Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Abramowitz. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. What we're gonna
Speaker 1: do this morning, folks, and this is, of course, the
Speaker 1: combination of equities, bonds, currencies, commodities is considered the bears
Speaker 1: who've been successful. Douglas cast nailing it at Sea Breeze
Speaker 1: on a short term basis, and as John mentions, Mr
Speaker 1: Wilson over at Morgan Stanley, absolutely nailing it on a
Speaker 1: more long term, measured let's call it institutional basis in
Speaker 1: this storm. As Andrew Slim and Mr Wilson's colleague, senior
Speaker 1: portfolio manager at Morgan Stanley Chicago, Andrew, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us in this turmoil. You go, as
Speaker 1: a guy more optimistic where Mike Wilson goes, which is
Speaker 1: now we must study earnings, and you suggest that margins
Speaker 1: must be maintained. Can we be optimistic for maintained margins
Speaker 1: through the end of the year. Well, we we certainly
Speaker 1: haven't seen the you know, the earnings collapse that you know,
Speaker 1: many of the bears have predicted. We'll have to see.
Speaker 1: I would say from a stock picking standpoint, it's better
Speaker 1: to find the companies that actually already have had the
Speaker 1: the earnings clocks. I think he's talking at the at
Speaker 1: the S and P level. You know, we'll have to see.
Speaker 1: The counter argument is that we are still only two
Speaker 1: years from the previous recession, and therefore balance sheets can
Speaker 1: withstand the shocks that you're seeing to cost and so
Speaker 1: forth better than they would if we were, you know,
Speaker 1: coming off a long period of economic story with a
Speaker 1: two year back to an Autumn two thousand seven yield?
Speaker 1: Is cash attractive? Is a legit asset? Yeah? Yeah, yes.
Speaker 1: And the point of this is is I am in
Speaker 1: the camp of p compression. So I think that is
Speaker 1: the negative. The FED raising rates, yields going up pushes
Speaker 1: the pe down, and that's the negative that I see.
Speaker 1: I'm just haven't embraced as much the you know, the
Speaker 1: the earnings collapsing side, which is the positive that to
Speaker 1: me has been the story of the year. And we
Speaker 1: got a little but you know, we had a very
Speaker 1: big bance off the June low on the fact that
Speaker 1: the second quarter was not as bad as expepected. And
Speaker 1: you know, now we're pulling back. That's the push pull
Speaker 1: of you know, they're very much a lackluster year for
Speaker 1: requas and I'm still on that camp Andrews. You know,
Speaker 1: the bond market backdrop changed as well, since the middle
Speaker 1: of June is back to where we were. So here's
Speaker 1: the question about the June lows and the equity market.
Speaker 1: If the two yield is back through the June fourteenth highs,
Speaker 1: why do equities along anywhere near ten above the June
Speaker 1: six loaves? Probably not. They probably will head lower. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, September is not a great month, but I
Speaker 1: still think we could get a you know, gate late
Speaker 1: rally in the fourth quarter as the market starts to
Speaker 1: price off, you know, next four months, next four quarters
Speaker 1: of earning, which is three But you know, look, we've
Speaker 1: had a big bounce. You know, high risk came back
Speaker 1: in the market very quickly, and I think that's you
Speaker 1: know that that was a dangerous sign. So your own
Speaker 1: power getting up and saying what he said, and boom
Speaker 1: down goes all the speculation that had come quickly back
Speaker 1: to the market. So I think the Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: the near term is it's negative for the market. Will
Speaker 1: we hold the loads of June? I think it's possible,
Speaker 1: even with rates higher, But I think speculation is right
Speaker 1: for short term speculation right to be you know, washed out.
Speaker 1: So you sound really farish, Andrew, and you're talking about
Speaker 1: reducing risk. And then I look at some of the
Speaker 1: stocks that you like, including restoration hardware, Lulu Lemon, among
Speaker 1: other consumer discretionaries that usually do worse during downturns. What
Speaker 1: gives what's the rush now? Yeah? So, first of all,
Speaker 1: at the macro level, consumer sentiment hit a forty four
Speaker 1: year low in July, so a lot of very negative views.
