Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene
Speaker 1: Jay Leye. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. The
Speaker 1: story is just the data. Globally, it's fantastic, whether it's
Speaker 1: the United States, Europe or Asia. Couldn't get much better.
Speaker 1: John Sylvia Wells, Fargo Chief Economists, joins us now here
Speaker 1: in New York City. John, always great to catch up
Speaker 1: with you. Thank you. Is this peak growth? Can it
Speaker 1: get any better? Oh? I think that peak growth for
Speaker 1: this year eighteen, But I don't think it gets better
Speaker 1: and it's not sustainable going into I think you've got
Speaker 1: a big jump here. You've got a good would gain equipment. Uh,
Speaker 1: spending in the United States housing starts has improved. Also
Speaker 1: in the United States, and as you just mentioned, Uh,
Speaker 1: the European economies have surprised US in the last year,
Speaker 1: and they continue to surprise us, but they will settle
Speaker 1: down to a more longer term trend. But it is
Speaker 1: good to see those positives. John, What do you see
Speaker 1: is more sustainable. What's happening in Europe or what is
Speaker 1: happening in the United States. Well, I think for more sustainable,
Speaker 1: I would go with Europe. I think there there have
Speaker 1: been some changes there. They continue to do fundamental reform
Speaker 1: for different nations, and I think they've got their story together.
Speaker 1: With respect to trade, I am more concerned Jonathan with trade,
Speaker 1: as Tom and I had discussed earlier today. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: what are we actually going to do to NAFTA? Do
Speaker 1: we understand the importance of naftal the United States? So
Speaker 1: I like the European sustainability. Do you see reason for
Speaker 1: that to be enthusiasm in the equity market? With the
Speaker 1: Dow set to go through twenty five thousand today for
Speaker 1: the first time ever, the SMP northred yesterday for the
Speaker 1: first time ever, we keep grinding our old time highs.
Speaker 1: Does it make sense to you, John right now? It
Speaker 1: does because you've gotten changes in fiscal policy, You've got
Speaker 1: the p M I s that have done really well,
Speaker 1: sustainable gains and employment means the consumer continues to move forward,
Speaker 1: and you have relative peace in the world. Good morning, everyone,
Speaker 1: John farre and time Keene thrilled you with us and
Speaker 1: We've got some really constructive news here. This is the
Speaker 1: micro news. It's made John Sylvia's career in particularly with
Speaker 1: his work of the National Association for Business and Pharmaceutical Economics.
Speaker 1: Walgreens Boots. What's boots? John Boots is um like Dwayne
Speaker 1: read here. Okay, so it's like British Walens. Yes, so
Speaker 1: you go and you can buy like what you need
Speaker 1: for the bathroom to have a wash and brush your teeth.
Speaker 1: I just had the December teeth brush. Walgreens Boots out
Speaker 1: with important numbers and in the one headline and want
Speaker 1: to with their upgrade the one headline, I want to
Speaker 1: mention John Sylvia, which folds into your economics reach l
Speaker 1: Pharmacy comp sales four point seven percent, which is away
Speaker 1: from fed mombo jumbo nominal g d P shows corporate
Speaker 1: indications of picking up absolutely and for a traveler who
Speaker 1: does go to London least twice a year, Boots is
Speaker 1: essential for all those little things. Honestly, Boots fantastic, Tom,
Speaker 1: It is fantastic. When I go into the airport at
Speaker 1: JFK and I don't see a Boots. There is a
Speaker 1: Boot to every airport in the UK and it's got everything.
Speaker 1: Thank you for that important information, Mr Fer. But it
Speaker 1: shows you consumer strength. That's what it's telling you. That
Speaker 1: people are going into those stores and actually communing things ahead.
