, well their credit worthy. And I guess
Speaker 1: we're gonna you know, as John mentions, Wall Street says, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's get through this in the autumn and move on.
Speaker 1: And you suggest there could be a singular damage given
Speaker 1: one screw up. What is the proactive process of secretary
Speaker 1: yelling not to get John, not to get a bipartisan support.
Speaker 1: That's impossible, But what is the proactive process of secretary
Speaker 1: yelling to solve this before the autumn angst? Well, I
Speaker 1: guess what you have to do is convinced us a
Speaker 1: number of Republicans, more moderate Republics to come over the
Speaker 1: fence and join Democrats and raising the te liment in
Speaker 1: a timely way. But I just want to wrap things
Speaker 1: up with the recent economic dates if we can, because
Speaker 1: we have about sixty seconds late left with you. The
Speaker 1: recent survey data bill, how much weight would you put
Speaker 1: on it? What we sank in the I M what
Speaker 1: we saw an empire manufacturing earlier this week. Yeah, things
Speaker 1: are definitely weaker, although I think part of this is
Speaker 1: just the rotation away from goods back to service is
Speaker 1: and I think we really need to see the January
Speaker 1: data because we don't know how much, you know, Christmas
Speaker 1: sales were distorted by the fact that people bought a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff uh in prior years during the pandemic.
Speaker 1: So I want to see what the January looks like,
Speaker 1: January data looks like, and then I'll have a better
Speaker 1: sense of whether this Christmas weakness is just, you know,
Speaker 1: a lull, or whether it's something more serious. How would
Speaker 1: you change your thoughts going into the next dem C
Speaker 1: meeting if you were still there? Is there's doing anything
Speaker 1: to change your thoughts about the pace the ultimate destination.
Speaker 1: They've They've made it very clear that basis points at
Speaker 1: the next meeting, and the weaker inflation data and weaker
Speaker 1: activity data confirms that. I think that's almost certain that
Speaker 1: they're gonna do another basis points move in March, and
Speaker 1: then they may may maybe the main meetings up for grabs.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think it's gonna be hard for
Speaker 1: them to stop because if they stop, financial conditions are
Speaker 1: going to ease and the montefit is gonna lessen. But
Speaker 1: this was great as always, Thanks for squeezing that end.
Speaker 1: At the end, we appreciate it. Build down the performer
Speaker 1: New York Fed President. We can catch up with Great
Speaker 1: Battle now, the US head of Equity and Derivative Strategy
Speaker 1: for at BNP parent part, Greg Battle, We've got to
Speaker 1: leave with this. Thirty four hundred on the SMP year
Speaker 1: end is your price target. You're not looking for that
Speaker 1: dip and rip. You're just looking for a dip your
Speaker 1: rent on the SMP. You are the most bearish strategist
Speaker 1: on the street right now that we track. So Greg,
Speaker 1: let's start there. Talk to me about the journey to
Speaker 1: thirty four hundred. Yeah, good morning. Well, I think the
Speaker 1: target itself is less of an out wider than it seems,
Speaker 1: because when you look through the forecast that many strategies
Speaker 1: have for the first half of this year, similar to US,
Speaker 1: people are looking for recessionary price action and for the
Speaker 1: equity market to make new loads. Where our view is
Speaker 1: a little bit differentiated is we're not looking for the
Speaker 1: type of V shaped recovery that we saw back in twenty.
Speaker 1: We think there's going to be a harder environment to
Speaker 1: see fiscal and monetary response um and we think that
Speaker 1: leads us to an equity market that can have some
Speaker 1: healthy declines this year. The BNP Perry Bus hallmark here
Speaker 1: is to understoot g d P of oys write about
Speaker 1: that you've never gone with the boom crew if you
Speaker 1: are Gregg, and that all devolves down to the x acts.
Speaker 1: Is the timeline? Give us the timeline of this equity weakness?
Speaker 1: Is it one quarter? Is it quarters? Or really can
Speaker 1: you get out into the depths of two thousand twenty four? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously we've seen some pretty big declines in
Speaker 1: the last calendar year that was far more of a
Speaker 1: story of multiple compression than it was recessionary price action.