Speaker 1: And when you think about that, it's all the stock
Speaker 1: market rewards the direction of change, and so inevitably direction change,
Speaker 1: it's got to go high. At some point. It has
Speaker 1: and it has improved. And then from a stock standpoint,
Speaker 1: those stacks are damned forty fifty, sixty, seventy piked the truck.
Speaker 1: There is just a turn of bad news priced into
Speaker 1: so so I guess going back to the original question
Speaker 1: of earnings, you know, these companies have already brought down
Speaker 1: their numbers. They you know, the market is priced sing
Speaker 1: in as if they're going to miss earnings. So I
Speaker 1: think that it's safer to buy companies that have already
Speaker 1: you know, the expectation is is bad. I I always
Speaker 1: am interested in buying companies with great long term track
Speaker 1: records that that the stocks are down a lot, with
Speaker 1: a lot of negative expectations. So I think that's safer
Speaker 1: than thinking you can pick and choose companies that aren't
Speaker 1: going to have earnings problems. Following that logic, Andrew, do
Speaker 1: you think that the opposite holds true, that you should
Speaker 1: sell the names that have held in better I'm thinking
Speaker 1: of big tech that have had incredible rallies over the
Speaker 1: past few months. I absolutely, I absolutely, I think it's
Speaker 1: very dangerous, be careful if the Mike Wilson scenario comes
Speaker 1: to bear. I don't want to stock this down from
Speaker 1: its you know five. I think there's a lot of
Speaker 1: risk into that area, and I'd rather buy the companies
Speaker 1: that already priced in a lot of bad news. How
Speaker 1: do our listeners and viewers do, Andrew? If everybody he's
Speaker 1: buying four or five stocks which were x per cent
Speaker 1: of the bullmarket rally out of June, and then you've
Speaker 1: got to look at everything else. Do you participate in
Speaker 1: those glory stocks and figure out what to buy or
Speaker 1: do you finally jettison the glory stocks and actually run
Speaker 1: a diversified portfolio. Well, yeah, I mean, for I I
Speaker 1: think there's plenty of companies out there that are down,
Speaker 1: uh you know a lot, as I said, and there's
Speaker 1: real opportunities. But those big, very big stocks, some of
Speaker 1: them are really not down that much. And you know,
Speaker 1: if you go back in long time at the history
Speaker 1: of the SMP, what brings down the largest companies that
Speaker 1: they never stay on top for ever? It's usually the government,
Speaker 1: the government, And I think, you know, you've you've got
Speaker 1: a very high waiting and a few names, and that
Speaker 1: is going to weigh on the S and P at
Speaker 1: the index level, I think for the a few years,
Speaker 1: which will be good for investors that go out and
Speaker 1: buy individual stocks because I think the opportunities that is
Speaker 1: probably better at the stock level than the index level,
Speaker 1: just given the waiting in those few names at the
Speaker 1: time when they're you know, the government is you know,
Speaker 1: like I said, starting that you know knows in some
Speaker 1: of these companies, Andrew got a squazes in energy when
Speaker 1: with the year on spid, Jeff carrying the team over
Speaker 1: a goldman. They're telling people to keep buying commodities, even
Speaker 1: going into what could be in recession. They say, the
Speaker 1: following commodities the best asset class to war into an
Speaker 1: a late cycle face where demand remains above supply. Andrew,
Speaker 1: where are you on the commodity equity side of things?
Speaker 1: The energy equities which have delivered some stellar returns this year.
Speaker 1: So we solicit some stocks that we like, we got
Speaker 1: to sell something to buy them because I'm a long
Speaker 1: equity marriage or what have I been reducing energy? And
Speaker 1: I've been reducing energy because just where you said, it's
Speaker 1: a significant to do at Uh, this industry is classically cyclical,
Speaker 1: and if in fact the economy does weaken, UH, to me,
Speaker 1: energy is vulnerable because it's done so well versus stocks
Speaker 1: that you know we're listed that are already done a lot.
Speaker 1: So I think energy is a source of funding. It's
Speaker 1: come roaring back here. I would continue to view it
Speaker 1: as a source of uh source of funny. So I'm
Speaker 1: you know that the halt pitch in energy was a
Speaker 1: year and a half two years ago, when you know
Speaker 1: the poor occurred with negative prices. I think the fat
Speaker 1: pitch right now is a sentiment is at a forty
Speaker 1: four year loved. I think that's the that's the opportunity,
Speaker 1: and you sell things that are done very well like energy. Andrew,
Speaker 1: thank you, Andrew Slim and management Numerus Surveillers has been
Speaker 1: committed to economics. We're really looking forward to giving the
Speaker 1: Jackson Whole treatment to CenTra when they come around again.
Speaker 1: In poor artegal and at those efforts there are academics.
Speaker 1: We avoid them like the plague. We do that for
Speaker 1: all sorts of reasons. But every once in a while
Speaker 1: we get lucky and lasso in one of them. If
Speaker 1: at Jackson Hall this year, Francesco Biancy of Johns Hopkins
Speaker 1: Ex Duke, EX Princeton stop traffic by speaking the word
Speaker 1: that no one wanted to speak, and that is fiscal economics.
Speaker 1: It's a twenty nine page paper loaded with math. I
Speaker 1: don't understand matrix algebra. We just can't do that on TV,
Speaker 1: but we can talk about the basics and the policy
Speaker 1: prescription out of this. You say there can be a
Speaker 1: monetary lead solution or a fiscal lead solution rhythm MMT.
Speaker 1: Does the FED do a fiscal lead solution or is
Speaker 1: that the part of Congress and the president so sor
Speaker 1: right now, I think the FED is committed to bringing
Speaker 1: fish on down. I guess the main point of our
Speaker 1: paper is to show that the FED also needs a
Speaker 1: cooperation from the physical authority. So we take an historical
Speaker 1: perspective and we look back at the sixties and seventies
Speaker 1: and provide an argument that that was a phisical phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Ultimately was dabbish monetary policy, but combined with overspending and
Speaker 1: not commitment to de stability. And so now the question
Speaker 1: the FED is acting is moving interest rates up. So
Speaker 1: our question in the paper is that if going forward
Speaker 1: we will see the necessary physical adjustments to bring thecation down,
Speaker 1: that would be the fiscal solution to the problem. What
Speaker 1: did you learn from Stephanie Kelton's mm T. This has
Speaker 1: been all the ways the media loves to pick on it.
Speaker 1: There's a political polarity to that. You come from the
Speaker 1: neutrality of Europe, of Italy, Caustanza over in Portugal and
Speaker 1: the rest of them. So you're the foreigner looking in
Speaker 1: at the debate of MMT. What have you learned about
Speaker 1: MMT in this crisis? Um So, I think what we
Speaker 1: learn the more, I think all of us. What we
Speaker 1: learn is that phisical policy can be extremely powerful. Phisical
Speaker 1: policy are probably put a stop to the low interest
Speaker 1: rate environment, and we were for ten years in at
Speaker 1: the zero over bound. In fact, we risk of deflation.
Speaker 1: I think we tend to forget where we were one
Speaker 1: year ago. The FED was generally concerned about deflation. Um
Speaker 1: we intervene very forcefully with fiscal policy, and that contributed
Speaker 1: to the solution. Um. Of course, it cause a big
Speaker 1: jump in inflation, arguably because it compounded with some exogenous
Speaker 1: forces like the pandemic of course, uh, the supply chain problems,
Speaker 1: the Russian conflict. But ultimately fiscal policy proved to be
Speaker 1: a very powerful mechanism. I think what we learned, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, is that this comes with a cost,
Speaker 1: and and the cost is inflation. Now, it's always easy
Speaker 1: to do policy with the benefit of hindsight, but with
Speaker 1: the benefit of insightro we went a little bit overboard. Well, Francesco,
Speaker 1: there's a really profound application here. It's not just what
Speaker 1: the rest PUNTS was, it's the expectation of the consumer's
Speaker 1: mind that there will be more fiscal stimulus if there
Speaker 1: is another downturn, and that that is what it's going
Speaker 1: to lead to inflation expectations becoming unmoored. How much does
Speaker 1: that really crimp the ability of policymakers to either add
Speaker 1: phiscal stimulus in the face of a recession, mitigating some
Speaker 1: of the downturn, or be going for the fiscal stimulus
Speaker 1: of the past few years and leading to inflation that's
Speaker 1: much higher than it has been in the past. That's
Speaker 1: an excellent point, and in fact, what we emphasize is
Speaker 1: what really matters is a long run phiscal sustainability. So
Speaker 1: what we want is to be able to use this
Speaker 1: powerful mechanist during recessions. But in order to do that,
Speaker 1: we need to guarantee that overall in the long run,
Speaker 1: or at least in the medium run, we are on
Speaker 1: a stable path. So what that implies is essentially that
Speaker 1: when things are good, when we don't need that to
Speaker 1: uh provide fiscal steamulus, we should refrain from doing that
Speaker 1: exactly to keep this ammunition to when we need it.
Speaker 1: I got one quick question. I saw Richard the Jackson Hole,
Speaker 1: and I want to go back to the core of
Speaker 1: your paper, which is DSG. Richard Claire has worked with
Speaker 1: Girdler and the rest. Right, how can we trust this math,
Speaker 1: all the math in smart guys like you are doing.
Speaker 1: Has it been proven wrong given these shocks that we've
Speaker 1: seen that So I don't think so. I think like
Speaker 1: the math is just a way to formalize some ideas.
Speaker 1: So what we are discussing here, I think is something
Speaker 1: that everybody can relate to. People have had first ideas
Speaker 1: and then came the math. So the math is only
Speaker 1: a way to put order there. And I don't think
Speaker 1: that um DSG models of money general macro models in
Speaker 1: themselves have failed. If anything, there are some risks that
Speaker 1: we forgot about. Okay and John, it's important, Lisa, good news.
Speaker 1: I just got the car to take you to the
Speaker 1: brandma with house to explain matrix algebra to Lisa's kids.
Speaker 1: It's waiting, Marcesco. Thank you, Francesco Biankee. That on fiscal
Speaker 1: policy and what it makes for inflation expectations, some legitimate
Speaker 1: tension with record dollar strength off the good Bloomberg Dollar Index.
Speaker 1: Part of that, of course is commodities. We're looking at
Speaker 1: all the asset classes this morning, in this turmoil, this
Speaker 1: reset into the end of the year, Ellen Wall provides
Speaker 1: advice senior fellow in Atlantic Atlantic Council. I should say
Speaker 1: in a definitive effort, Saudi, I can't say enough about
Speaker 1: the terseness of her book. Saudi inc. Just a really
Speaker 1: wonderful walk through of the originality of what we see
Speaker 1: in riod Ellen. I want to talk what John mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: which is the idea of the US as a global
Speaker 1: manufacturer of hydrocarbons. In a select few saying it's un
Speaker 1: American export the stuff discussed. That is the adult in
Speaker 1: the room. Yeah, I can I can understand where these
Speaker 1: people are coming from, especially because for so long we
Speaker 1: did have a crude oil export band, uh and that.
Speaker 1: But you have to remember that that really is only
Speaker 1: a very recent phenomenon. We only had a crude oil
Speaker 1: export band starting in the seventies during the um when
Speaker 1: when we had the oil shocks, and the idea was
Speaker 1: to try to keep as much oil as we had
Speaker 1: at home. Before that, America was a major supplier of
Speaker 1: energy to the world. Basically during World War Two, American
Speaker 1: crude oil, American energy, American gasoline and diesel, and jet
Speaker 1: fuel was essentially you could argue responsible for winning World
Speaker 1: War Two for the Allies. UH. So, I think to
Speaker 1: say that it's un American to export our energy products
Speaker 1: UH is a very shortsighted view of of America. So Ellen,
Speaker 1: the deparotmat of Energy, led by Secondary ground Home, appears
Speaker 1: to be very concerned about the low stock pass of
Speaker 1: diesel and gasoline, particularly in the Northeast. This is what
Speaker 1: she said in a letter to some of the energy
Speaker 1: players here it is our hope that companies will proactively
Speaker 1: address this need or quote the administration will need to
Speaker 1: consider additional federal requirements or other emergency measures. And on
Speaker 1: how credible it's that threat. I mean, if that's not
Speaker 1: a threat, then I'm not sure what is a threat.
Speaker 1: I mean that was She pretty much laid it out, saying,
Speaker 1: if you don't get American stockpiles out of you don't
Speaker 1: stop exporting products that are you know, commercially viable uh
Speaker 1: to to export, then we're going to you know, ban
Speaker 1: the export of certain products. And that's I think very
Speaker 1: damaging to the global energy market because the United States
Speaker 1: is an important participant in this global energy market and
Speaker 1: we we import tons of products as well as as
Speaker 1: we export them, and that's what helps things run smoothly.
Speaker 1: Right now, the prices in Europe for diesel, for liquefied
Speaker 1: natural gas, for all sorts of products are much higher
Speaker 1: than you can get in being United States, and so
Speaker 1: that's why we're seeing a lot of products go to Europe,
Speaker 1: especially because Russian products are no longer available for these
Speaker 1: places to import. If you know, we wanted to correct this,
Speaker 1: we could stop, you know, sanctioning Russian exports, or Europe
Speaker 1: could take a hard look at it. You know, it's
Speaker 1: the answer to this problem is not to say don't
Speaker 1: export or we're gonna ban exports. The answer is to
Speaker 1: look at the larger flow of of products and figure out,
Speaker 1: you know, where things could be improved. For example, they
Speaker 1: could get rid of the Jones Act or suspend the
Speaker 1: Jones Act, which would make it much easier to transport
Speaker 1: diesel from certain places in the United States to the
Speaker 1: Eastern Seaboard where diesel supplies are very low. Well, there's
Speaker 1: a question about whether Jennifer Granham has credibility within the
Speaker 1: energy industry at this point. We could get into that.
Speaker 1: Perhaps a little more instructive is what companies are actually
Speaker 1: doing whether they're going to actually invest in producing more
Speaker 1: natural gas, producing more crude products in the United States.
Speaker 1: What do you see on the investment side at a
Speaker 1: time when prices, while they have come down, are still
Speaker 1: much more elevated than they have been in years. You know,
Speaker 1: you you would think that ordinarily, when prices are high,
Speaker 1: that there's a much higher level of certainty for producers
Speaker 1: to say, Okay, we're going to invest, We're going to
Speaker 1: produce more. But right now, at least according to the
Speaker 1: survey that the Dallas Set and other fans have done
Speaker 1: of energy producers in their regions, show that actually there's
Speaker 1: a very high level of uncertainty, and a big part
Speaker 1: of that has to do with inflation and supply chain issues.
Speaker 1: A lot of producers are finding that while they thought
Speaker 1: that their costs would go up maybe ten, they're finding
Speaker 1: that costs are up or higher and that's really hurting
Speaker 1: their ability. Even those that want to produce more, that
Speaker 1: want to drill more, they want to open more wells, Uh,
Speaker 1: they're finding that this is very difficult. They don't know
Speaker 1: where they can get this steel, they don't know where
Speaker 1: they can find labor and sand and other inputs. That
Speaker 1: they need in order to get get these wells going.
Speaker 1: So wells are taking these seven to eight months to complete,
Speaker 1: whereas before that timeline was much much shorter. Can we
Speaker 1: just probe the tail risk it? Just to wrap up, Allen,
Speaker 1: what do you think would happen if the administration cut
Speaker 1: out the export of a fuel of energy product to
Speaker 1: say Europe. What would happen? What would the main characteristics
Speaker 1: of the energy market look like in that world? I
Speaker 1: think that the first thing we would see is a major,
Speaker 1: major spike in the price of um fuel products and
Speaker 1: oil all over. I mean, speculators would just you know,
Speaker 1: ramp things up, and it would be such a high,
Speaker 1: you know, increase that maybe the likes of which we
Speaker 1: we've almost never seen, or at least even if this
Speaker 1: was just foreshadowed, we'd see a jump in prices. And
Speaker 1: then we probably also see some issues in terms of
Speaker 1: w t I that would see a much bigger differential
Speaker 1: between Brent and w t I developing. And then thank
Speaker 1: you and I'm wild the Atlanta Council. We celebrate now
Speaker 1: and we do this of Washington, and whether conservative or liberal,
Speaker 1: we celebrate someone who in this geriatric Senate that we
Speaker 1: have is doing the right thing. Lady of Vermont will
Speaker 1: retire and he's retiring with his full abilities at eighty
Speaker 1: two years old, and he retires with a wonderful memoir
Speaker 1: for all the Road taken a memoir. Senator Patrick Lahy,
Speaker 1: we welcome the former DJ at W S. S. E. St.
Speaker 1: Michael's College, Patrick Lady. This morning, Senator, I want to
Speaker 1: cut to the chase. The liberals of your youth, Scoop
Speaker 1: Jackson of Washington, H. H. H. Of Minnesota and a
Speaker 1: young lady have been substituted for the new progressives. What
Speaker 1: do the new progressives need to learn from the liberal
Speaker 1: three theology you lived well? I think they have to
Speaker 1: learn that you can talk about doing things or you
Speaker 1: can do it. Yep, they accomplishing the accomplishing legislation is
Speaker 1: more difficult, but it requires you to uh stop talking
Speaker 1: except with each other work out. Both Republicans and Democrats
Speaker 1: try to get coalitions and past six I mean, you
Speaker 1: go way back at the time of Lennon Johnson getting
Speaker 1: civil rights bill has passed and he had a number
Speaker 1: of senators who supported segregation. All he brought people together,
Speaker 1: but it required hard work. Humphrey and Jackson did the
Speaker 1: same thing. They would bring in Republicans, uh and work
Speaker 1: with him and get it done. I worry that, and
Speaker 1: I appreciate a number of things that you so called
Speaker 1: progressive stand for on climate control, it and education all.
Speaker 1: But it's one thing to talk about it. It's another
Speaker 1: thing to accomplish it. And you had a lot of
Speaker 1: these things. You have to settle for eighty five percent
Speaker 1: this year in legislation, get another fift pcent next year.
Speaker 1: It's never an all or nothing game. Senator, did you
Speaker 1: think that President Biden is the right person to take
Speaker 1: that country and lead that a particular effort post, Well,
Speaker 1: he's done a lot of great legislation past. He's uh
Speaker 1: uh lord the deficit in many ways he's and most importantly,
Speaker 1: he brought us back into the world of nations. Look
Speaker 1: at the animosity Mr Trump has shown towards NATO and
Speaker 1: other countries and his favoritism of Russia, and said, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden came remember the clear view of what Russians like,
Speaker 1: what Putiners like with Ukraine. He brought the natural countries,
Speaker 1: our European allies together in the way we haven't seen
Speaker 1: in decades. And uh, I know that totally surprised a
Speaker 1: lot of our putent, but it also showed that the
Speaker 1: United States was back in the leadership role. Senator. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of people speculating that perhaps he shouldn't
Speaker 1: be the person to run again, specifically because of the
Speaker 1: fact that he is older and that he isn't necessarily
Speaker 1: generating the same enthusiasm, and we're certainly seeing that in
Speaker 1: the polling. Do you agree, do you think that it
Speaker 1: is time for new leadership? Well, I think if Joe
Speaker 1: Biden wants to run again, I'll support him. That's a
Speaker 1: decision only he could make. It's the same way I
Speaker 1: had a lot of people urged me to run again
Speaker 1: in Vermont, but it's a six year term and I
Speaker 1: have things I want to do and still do, and
Speaker 1: so I retired probably at the top of my influence
Speaker 1: of the Senate is protrac But but Joe's gonna Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's going to make that decisions out. But I I
Speaker 1: can't think of anybody, any the people who ran, including
Speaker 1: the former president, who could have brought NATO together the
Speaker 1: way he did and could have gotten uh some of
Speaker 1: the legislation we've passed and everything from from COVID to
Speaker 1: uh Child, no treasure, I mean name it. I don't
Speaker 1: think anybody else could have done that the way he did. Senator,
Speaker 1: we are out of time, but I urge you to
Speaker 1: speak again to Bloomberg, to David Weston and all of
Speaker 1: us about the road take in a memoir. It is
Speaker 1: really extraord and I can't say enough, folks about how
Speaker 1: it is of a liberal of another time and place.
Speaker 1: The gentleman from the from Vermont, Patrick Lay, this is
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join us live
Speaker 1: weekdays from seven to ten am. He's Stern 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