Speaker 1: So I'm working with Dr hass In, the President of
Speaker 1: United States, and I'm saying, all this doom and gloom,
Speaker 1: look at the animal spirit. How much bigger will the
Speaker 1: animal spirit be? Do we go from the gloom of
Speaker 1: four percent nominal GDP? Can you get to a six
Speaker 1: percent nominal? I can't get get to six percent, and
Speaker 1: maybe someone else can get there. The President would do that. Wow,
Speaker 1: But I'll give you a two and a half percent
Speaker 1: g d P. Let's say a year from now, and
Speaker 1: I'll give you two two and a quarter percent, So
Speaker 1: maybe four four and a half to five is a
Speaker 1: six percent is a little bit too. But these corporate Honeywell,
Speaker 1: Walgreens and many others, I'm beginning to see the lift
Speaker 1: and you know organic absolutely yeah, I mean we can
Speaker 1: see that. For the last four or five years, it's
Speaker 1: been economic growth around to two and a quarter and
Speaker 1: now we're moving up to two and a half maybe
Speaker 1: two and three quoters. That's great. Give us a briefing
Speaker 1: before we go to Jim blast One and Bill Gross Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Dr Sylvia give us a briefing on what we need
Speaker 1: to know about the immediacy of wage growth. Our wages
Speaker 1: actually going up adjusted for inflation. Yes, that's a point
Speaker 1: point time that's overlooked. It's real wages. But total real
Speaker 1: compensation has really improved because once again people care about
Speaker 1: their benefits, particularly healthcare benefit. Company station is not part
Speaker 1: of the unemployment number. That's plain to our audience. How
Speaker 1: that's published, Well, it's published again by the federal government
Speaker 1: in the United States, but it takes into consideration the pensions,
Speaker 1: takes into considerate healthcare, life insurance, disability insurance, all those
Speaker 1: other things that Tom are not taxed. So the wages
Speaker 1: attacks and workers have realized over the last three or
Speaker 1: forty years, if I'm getting the compensation through insurance that
Speaker 1: is not tax then my total income actually goes up.
Speaker 1: It's a really good point, John. Before we let you go,
Speaker 1: can we get to the economics of cold weather. It's
Speaker 1: snowing outside. Tom doesn't want to talk about the hysteria.
Speaker 1: But Q one after Q one, after Q one after
Speaker 1: Q one in the United States of America, we have
Speaker 1: had soft growth after soft growth, and economists continually missed
Speaker 1: the story to your important observation, what we have around
Speaker 1: at John Farroll is a big asterisk every first quarter.
Speaker 1: And are you it wasn't like that. Now we've got
Speaker 1: this and it feels like we're going to do it
Speaker 1: all over again, and we are. How many economists, including yourself, John,
Speaker 1: are going to come out of the next couple of
Speaker 1: weeks and say with downgrade and knock Q one estimates
Speaker 1: because of the weather. I would say the majority will
Speaker 1: again because this again, when you're impacting New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: southern New England, that is a huge economic powerhouse in
Speaker 1: the United States. You know, as as Tom was mentioning earlier,
Speaker 1: if you have an earthquake in San Francisco, that's a
Speaker 1: minor earthquake, okay, but if it's significant, that economic impact
Speaker 1: is significant. We got one minute left with you. No
Speaker 1: one cares about this. How did the Boston Red Sox
Speaker 1: respond to the New York Yankees? The Yankees have going
Speaker 1: to Aaron Judge is gonna lead off. They've got this
Speaker 1: guy from Miami, this piece of meat from Miami. It's
Speaker 1: gonna win a hundred and forty baseball games. How does
Speaker 1: Team Red Sox respond? Uh? Pitch around the opening Uh?
Speaker 1: Eight intentional walks per game? Eight intentional walks per game?
Speaker 1: Just walk them and deal with all the rest of
Speaker 1: the line up. You don't see any strategic thing like
Speaker 1: in a case of there against lager beer or anything.
Speaker 1: Now he's coming back, is coming back. It's coming entrepreneurial
Speaker 1: spirit of New England, right, John Sylvia, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: With Wills Fargo now living in the Carolina is our
Speaker 1: last conversation with the amble from Toughs Lector School was
Speaker 1: most distressing. James Tavitis has been a student of our Navy,
Speaker 1: of our military, and now teaches students on international relations
Speaker 1: at Tufts. Admiral stevinus, wonderful to have you with us
Speaker 1: this morning. Our men are in danger, or sailors are
Speaker 1: in danger? Are women are in danger? Off boost on
Speaker 1: South Korea? Where it's a chilly thirty five degrees this morning.