Speaker 1: What we're looking for in the first half this year
Speaker 1: is recessionary price action. We think that can start with
Speaker 1: this current earning season. We've seen some bad economic data
Speaker 1: this week. Um, we've seen now CoA after the bell
Speaker 1: yesterday which was a little bit of a troubling release,
Speaker 1: and we think this earning season over the next couple
Speaker 1: of weeks could be a challenge. But really, when we
Speaker 1: fast forward three months to Q one earning season, we
Speaker 1: think that could be really the point of which the
Speaker 1: economic data is really decelerating and we could see some
Speaker 1: real capitulation in terms of earnings forecasts. So the next
Speaker 1: two earning season we think could be the most troubling.
Speaker 1: Frequties What does this placement bets right now? When you
Speaker 1: look at the cross moments around the equity market and
Speaker 1: particularly skew when you look at the fancy derivative chat,
Speaker 1: what does it say about the bet that's being placed
Speaker 1: right now. Well, I think what we see in the
Speaker 1: equity vall market is a little bit of a reflection
Speaker 1: of what we've seen more broadly in the acting market,
Speaker 1: which is a more constructive start to the year. We
Speaker 1: saw the VIX trade down to an eighteen handle, which
Speaker 1: is kind of very low relative to where it's been
Speaker 1: over the last year UM, and that's really reflective of
Speaker 1: this kind of China reopening, warmer winter in Europe UM
Speaker 1: starting to translate into some short covering into the US,
Speaker 1: which people are starting to weave into a narrative of
Speaker 1: maybe this elusive stuff landing is coming. But we think
Speaker 1: that's pretty inconsistent with the data. I mean, when we
Speaker 1: look at the data this week, retail sales, industrial production,
Speaker 1: Empire manufacturing, UM, this is data that is decelerating aggressively.
Speaker 1: So we think there's some signs of complacency, and I
Speaker 1: think the VIX sub twenty has been a pretty a
Speaker 1: bad signal for the equity market other of the part.
Speaker 1: So there is a bit of pushback against this view.
Speaker 1: It comes from Neil Data over naissance Macro. We caught
Speaker 1: up with him a little bit later, a little bit
Speaker 1: earlier this week. Just listen to what he had to say. Greg,
Speaker 1: the manufacturing data undeniably week. You mentioned the IP data yesterday.
Speaker 1: But why does this continue? He asks? Aircraft and autos
Speaker 1: have a lot of momentum. The dollars sold off, supporting
Speaker 1: the exports and manufactured goods, and global growth has rebounded.
Speaker 1: Neil is pushing this idea that we could have a
Speaker 1: more resilient economy than some people expect. Greg, what would
Speaker 1: you say to that. I think we've had an incredibly
Speaker 1: aggressive tightening cycle from the Fed, and we know these
Speaker 1: things acts with these kind of long and variable lags,
Speaker 1: as they say, and I think we're going to bite
Speaker 1: some of the pain this year. So Kyl Rocord on
Speaker 1: our economics team point to the idea of nominal GDP
Speaker 1: falling below FED funds as something that historically has really
Speaker 1: been a signal for deceleration in terms of economic momentum.
Speaker 1: They expect that to happen at the start of the
Speaker 1: second quarter, just when Q one earnings are being delivered.
Speaker 1: When we look at things from a more bottom month perspective,
Speaker 1: there's undoubtedly been a real deceleration in terms of earnings
Speaker 1: forecast momentum. We've seen it sequentially that each earning season
Speaker 1: has seen downgrades a little larger than the last. We
Speaker 1: think we're going to get bigger downgrades as we moved
Speaker 1: through the next couple of weeks in this earning season,
Speaker 1: and we think we get bigger downrades than that as
Speaker 1: we moved through Q one earnings. So I think the
Speaker 1: outlook is challenging. Greg. How important is history here as well?
Speaker 1: We mentioned June and Emmanual have ever court a little
Speaker 1: bit earlier this morning when he said this line here,
Speaker 1: no bear market has ever bottened before the start of
Speaker 1: a recession. Does that weigh on you too? Yeah? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I think that's a great stat We produced a piece
Speaker 1: before we went back and looked at every recession and
Speaker 1: bear market over the last hundred years, and that was
Speaker 1: indeed one of the takeaways that we've seen when we
Speaker 1: look at recessionary bear markets, and we do think we
Speaker 1: have a recession this year. They tend to be deep
Speaker 1: and they tend to be very long. We've gone back
Speaker 1: and studied all of these crashes. We see some notable
Speaker 1: similarities between where we are today and where we were
Speaker 1: in the early two thousand's. That was a born market
Speaker 1: that was driven very much by multiple compression, retail participation,
Speaker 1: tech and grow stocks. Lad very similar to the ball
Speaker 1: market we experienced prior to last year, and that on
Speaker 1: wind was long, it was deep, and we see a
Speaker 1: lot of similarities of that to where we are today. Greg,
Speaker 1: your shop has an absolutely original heritage in China, folks.