Speaker 1: We've got boats out at sea, UH doing what our
Speaker 1: military show the flag, et cetera. How damaged are they
Speaker 1: by the silliness the discourse of Washington? I think they
Speaker 1: are able to tune it out. Tom and that's kind
Speaker 1: of the good news. First of all, particularly our worships
Speaker 1: at sea. Uh, don't gather around and watch CNN seven.
Speaker 1: They're so busy. They've got contacts in the ocean around them,
Speaker 1: they've got planes overhead, they're tracking missile flying. They are
Speaker 1: not focused on Washington. And if they did, I think
Speaker 1: they would still tune it out because they have that
Speaker 1: kind of ethos that says, we're out here, we stand
Speaker 1: on the wall to protect our nation. We're not going
Speaker 1: to get caught up in the day to day. So
Speaker 1: on that score, I feel pretty good. Give us your
Speaker 1: update on the adult nous of the adults our General Kelly,
Speaker 1: our General Madis, and other adults of Washington doing this morning.
Speaker 1: Uh Well, I would say on a scale of one
Speaker 1: to ten, they have a job that's about a thirteen.
Speaker 1: This is a tough operation to effectively put guard rails
Speaker 1: around a presidency that is too impulsive, too erratic, too unpredictable.
Speaker 1: I would say they're still in the game, particularly the
Speaker 1: two you mentioned or four star US Marine Corps. General's
Speaker 1: seen a lot of combat. Uh, you know, they've seen worse.
Speaker 1: They'll they'll stay with the program. We also ought to
Speaker 1: be concerned about three star General hr McMaster national Security Advisor.
Speaker 1: He's just done a very good job getting out a
Speaker 1: new national security strategy which is actually shockingly shockingly normal.
Speaker 1: So I think that team is doing pretty well. The
Speaker 1: one to watch that I'm worried about is Rex Tillerson
Speaker 1: over at State. I think his stock is very low.
Speaker 1: I think his morale is very low. I know his
Speaker 1: department's morale is very low. I suspect we'll see that
Speaker 1: change earlier this year. And I'm really you worried about
Speaker 1: Rex Titterson, the Secretary of State? Are you worried about
Speaker 1: the State Department? The latter um secretaries come and go.
Speaker 1: The department is a generational operation. You have to bring
Speaker 1: in young foreign service officers who are willing to devote
Speaker 1: themselves for ten twenty thirty years to create that cadre
Speaker 1: of professional ambassadors. At the far end, the State Department
Speaker 1: is down fifty five zero percent in applications this year.
Speaker 1: That's shocking. There is a concern that the State Department
Speaker 1: is being gutted. There's a lot being written about it
Speaker 1: and reported about it over the last twelve months. Key
Speaker 1: individuals that should be in key areas of the world
Speaker 1: representing the United States no longer there animal. What are
Speaker 1: the consequences of that? Are they immediate? Are they around
Speaker 1: the corner or they slow burning over several decades. You know,
Speaker 1: they're all three and I'll give you a practical example
Speaker 1: of each. In the immediate term. What this does is
Speaker 1: it overweights us in the military instrument. Believe me, We've
Speaker 1: got all the generals and admirals we need um. If
Speaker 1: we don't have ambassadors to kind of put balance, our
Speaker 1: program overweights towards hard power in the if you will,
Speaker 1: medium term, we don't have the expertise on the ground.
Speaker 1: In the long term diplomatic efforts in the Balkans, in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: and long term, as I said, we lose that cadre
Speaker 1: of professional ambassadors twenty thirty years from now. So I'm
Speaker 1: very worried about State Department and Stavids. Were you ever
Speaker 1: on a p T boat. I never was assigned to
Speaker 1: the crew of one time, but of course I've been
Speaker 1: on the many many times all over, particularly in the
Speaker 1: Caribbean for example, doing counter narcotics. I mean, folks, that
Speaker 1: it resonates so much. Of course, with President Kennedy, I
Speaker 1: think of a close quarters p T boats in the
Speaker 1: United States Navy. Robert bots a classic text Admiral Stevidez.
Speaker 1: Here's the latest tweet I guess on p T boats
Speaker 1: by the President United States. Well, all of the failed
Speaker 1: quote experts on quote, he doesn't mention you animal weighing in?
Speaker 1: Does anybody really believe that talks and dialogues would be
Speaker 1: going on between North and South Korea right now if
Speaker 1: I wasn't firm, strong and willing to commit our total
Speaker 1: quote might unquote against the North fools? But talks are
Speaker 1: a good thing. What is what is an amateur like
Speaker 1: Tom Keane or President Trump or John Ferrell? What do
Speaker 1: we know about? Might you lived it? What? What is
Speaker 1: the might of our military? How would you lecture civilians? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think this is part of the
Speaker 1: pattern of a president who thinks he's the reason that
Speaker 1: airlines are not crashing out of the sky. Um, it's
Speaker 1: just he is living in a fantasy world. And I
Speaker 1: would say that the might of the United States is
Speaker 1: certainly part of this. But the real driver of the
Speaker 1: chain of events were in the middle of is Kim
Speaker 1: Jong Hunt And he is the one that is step
Speaker 1: or two ahead of US tactically. So I think the
Speaker 1: president ought to get some balance in his rhetoric, rely
Speaker 1: on the professional US around him, build a coherent deterrent,
Speaker 1: you cyber offensively, put up maritime interception operations. He's done
Speaker 1: none of that um so far. What we see as
Speaker 1: a chain of events driven by a young, unpredictable dictator
Speaker 1: in the North. In our own unpredictable president needs to
Speaker 1: up his game if we're going to succeed diplomatically in
Speaker 1: resolving this. John, and on the plane flight back from
Speaker 1: the Old World, thank you British Air for the great flight.
Speaker 1: I watched one of the recent Churchill epics yea, and
Speaker 1: there was Churchill being lectured by the general from the
Speaker 1: United States in a kind way, Dwight David Eisenhower about
Speaker 1: excuse me, sir, you're a civilian. I mean, John Ferroll.
Speaker 1: This this is not just about America now, its every institution,
Speaker 1: about the world response and global institutions. But Adam Well,
Speaker 1: you've touched on something really important, and that's the overweight
Speaker 1: of hard power, the over dependence on hard power. Is
Speaker 1: this an administration that you think fails to understand seft
Speaker 1: power or is it an administration that has said, well,
Speaker 1: it hasn't worked for the last twenty years to deal
Speaker 1: with the threat of North Korea, so why should we
Speaker 1: continue down this path? I think the former John and
Speaker 1: if we think about where we've used the mix of
Speaker 1: hard and soft power, that's where we succeed. And that's
Speaker 1: the subtlety that this administration thus far has not grasped.
Speaker 1: For example, in the Balkans, we use hard power initially,
Speaker 1: but it's been soft power, the economics, the private public partnering,
Speaker 1: the development aid that's brought to Balkans where it is
Speaker 1: same in Columbia for example, same in Sri Lanka. It's
Speaker 1: that balance of hard and soft power in that Back
Speaker 1: to your earlier question is why worry about a lack
Speaker 1: of the State Department in the case of the United States,
Speaker 1: where we don't have influencers who drive us towards balancing
Speaker 1: hard power when you need it, but soft power for
Speaker 1: the long came to win. In the scenario, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: assume it's not the Philippines. You're not going to line
Speaker 1: up the Missouri sixty miles offshore of North Korea and
Speaker 1: bombom what is a quote unquote might attack that the
Speaker 1: President would envision. I mean, how do you attack North Korea?
Speaker 1: I don't understand tactically, how do you attack You cannot
Speaker 1: conduct an attack that does not escalate into a war
Speaker 1: on the peninsula, which will cause at a minimum a
Speaker 1: million but somewhere in the range of two to four
Speaker 1: million casualty stomp. And that's because of the geography where
Speaker 1: Soul sits right under the guns of North Korea, and
Speaker 1: because we have a dictator in the North who already
Speaker 1: has tactical nuclear weapons that he can use in the
Speaker 1: immediate context of the conflict. So any kind of military
Speaker 1: response is highly, highly fraught. Edmill, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Here into the lecture, unlike this morning with animals, David,
Speaker 1: is the Tufts in the Fletcher School, m Let's said.