Speaker 1: This goes back well into the nineteen century BMP, Perry
Speaker 1: Bar and China. Can there can there boom? Can there
Speaker 1: predicted boom? Can their end of COVID? Can their new
Speaker 1: five or six percent GDP growth? Can that overcome the
Speaker 1: equity gloom? Well? I think we've obviously seen the power
Speaker 1: of the reopening trade in the US and that's certainly
Speaker 1: been the driver this year of this more constructive start
Speaker 1: for equity markets globally. I think that we would question
Speaker 1: a little bit about whether that's going to be sufficient
Speaker 1: alone to offset some of the headwinds that we see
Speaker 1: here domestically in the US. But it certainly raises the
Speaker 1: question of relative performance globally and equities um and this
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons why I'm more comfortable with
Speaker 1: this Barrish view for US equities, and that in the
Speaker 1: case that we're wrong on the global macro economic outlook
Speaker 1: and global growth is stronger, we think there are regions
Speaker 1: other than the US that are likely to lead that
Speaker 1: charge higher spive and is the kill Gregg Mattle FBNP
Speaker 1: parent Bunk Greg, thank you, sir, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: We go math on a Thursday here twenty six minutes
Speaker 1: before economic data. Alicia Levine holds high ground and mathematical
Speaker 1: acuity and looking at equity and capital markets with b
Speaker 1: and why melon today, I'm gonna go Matthew on you
Speaker 1: right now, and let's go into Tony and calculus first
Speaker 1: and second, deservative, what's a convexity out there that mostly
Speaker 1: has your attention? What's the accelerated force that scares you?
Speaker 1: What scares me is really the pricing in of the
Speaker 1: soft landing that has happened since the beginn ning of
Speaker 1: the year. Because as you know, it's not actually what
Speaker 1: happens in the data that moves markets, it's what's already
Speaker 1: priced in. So everyone was defensive. By the end of
Speaker 1: the year, we flipped over China, reopening the growth impulse.
Speaker 1: You know, tex is going to make a resurgence. Yields
Speaker 1: are going lower, great for stocks, great for multiples. The
Speaker 1: soft landing is out there, and it simply wasn't priced
Speaker 1: in at all. Then we moved towards that, and I
Speaker 1: think that's ultimately the risk. And in the end, the
Speaker 1: peak FED funds rate, as priced by the market is
Speaker 1: about fifty basis points less than we think we're going.
Speaker 1: That's the issue. It's not that the market is necessarily wrong.
Speaker 1: It's that if it is wrong, the reaction is not
Speaker 1: going to be a pleasant one. In equities with my
Speaker 1: phrase last year, the gravity has returned, you know, the
Speaker 1: sharp ratio of risk free rate and all that. He's
Speaker 1: got a book magisterial and misunderstood called anti fragile, which
Speaker 1: is the mathematics of what you don't see because you
Speaker 1: don't have skin in the game, which leads of the
Speaker 1: shadow banking debate. What's the mystery out there in the
Speaker 1: bet that's being made for two. The bet that's being
Speaker 1: made is that the macro story from carries over to
Speaker 1: twenty three, meaning that if the second derivative on inflation
Speaker 1: is negative, that is lower growth rates or even this deflation,
Speaker 1: that that will rally the market. That is the problem,
Speaker 1: because the bond market has already priced in the recession,
Speaker 1: has already priced in lower inflation. And with that, if
Speaker 1: you're only looking at multiple expansion as a way to
Speaker 1: rally the market, when most market participants are assuming that
Speaker 1: earnings have to come in, that's the problem. The story
Speaker 1: this year is the earnings risk and the recession risk,
Speaker 1: not the inflation risk anymore. That that second derivative is clear,
Speaker 1: has been clear for several months. It's being driven by
Speaker 1: a drop in commodity prices, a drop in the goods pricing.
Speaker 1: That's been clear. But you can only go so far
Speaker 1: on that. And that's the dance, the dance between lower yields,
Speaker 1: lower inflation prints. But ultimately, if you're getting to two
Speaker 1: or three percent, it's because you have a recession. Tech
Speaker 1: have circularly challenges some of those names. So there's you know,
Speaker 1: we've talked about this, you know, for the last few
Speaker 1: months the multiples there are still too high. In every cycle,
Speaker 1: there is that moment where leadership shifts. It typically is
Speaker 1: caused by a recession or some kind of an event,
Speaker 1: and you see it very clearly. What happened here was
Speaker 1: sort of that excitement of multiples and tech and you know,
Speaker 1: exponential growth, and then it started tipping over by the
Speaker 1: middle of twenty one more towards the value industrials, materials, commodities.
Speaker 1: So we think the next cycle, I'm not saying for
Speaker 1: the next year, but for the next cycle, the growth
Speaker 1: stocks simply will be more challenged because that they were
Speaker 1: the leaders before. And if you go back fifty sixty,
Speaker 1: seventy years, they're very clear cycles of outperformance and the
Speaker 1: break tends to come around recessions or big events, and
Speaker 1: COVID was one of those events, and the slowdown is
Speaker 1: one of those events. Raging change change phrase I think
Speaker 1: sounding a dollar of Microsoft's been pretty clear about it.
Speaker 1: They're not hiding. The Microsoft CEO this wait, Tom at
Speaker 1: Davos the following words, and I keep saying this. They
Speaker 1: are not hiding. They're telling you this loud and clear
Speaker 1: in their actions with job cuts. In their words, here's
Speaker 1: the quote during the pandemic, there was a rapid acceleration.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to go through a face today
Speaker 1: where there is some amount of normalization in demand. Alicia.
Speaker 1: They're just telling us up front, aren't they that you
Speaker 1: don't You don't fire people when you have growth ahead
Speaker 1: of you. You fire people when growth is slowing, and
Speaker 1: so were The message we're getting from this particular sector
Speaker 1: is that growth is slowing. We've seen it in the
Speaker 1: stock prices. That's not all tech, but you still have
Speaker 1: stacks that are trading at sixty times forward earnings always
Speaker 1: have to come down. They tend to be concentrated at
Speaker 1: the top of the market, concentrated at the in top
Speaker 1: of the index of the SMP. So ultimately that's a
Speaker 1: tough place to be relatively. You're not all in cash, No, no,
Speaker 1: we are not in cash. We don't. We don't do that,
Speaker 1: but we don't, so we we We recently raised our
Speaker 1: exposure to fix income. We did that at the end
Speaker 1: of last year. We're implementing it this year. We have
Speaker 1: um tilted our equity exposure to me to be more
Speaker 1: value oriented and to look at some of those names
Speaker 1: that are underneath the surface, not the top ten names
Speaker 1: that everybody's probably still has in their portfolios hoping that
Speaker 1: they're going to outperform this year. So we're looking at
Speaker 1: more value. We're looking at growth at a reasonable price,
Speaker 1: tech names that have earnings and dividends on cash flow.
Speaker 1: That's great, that's what's going to work this year. It's
Speaker 1: simply the growth at at any price won't work. And
Speaker 1: and that story was last year and that will continue
Speaker 1: in this cycle. If you remember, if you remember after
Speaker 1: two thousand, nobody wanted to own tech for about seven years,
Speaker 1: very hard tech rally here. Not the same thing here,
Speaker 1: but there is a there. The leadership will not be here,
Speaker 1: and the lesson will be hard, hard learned. That's going
Speaker 1: to compromise the index in a massive way, isn't it massive?
Speaker 1: You can still make money in the different sectors. We
Speaker 1: like industrials, we like materials. We're still we're so long
Speaker 1: energy because we think. Let's just by the way, let's
Speaker 1: talk about the fact that w T I quietly went
Speaker 1: from sevent z. We've been talking about it. You haven't
Speaker 1: been watching, but we've been talking about that. She listens
Speaker 1: and watches every day time. What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: I just I think what the studio. This is just awesome.
Speaker 1: Thanks for making the effort, makes a massive difference. So
Speaker 1: great to be here. That's because time's up. Tom just
Speaker 1: getting towards the end, start to be rude as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just it's my job to rend you in sometimes Laicia,
Speaker 1: Thank you Leia, and right now and this is what
Speaker 1: we do with Bloomberg Surveillance. We want to bring you
Speaker 1: experience on the cell side on people advising and doing
Speaker 1: securities research. She is a legend in the business. She
Speaker 1: is Jessica reef Airlic. She's media and entertainment analyst at
Speaker 1: Bank of America and long ago and far away, she
Speaker 1: would put out a ten page effort for OpCo and
Speaker 1: we would all have to stop and read every word
Speaker 1: and every sensitivity analysis of her work. Now she has
Speaker 1: a new war. It's the streaming wars. And we're honored
Speaker 1: for Global Wall Street to take notes this morning. Jessica,
Speaker 1: thrilled to have you here and honored. How bad are
Speaker 1: the streaming wars? Well, first of all, thank you for
Speaker 1: having me and thank you for remembering open minded. That's
Speaker 1: a long time ago. Um, you know, it's with the
Speaker 1: exception of Netflix, everybody is losing a lot of money,
Speaker 1: but it's it's critical that the traditional media companies make
Speaker 1: the trans linear pay TV universe is declining and declining quickly. Um,
Speaker 1: and the viewers are going to streaming. They want to
Speaker 1: watch what they want, when they want, and so ratings
Speaker 1: it down dramatically and the ad dollars will follow. Jessica,
Speaker 1: I look at your optimism on streaming, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go to the most troubled let's call it David Zaslov's
Speaker 1: Warner Brothers Digital w b D. You're you're at lunch
Speaker 1: with him at the Sunset Tower Hotel. What's your question?
Speaker 1: Does have love? And frankly for the rest of the
Speaker 1: industry about what's the rate of change here? What's the
Speaker 1: speed forward for the streaming wars Well, they're a little
Speaker 1: bit different, so that's an interesting company to pick up.
Speaker 1: W b D. Warner Brothers Discovery will launch their combined
Speaker 1: service in Q two, and we don't know exactly what
Speaker 1: they will look like, how it will be priced. Um,
Speaker 1: do they keep Discovering? Plus? Do they do? They keep
Speaker 1: it all the carpet also integrated because there's a very
Speaker 1: loyal following. Gosh, how but remember Warner Brothers Discovery has
Speaker 1: an enormous library. It's not just Warner Brothers TV and film,
Speaker 1: but they also have all the lie So when they launched,
Speaker 1: our expectations, they'll have news, they'll have sports, they'll have entertainment,
Speaker 1: they'll have documentaries, they'll have you know, nonfiction. So that's
Speaker 1: a little bit different. The ones who have launched already,
Speaker 1: like Paramount Plus or Peacock or Disney Plus. You can
Speaker 1: see their numbers. They're losing billions of dollars um, you know,
Speaker 1: and again the loss But Jessica, to your enthusiasm on
Speaker 1: Netflix and to get to this afternoon or Mandalorian coming
Speaker 1: out for Disney Plus to save the day, When do
Speaker 1: they get to profit? What is your ex axis at
Speaker 1: Bank of America when they finally turned profitable. Well, in
Speaker 1: the case of Netflix, they are profitable. So they are
Speaker 1: at a completely different level than all of the other
Speaker 1: traditional media companies who have kind of joined the party later. Um,
Speaker 1: there are massive losses um. In the case of Wonder
Speaker 1: Brothers Discovery, the losses of peaked to twenty two. In
Speaker 1: the case of losses should be this year, Paramount Plus
Speaker 1: and others next it's kind of a long road to
Speaker 1: profitability um and the margins and the business will see
Speaker 1: what they really are ultimately are they can they climb?
Speaker 1: You know, can they scale up beyond that? But it's
Speaker 1: clear that the economics will be will be far worse
Speaker 1: than the PayTV you know, the traditional pat I got
Speaker 1: eight ways to go here, Jessica, I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's so much to talk about in the firm, and
Speaker 1: of the loss is being taken. I think I've got
Speaker 1: to go to the heritages. We see right now debated
Speaker 1: at Disney over Fox. Mr uh Mr Pelts is in
Speaker 1: there knocking around and others, and it's about a gentleman
Speaker 1: in his nineties, Rupert Murdoch. What is your outcoming? Wh
Speaker 1: If I was having coffee with you and Gordon Crawford,
Speaker 1: I'd say, what is the outcome for the Murdoch Empire
Speaker 1: five years from now? How do you visualize that? Well?
Speaker 1: I think Rupert Murdoch has proven to be the smartest
Speaker 1: person in Hollywood. He sold at the peak and the
Speaker 1: assets that had kept are the live assets, so lives,
Speaker 1: live sports, and they're doing very very well. Obviously, there
Speaker 1: are cyplical headwinds in advertising and secular a TV, but
Speaker 1: they are not losing billions of dollars and streaming like others.
Speaker 1: So Fox is in a very different position because they're
Speaker 1: much smaller. They bite size. They could be broken up,
Speaker 1: or they have a great balanty, they could buy something,
Speaker 1: So they're in a completely different position than the other
Speaker 1: companies that you mentioned, whether it's Disney or Paramount or Comcast.
Speaker 1: With NBCU, this might sound like a ramp, but perhaps
Speaker 1: because it is. Tom and I were both having this
Speaker 1: rand Jessica a little bit early this morning. This was
Speaker 1: meant to improve the user experience, It hasn't. It was
Speaker 1: meant to be cheaper, It isn't. Jessica has become increasing expensive.
Speaker 1: We all look at what we pay now for the
Speaker 1: streaming caps and it adds up so way, way more
Speaker 1: than what we were paying for cable. How does all
Speaker 1: of that And jess could you think obviously consumers should
Speaker 1: have probably seen with the cable but that you know,
Speaker 1: kind of the that's over. I mean, that's you know,
Speaker 1: like the trendline is there. We'll see where cable levels out.
Speaker 1: But you're right, and that's why the biggest issue facing
Speaker 1: streaming is charm and consumers. It's very easy to turn
Speaker 1: on off and on and off. These services unlike cable
Speaker 1: where you have to wait for, you know, a serviceman
Speaker 1: to come and disconnect. Take yourself top box, Um, this
Speaker 1: is it's just easy to go on and off. And
Speaker 1: so that's part of comics to streaming. Jessica, you and
Speaker 1: I lived this. I remember Dennis Leabo. It's a d
Speaker 1: LJ doing the same thing as one of the dumbest
Speaker 1: things I ever did. Folks leave it. What's told me
Speaker 1: that you're gonna have to pay fifty dollars a month
Speaker 1: for cable? And I told me it was nuts, and
Speaker 1: of course I was totally wrong. Let's take it back
Speaker 1: to the guy that invented this is Brian Roberts and
Speaker 1: the Roberts family. It Comcast. What is traditional cable do
Speaker 1: to get back to the persistent cash flows that they enjoyed?
Speaker 1: To me, it's done well, briand percent a great Brian
Speaker 1: Roberts is one of the smartest people I know. And um,
Speaker 1: you know, they've done an amazing job. They're very suit
Speaker 1: when they do deals. They they've seen around Corners. Peacock
Speaker 1: actually launched they were the first a vod service. Um
Speaker 1: their content you know. I mean, they haven't invested in
Speaker 1: content the way some of the others have, and they
Speaker 1: haven't had those losses either. But as far as you know,
Speaker 1: the video business, it's shrinking for them. But they've been
Speaker 1: very creative and strong and broadbany out. So their broadband
Speaker 1: businesses is um you know, it's much larger than video.
Speaker 1: And they've also been more aggressive in terms of trying
Speaker 1: to capture viewers and make it easier for them to
Speaker 1: watch all apps in one service. I'm sorry the time
Speaker 1: wint to deal one a cable was the government wouldn't
Speaker 1: allow them to do it. Having Comcast in New York
Speaker 1: would have been an amazing thing because it's they really
Speaker 1: made television doing very easy. Jessica, John's gotta say goodbye.
Speaker 1: But Jessica, to be honest, all we want to know
Speaker 1: is do you have the power to get English football,
Speaker 1: Premier League football on one streaming service? Can you fix
Speaker 1: that for us? I don't know about that, but it
Speaker 1: isn't a lot of it on Peacock. It is a
Speaker 1: lot of it, But then you've got a guess, is
Speaker 1: it on Peacock? Gonna find it on? Who do you want?
Speaker 1: It was down this year because it was on Amazon
Speaker 1: and old Amazon. Jessica, thank you. This was great. Continue
Speaker 1: this conversation, Jessica refel like the banks for America Securities.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to
Speaker 1: ten AMI Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: each day from six to nine AM for insight from
Speaker 1: the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple pie cast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, and of course on the terminal. I'm
Speaker 1: Tom keene In. This is Bloomberg m