Speaker 1: The longest joint is now port folio manager over at
Speaker 1: Oppenheimer Funds. As we see, what did you say, Tompson
Speaker 1: Warmth on the tape future is positive at five points
Speaker 1: on the SMP five Dow futures up a six twenty
Speaker 1: five K and site nor hundred on the SMP five
Speaker 1: hundred yesterday, Alessio, is this as good as it gets?
Speaker 1: With the data on both sides of the Atlantic looking
Speaker 1: very very nice Good morning, Tom and John. Yes, I
Speaker 1: mean we we couldn't wish for a better global economic outlook.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've seen the recent data literally over the
Speaker 1: last couple of days, especially with the business services such
Speaker 1: as the p mzing IM survey, really suggesting a continuation
Speaker 1: of this very strong momentum in the development markets. But
Speaker 1: also we're seeing good news in the emerging world. So
Speaker 1: we continue to see what looks like the best global
Speaker 1: growth synchronization, the best global growth acceleration we have seen
Speaker 1: in over a decade, So peak growth. When we start
Speaker 1: talking about peak growth, that that's a very important point
Speaker 1: because we m we begin to see, particularly in the
Speaker 1: US UM the flattening of the yield curve um which
Speaker 1: and we're very early stages, but that's flattening of the
Speaker 1: yield curve. Is a reminder, of course that the FED
Speaker 1: has been tightening rates now for a while. I'll date
Speaker 1: at the at a gradual pace. I think it's still
Speaker 1: early to talk about growth peak. We we seem to
Speaker 1: be in a solid fooding throughout the first half of
Speaker 1: the year, and you know, of course the economy always
Speaker 1: go through some some soft patches, but I think we
Speaker 1: we can't really start worrying about a serious downturn for
Speaker 1: at least at least another year. What is your calling dollar?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really a way from your remit, but
Speaker 1: I want to go there. I mean, you look at
Speaker 1: dollar dynamics and and John and I saw a lot
Speaker 1: of different opinions at the end of the year. Is
Speaker 1: it a flow story with money flowing into Euro money
Speaker 1: flowing into the American system as well? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: the dollar question is is a particularly interesting one given
Speaker 1: the anomalies that we've seen last year, that we expect
Speaker 1: a dollar to continue to UH, to continue the weakening
Speaker 1: trend that has experienced in sev outbet maybe at a
Speaker 1: more gradual pace and some more rangebound price dynamics. But
Speaker 1: why that dollar weakening? Because the first question is why
Speaker 1: is the dollar weakening when the FED is raising rates? UH.
Speaker 1: There has been almost an unprecedented disconnect between rate differentials
Speaker 1: and currency performance, and you see it particularly with the
Speaker 1: euro last year. We expect that to continue somewhat. This
Speaker 1: environment is very reminiscent to me of what we saw
Speaker 1: in the early two thousands, say two thousand, two, two
Speaker 1: and four, where despite the FED raising rates and the
Speaker 1: c B not raising rates the or of strengthen the
Speaker 1: dollar weekend. Why we are seeing that late cycle dynamics
Speaker 1: for the US where the current account differential between the
Speaker 1: US and the Eurozone is extremely wide. The Eurozone and
Speaker 1: Japan have very wide current account surpluses. And and those
Speaker 1: are some of the structural flows that you Tom are
Speaker 1: referring to, some of the structural frows in the background
Speaker 1: that are supporting UH foreign currencies. On top of it,
Speaker 1: we believe that the biggest driver of capital flows will
Speaker 1: be the equity side. We continued to expect our performance
Speaker 1: of European and emerging market growth versus US growth, and
Speaker 1: that typically leads US capital US investors to deploy capital
Speaker 1: into foreign markets, which we know is typically unheedged unless
Speaker 1: you know, there's a point where bond market dynamics really
Speaker 1: and abruptly folds into stock market dynamics. Review for US,
Speaker 1: how does that work? Rising yield? How does it fold
Speaker 1: into stock market effects? UM? I would say there's a
Speaker 1: two three channels here to to keep in mind, there
Speaker 1: is the the and and bond markets effect equity markets
Speaker 1: with a with a long UM lead UH. The The
Speaker 1: first and most important channel in my opinion is the
Speaker 1: is the tightening of financial conditions that is represented the
Speaker 1: first and foremost by the flattening of the yolker. Right,
Speaker 1: so as the as the yelker flattens gradually that these
Speaker 1: incentivizes the banks from credit creation over time. Right, they
Speaker 1: borrow in the short end and they land at the
Speaker 1: long end of plus a credit spread. As as the
Speaker 1: availability of the term premium over time in the long
Speaker 1: term um gets reduced. Banks of course have less of
Speaker 1: an incentive to to land, to extend credit, and most
Speaker 1: importantly in some cases, to even roll over credit. So
Speaker 1: what happens is then towards the end of the cycle,
Speaker 1: if banks stopped rolling over their credit, highly level companies UH,
Speaker 1: towards the end of the cycle find themselves with an
Speaker 1: economy they're explowing and with credit not being rolled over.
Speaker 1: And that's how then it translates. I would say, the
Speaker 1: transmission mechanism is from the yield curve to the bond
Speaker 1: market and credit spreads and then eventually to the stock market.
Speaker 1: But unless yeah, that's not happening yet. Because deposit better
Speaker 1: is so low for many of these banks, the the
Speaker 1: interest that they pay on deposits to depositors is incredibly love.
Speaker 1: It hasn't been picking up. So the net interest margin,
Speaker 1: despite the flat yield curve, has been picking up because
Speaker 1: they're passing on the higher rates over at the FED
Speaker 1: two loans that they create. Do you see that dynamic
Speaker 1: staying in place over the next couple of years, really
Speaker 1: low deposit beta, and that essentially means that net interest
Speaker 1: marches at banks hold up. Yes, and you see some
Speaker 1: some some continuation of death for quite some time. And
Speaker 1: actually if you look in Tom you were alluding to
Speaker 1: the two stands, but if we actually look at the
Speaker 1: three months of ten year, we're still about a hundred
Speaker 1: hundred and ten basis points. Uh so. And also to
Speaker 1: the point that John was making, so three month rade
Speaker 1: are are much lower than than two year rates, and
Speaker 1: I think for the purpose of the credit transmission, the
Speaker 1: three month a ten year is more indicative. Furthermore, I
Speaker 1: would say that the first confirmation of that transmission mechanism
Speaker 1: is still be seen in lending standards. And at the moment,
Speaker 1: all the set surveys show the lending standards remained very generous,
Speaker 1: both for large firms and small firms. So that's where
Speaker 1: we're not worried yet about the flatting of the yield curve.
Speaker 1: N should we dazzle Bloomberg Radio audience and put the
Speaker 1: threes tens chart out on Twitter place? I think we should.
Speaker 1: You should absolutely do that. What you're doing that, I
Speaker 1: want to make the horizontal line that beautiful Appenheimer Funds.
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask the lessie an important question. Now.
Speaker 1: We just talked about really strong data, really decent a
Speaker 1: d P report. We had our sam yesterday, the strongest
Speaker 1: sense I believe, two thousand and four. Yet we're reconciling
Speaker 1: that with a flatter yield curve. Why is it only
Speaker 1: the front end of the curve of the s adjusting
Speaker 1: to a better economy. Why are we not saying you'll
Speaker 1: to pick up further down a curve unlessia Because the
Speaker 1: three month is really controlled by the set. The two
Speaker 1: year part of the curve is really driven by market
Speaker 1: participants anticipating FED hikes. The three months is really ultimately
Speaker 1: the fat funds rate, and it's a reflection of the
Speaker 1: fact that the seed is hiking at a much much
Speaker 1: more gradual taste than historically we have seen with this
Speaker 1: strength in the economic data, and there reason being as
Speaker 1: we all know the puzzle with the inflation picture. The
Speaker 1: latest FED minutes revealed again the puzzle that the steadies facing.
Speaker 1: They have clearly upgraded their growth projections, even incorporated the
Speaker 1: common fiscal expansion, yet they have still revived higher their
Speaker 1: inflation numbers. They are taking with this puzzle unless you've
Speaker 1: got to leave it there, unless you're the longest. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much with that, m Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio