Speaker 1: It's amazing if you believe, definitely, and I think a
Speaker 1: lot of fake. All Right, everyone, welcome to the Predictions
Speaker 1: episode of Odd Lots. We're gonna be talking about what
Speaker 1: the big stories are going to be in and what
Speaker 1: we think is going to happen. I'm Joe Wisenthal, Managing
Speaker 1: editor at Bloomberg Markets, and I'm Tracy Halloway, Executive editor
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg Market. So once again we've assembled an ace
Speaker 1: team of Bloomberg News reporters and editors. Last week we
Speaker 1: discussed what their favorite stories were for the year. As
Speaker 1: sort of a connoisseur of armageddon scenarios, I I sort
Speaker 1: of have to say that the August, the August August
Speaker 1: so often the stock markets. My favorite story so Valiant
Speaker 1: is sort of the bad boy of Farmer. Wait a
Speaker 1: second replaced? I know. I was just thinking they've been
Speaker 1: replaced lightly by cheering listening, but they were bigger and
Speaker 1: in some ways bader. So your favorite story is essentially
Speaker 1: the end of a story? Yeah, I think so. This
Speaker 1: story about furious saving really did strike me is encapsulating.
Speaker 1: This week, I think it's going to be a little
Speaker 1: more challenging because we're going to put them on the
Speaker 1: spot and ask them what they think is going to
Speaker 1: happen in in prediction is harder than looking back, and
Speaker 1: then presumably at the end of we're going to ridicule
Speaker 1: them mercilessly forgetting everything wrong. We're get it right. But yeah,
Speaker 1: we're definitely getting meat here exactly on this date again
Speaker 1: one year from now, to look back at the predictions
Speaker 1: and we'll see how they did. Let's have everyone introduced themselves.
Speaker 1: I'm Chris A. G. The managing editor for Stocks at
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News. And Matthew Bosa I cover the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: it happened, I covered deals for Bloomboog News. I'm Mattlivian.
Speaker 1: I'm a columnist for Bloomberg View. Alright, so everybody wants
Speaker 1: to hear from the stocks guy about what's going to
Speaker 1: happen Chris and a G. You said last week that
Speaker 1: your favorite story for was the flash crash of August
Speaker 1: markets crater. What's what's your big prediction? So um, at
Speaker 1: the risk of of embarrassing, I mean, there's no doubt
Speaker 1: in my mind that the most the most variant view
Speaker 1: you could have right now coming into two thousand and
Speaker 1: sixteen is that stocks are going to go up. So
Speaker 1: what I did was trying to fashion some kind of thesis,
Speaker 1: sort of back reverse engineer, so that I could say
Speaker 1: that that was my opinion. I mean, I have no
Speaker 1: idea what's going to happen. But one thing that occurred
Speaker 1: to me over the weekend. Two things struck me. One
Speaker 1: was that everyone on Twitter was saying how much they
Speaker 1: loved the Big Short, and and my I was back
Speaker 1: with my family in Boston and a few people up
Speaker 1: there were talking about it when to Little Party and
Speaker 1: they talked about rereading it. And then I watched the
Speaker 1: Democratic debate with my mom and they were just going
Speaker 1: after Wall Street in a huge way. My mother, my
Speaker 1: mother at one point turned to me and said, they
Speaker 1: hate you, and I was like me and then work
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg, and she just meant sort of white males.
Speaker 1: I think, um, but it's just it's one thing that
Speaker 1: could could happen as a result of these to the
Speaker 1: big election year obviously and whatever. The sort of a
Speaker 1: cultural event around the Big Short kind of is that
Speaker 1: sentiment towards Wall Street and the stock market is probably
Speaker 1: not going to improve a great deal in two thousand
Speaker 1: and sixteen. I think that, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of opportunity for grand standing against banks
Speaker 1: and just sort of commerce in general. They'll probably be
Speaker 1: unable to resist. And in my opinion, that's the best
Speaker 1: thing that could happen to the stock market. This has
Speaker 1: been true since two thousand and eight, that, um, the
Speaker 1: easiest thing in the world has been turned around, bash
Speaker 1: American commerce and markets and banks and things like that,
Speaker 1: and as and what's happened since then, it's markets have
Speaker 1: staged one of the biggest rallies in their history. And
Speaker 1: I think, you know, anyone staring at it every day
Speaker 1: the way I do, the way you guys, is aware
Speaker 1: that that's part of the reason stocks have been able
Speaker 1: to go up is because this incredible wall of worry
Speaker 1: exists politically against them. It's almost seen as immoral that
Speaker 1: the market do well. And as a result of that, UM,
Speaker 1: I think it has done. It's been able to sort
Speaker 1: of convince lots of people periodically people everyone's basically a nonbeliever,
Speaker 1: and I think that there's going to be a lot
Speaker 1: of opportunity for nonbelief this year. There already is. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of pessimism coming into it, and it just
Speaker 1: seems like what happens a lot of the time when
Speaker 1: that's the case is that the market goes up. I
Speaker 1: couldn't agree more. It definitely feels like after the crash,
Speaker 1: there was this huge reservoir of hate and skepticism and
Speaker 1: pessimism that built up, and I don't think it's even
Speaker 1: close to having drained. And I think, you know, there
Speaker 1: are pockets of euphoria, like people were excited about Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley and startups, and for a while in Texas they're
Speaker 1: really excited about oil. I just don't think we're anywhere
Speaker 1: close to seeing the acceptance of the recovery in the
Speaker 1: bull market and any widespread level that you would expect
Speaker 1: to see you before it ends. But if isn't the
Speaker 1: really easy counter argument to all of that just to
Speaker 1: say that the recovery and the stock market rally was
Speaker 1: artificial and caused by the FEDS extraordinary measures. Certainly, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's absolutely convincing arguments on both sides of this thing.
Speaker 1: And as I say, I mean, who knows what's going
Speaker 1: to happen, obviously, but it just started this this one
Speaker 1: thing that isn't totally obvious to everym This thing that
Speaker 1: sort of sits in the background of the stock markets
Speaker 1: rally over the last five years, which is just incredibly
Speaker 1: negative sentent never repaired itself. If you look at like
Speaker 1: some of the worst sentiment readings in the history of
Speaker 1: the market were around the late August of this year,
Speaker 1: and if you were building a trading case on a
Speaker 1: contrarian case on that, you would have done well. You
Speaker 1: would have done well frequently in this market over the
Speaker 1: last five years if you bought when sentiment when just
Speaker 1: sort of you know, sort of mental sentiment guts to
Speaker 1: its lowest levels. All right, let's move on. Obviously, one
Speaker 1: of the big stories often was the Federal reserve raid hike,
Speaker 1: but nobody really knows what's going to happen with the future.
Speaker 1: Mad Bosler is rejoined us. Matt is our authoto reserve reporter.
Speaker 1: What's your what's your big prediction for? It doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be a FED thing. If you don't want well,
Speaker 1: it is a FED I think. I think the interesting
Speaker 1: thing for FED reporters on the beat in ten, especially
Speaker 1: in the first few weeks and months of seen, is
Speaker 1: going to be a rethink of the Federal reserves role
Speaker 1: in the money markets. Because you know, over the last
Speaker 1: year or two years, you know, they've been doing a
Speaker 1: lot of testing all these new tools to be able
Speaker 1: to raise rates and money markets flooded with cash um
Speaker 1: and especially in the repo market, they have this big
Speaker 1: new reverse repo facility that members of the Federal Open
Speaker 1: Market Committee have seemingly been very reluctant to employ too much,
Speaker 1: and they've you know, said things in the minutes of
Speaker 1: their meetings to the effect of this is going to
Speaker 1: be a very temporary facility. Are you know, intervention in
Speaker 1: repo markets is not going to last very long, and
Speaker 1: we're going to sort of wind it down shortly after
Speaker 1: lift off. But then you like sort of look at
Speaker 1: the numbers and it you know, some analysts, as you know,
Speaker 1: AC are saying that this thing could get to a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars a day, where the FED is borrowing a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars a day in the repo market. So I remember,
Speaker 1: the repo market used to be like when people talked
Speaker 1: about shadow banks. Essentially, the repo market was the shadow
Speaker 1: banking system. It was where banks and money market funds
Speaker 1: kind of fund each other by loaning out money against collateral,
Speaker 1: and the idea that the FETE is going to come
Speaker 1: in and basically crowd out all those old players and
Speaker 1: become the ultimate shadow banker is an interesting theme. I
Speaker 1: gotta play the role of the person listening to the
Speaker 1: podcast who like maybe hasn't been up on this stuff.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's like a Reddit page called explain
Speaker 1: it to Me, Like I'm a five year old or
Speaker 1: something like that. So for those who haven't been in
Speaker 1: the weeds on this stuff, and when you talk about
Speaker 1: the fed's role in the money market and the reverse
Speaker 1: repo facility and stuff like that, what's the explain it
Speaker 1: to me, like I'm a five year old version and
Speaker 1: you gotta get to your prediction. Okay, So picking up
Speaker 1: where Tracy left off, right, shadow banks like these these
Speaker 1: money market funds that have just had this big cash
Speaker 1: pile that's been growing and growing for several years, and
Speaker 1: before the crisis, they were lending a lot of that
Speaker 1: to banks which were then taking it and doing all
Speaker 1: sorts of you know, like term very safe exactly, maturity
Speaker 1: transformation and whatnot, and that is, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: one of the things that people blame the financial crisis on.
Speaker 1: And so now the FED has essentially become the borrower
Speaker 1: in these markets, you know, of that cash, all that
Speaker 1: cash that money market funds have, and so they're saying like, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're not going to be doing a lot of this,
Speaker 1: But then some analysts are saying, yeah, you're gonna be
Speaker 1: doing a lot of this, And where the rubber hits
Speaker 1: the road is you kind of have to do this
Speaker 1: if you're going to keep your balance sheet large. And
Speaker 1: for a while, you know, even a few months ago,
Speaker 1: everybody thought, Okay, the FED is going to start winding
Speaker 1: down its balance sheets sometime in ten, maybe even the
Speaker 1: first half of but a lot of the comments we've
Speaker 1: gotten from FED officials in the last few months suggest
Speaker 1: that actually they're going to keep the balance sheet at
Speaker 1: a constant size until sometime in seventeen, maybe well into seventeen.
Speaker 1: So there's really going to be no opportunity for them
Speaker 1: to sort of scale back their intervention in repo markets
Speaker 1: anytime soon, and in the meantime, we could see a
Speaker 1: lot of big changes to the money where the prediction
Speaker 1: is so that the thing that we're going to come
Speaker 1: back here a year ago and saying was med Bosler
Speaker 1: right or wrong? Is okay, the FED is going to
Speaker 1: be borrowing, you know, at least a trillion dollars a
Speaker 1: day in the repo market. By you're so harsh, Jo, No,
Speaker 1: I mean it's like the Predictions episode. We can't just
Speaker 1: have someone here sit here and say smart things. We
Speaker 1: gotta have something that we could go back. We have
Speaker 1: to say them, have them say non smart things. No,
Speaker 1: they just have to say something that could either be
Speaker 1: shown right or wrong. All right, Um, let's turn to
Speaker 1: Mr Ed Hammond. I'm sure hundreds of M and A
Speaker 1: bankers are dying to know what you think is going
Speaker 1: to happen in that market next year. So the many
Speaker 1: bankers will think that next year will be better than
Speaker 1: this year. With seventeen, we better than the sixteen, it's
Speaker 1: one and so on. But they are always looking up,
Speaker 1: and I guess we're trying to be a bit more
Speaker 1: realistic on this show. Um, so what are my predictions?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I always embarrass myself with these things,
Speaker 1: but maybe that's the point. Um. One general one would
Speaker 1: be that we're going to see a lot more oil
Speaker 1: and gas M and A. I think this year it's
Speaker 1: been a bit surprising that there hasn't been more. Obviously
Speaker 1: there have been some quite big ones attempted, Haliberton, Baker
Speaker 1: Hughes being obvious one of the if you look at
Speaker 1: the spread on that today, it now looks like it's
Speaker 1: probably gonna fall over. But I think a lot of
Speaker 1: the smaller, you know, sort of five to twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollar oil companies, I think we'll see them trade this year.
Speaker 1: There's there's a sort of a realization coming that they
Speaker 1: have diminished. They're not as important as they once were.
Speaker 1: There maybe a sort of third of the size that
Speaker 1: they were this time a year ago, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them are just under pressure, you know, whether it's
Speaker 1: it's the activists that's beginning to show up in a
Speaker 1: stock or whether it's kind of some sort of self
Speaker 1: realization that they actually need to do something and probably
Speaker 1: merging with a rival or selling themselves to a major
Speaker 1: is a very good way out of that. So I
Speaker 1: think oil and gas is somewhere we'll see a lot FIG. Also,
Speaker 1: what would happen in FIG? So that's financial institutions. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I think we're probably still some way off from
Speaker 1: seeing any big bank M and A. But I think
Speaker 1: the insurers will continue to consolidate. We've seen a few
Speaker 1: deals in the second half of this year, notably the
Speaker 1: health insurers sort of get together, and I think we'll
Speaker 1: see that spread to other parts of the insurance market.
Speaker 1: And and you know, look, I suppose the confidence is
Speaker 1: there to do those deals. It's just through our regulatory
Speaker 1: issues that people haven't got their head around yet. But
Speaker 1: I think next year we'll see more of that. Conversely,
Speaker 1: I think healthcare has to slow down. It can't continue
Speaker 1: at the pace it's going. UM and some industries, Cable
Speaker 1: being the obvious example, have kind of reached endgames, certainly
Speaker 1: in terms of big consolidation, so that will come off.
Speaker 1: I think. In one other prediction, I know last week
Speaker 1: on here I beat up about Valiant and Bill Ackman,
Speaker 1: but just a specific prediction on that, I think we
Speaker 1: can be sure that Valiant will do another stupid deal
Speaker 1: within the next year, and that the sort of Bill Ackman,
Speaker 1: Mike Pierson, Laurel and Hardy show will have one more
Speaker 1: episode at least M like that one. How much does
Speaker 1: UM there's the there's the FED tightening cycle effect. One's
Speaker 1: forecast for M and A next year. I think at
Speaker 1: this point not a huge amount. It's so well factored
Speaker 1: in it's something that you know, everyone has been expecting
Speaker 1: and expecting and expecting. So I don't think there's gonna
Speaker 1: be any great surprise to think the thing that tends
Speaker 1: to have the most sort of material negative impact on
Speaker 1: M and A is surprised, right, So anything that is
Speaker 1: really unpredictable one for seeing that happens. Then you see
Speaker 1: sort of deals drop off, for at least investors being
Speaker 1: much less willing to reward companies for doing deals. But
Speaker 1: at the moment, I think everything is expected. Rates go up,
Speaker 1: but it's still going to be very, very cheap to borrow.
Speaker 1: The cliche is that bankers, or when people say, is
Speaker 1: that bankers, you know, have these waves where they encourage
Speaker 1: companies to get soolidated, and then after they've all consolidated
Speaker 1: and they encourage spinoff something like that so they can
Speaker 1: get fees going in and out both directions. Is that
Speaker 1: something that you see likely to accelerate? Do you mean
Speaker 1: sort of general historic banker? I think it'll continue. I
Speaker 1: don't know if it has much room to grow, but
Speaker 1: I think it will definitely continue. I think we're not
Speaker 1: necessarily at the point that we're bank because sort of
Speaker 1: lobbying their clients to split and sell. But I think
Speaker 1: we are at this point where, you know, activism pressure
Speaker 1: is growing. Obviously, the funds on the management way up
Speaker 1: from where they were a year ago. So we will
Speaker 1: see many more activist campaigns next year, and the banks will,
Speaker 1: as they always do, will position themselves between the kind
Speaker 1: of the demands and the pressure on the companies and
Speaker 1: ensure that the raw stuff. Think greed has peaked. I
Speaker 1: think greed has peaked. I do actually think that what
Speaker 1: we'll see in the next few years is like the
Speaker 1: cultural shakeout from the financial crisis is still going on
Speaker 1: and has has um has surprised me in its in
Speaker 1: its intensity. Like I it's somewhat facetious to say greed
Speaker 1: has peaked, but I think, like, you know, well's being
Speaker 1: really is changing in terms of will bankers keep you know,
Speaker 1: lobbying to do deals like of course they will. And
Speaker 1: you see like the Dad Point deal is like at
Speaker 1: the same time the merger in the splitting right two
Speaker 1: giant companies and the plan is emerge and then immediately
Speaker 1: break up in the three separate companies. Yeah, it's you know,
Speaker 1: the M and A cycle kind of like goes on
Speaker 1: and gets bigger and bigger deals, and you reach a
Speaker 1: point where you just can't do a bigger deal, so
Speaker 1: you have the like fusion and efficient at the same
Speaker 1: time deal and then like you know, you've solved that problem.
Speaker 1: Do you have a big prediction for next year? Well,
Speaker 1: people still be worried about bond market liquidity. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: of course. The thing is like we need to have
Speaker 1: the next crisis before people will stop talking about the world.
Speaker 1: Where I think we're still so scarred by the by
Speaker 1: the last crisis that the idea of of of of
Speaker 1: not worrying about like a big bogeyman is just not
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a long time. But you you're skeptical
Speaker 1: on this bond market liquidity that it's actually going to
Speaker 1: be a big deal, right, Like I When you're write
Speaker 1: about it, you sort of have a bemused tone that
Speaker 1: suggests to me that you don't. It doesn't confirm you
Speaker 1: too much. I think it's an interesting story, Like I
Speaker 1: think that, um, there are very interesting dynamics in terms
Speaker 1: of like arket structure and how we trade financial instruments.
Speaker 1: They're very interesting dynamics. Again in Wall Street culture, right
Speaker 1: like banks used to be these big warehouses of risk,
Speaker 1: and now they're not, and that has um caused sort
Speaker 1: of both financial and cultural anxieties, like those are like
Speaker 1: real things, and and that that changes I think meaningful
Speaker 1: in terms of will it be the catastrophe run risk
Speaker 1: that causes the next recession? That seems really unlikely to me?
Speaker 1: But do you think it will be a bigger story
Speaker 1: in than it was? No, okay, here's will go back? Um,
Speaker 1: I think who knows? But like I think that, like
Speaker 1: you know, we keep having little tests of it, and
Speaker 1: those tests, you know, it seemed okay. So I think
Speaker 1: I think it'll it'll fade as the tests go on
Speaker 1: and they don't break the market. Well, we have lots
Speaker 1: of predictions to think about. I think we should. I
Speaker 1: think you and I know I was trying to escape it. No,
Speaker 1: it's only fair, No, alright, Well, I predict everything in
Speaker 1: my portfolio is going to do really well. Tracy owns
Speaker 1: like a lot of physical silver, not by choice, so
Speaker 1: that's good for the precious metal. And piggyback on Chris
Speaker 1: n Age's prediction about how this deep wall of worry
Speaker 1: that still exists will mean it's another good year for
Speaker 1: the stock market. I was thinking like, in this whole
Speaker 1: narrative that we've had since the crisis, the one thing
Speaker 1: that perma Bears skeptics have always said, it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: there's no way the FED will be able to do
Speaker 1: a tightening cycle without causing like a huge economic or
Speaker 1: market collapse. And the perma bears have been so humiliated
Speaker 1: throughout the years that this has got to be the
Speaker 1: last chapter because if this could happen, then they truly
Speaker 1: will have to be banished. They'll all have to unplug
Speaker 1: their computers, throw them into salt water and never be
Speaker 1: heard from again. Delete their Twitter, delete their Twitter cout.
Speaker 1: So I think this is the final chapter and their
Speaker 1: humiliation and without market armageddon, but capitulation is usually the
Speaker 1: ultimate journey, and then and then after and then we'll
Speaker 1: get a turning point, like we haven't had the final
Speaker 1: nail in the common steak and the heart event for them,
Speaker 1: and so I think that this is the year for that.
Speaker 1: So your prediction is that people will stop talking because
Speaker 1: they've been proven y, I don't think that will come
Speaker 1: from You've literally just negated our next year's predictions episode. Oh, Tracy,
Speaker 1: look who showed up to join us? It's Dan Moss, Dan,
Speaker 1: who are you. I'm the executive editor for Global Economics,
Speaker 1: And what is your prediction. It's a little bit contrarian,
Speaker 1: but what the heck we like contrary in here. My
Speaker 1: prediction is that Brazil stabilizes and possibly bounces sentiment towards
Speaker 1: that country, which is an enormous economy, is so beaten down.
Speaker 1: And then there's been this relentless march of negative headlines
Speaker 1: all through relating to whether the president gets impeached, relating
Speaker 1: to contraction in the economy, relating to the budget deficit,
Speaker 1: relating to the beating that stocks and the real that's
Speaker 1: their currency have taken. But perhaps things are oversold. There's
Speaker 1: been a lot of attention recently on the resignation of
Speaker 1: Finance Minister Wha. Kim Levy and his replacement with Planning
Speaker 1: Minister Nelson Barbosa. Now, Levy had this kind of market
Speaker 1: halo over him. He came right from investment banking a
Speaker 1: year ago, and he was seen as the market friendly
Speaker 1: force of Dilma's government. However, he had all sorts of
Speaker 1: troubles getting his fiscal targets to stick. His relationships in
Speaker 1: Congress weren't terrific. Barbosa, on the other hand, is seen
Speaker 1: as closer to Dilma, closer to the party, And you've
Speaker 1: got to ask yourself what's better what's worse? Here? A
Speaker 1: Levy with a great resume but perhaps ineffective and Bob
Speaker 1: Bobosa who doesn't quite have that market lineage, but my
Speaker 1: end up being politically more affected. Is this call Brazil
Speaker 1: specific or can you are you almost on the verge
Speaker 1: of calling a bottom in emerging markets across the board?
Speaker 1: I'm not quite at that point. I thought we could
Speaker 1: go to you into it. But this is like a
Speaker 1: pretty big call because you have to imagine that at
Speaker 1: the end of TWI, the people who got this call right,
Speaker 1: especially if there is a turnaround, are going to be
Speaker 1: some of the big heroes on Wall Street. And what
Speaker 1: I want to know specifically, since the plan is that
Speaker 1: we're going to all be back here next year at
Speaker 1: this time reviewing calls, what is the measure that we
Speaker 1: should use to see whether this call turned out right?
Speaker 1: Is it a real level? Is it a what what
Speaker 1: should be uh Brazilian government? What should we say, Okay,
Speaker 1: this um, this was the right call? How should we
Speaker 1: measure that? Well? You can know whether you're right or
Speaker 1: wrong or year. Well, look in terms of market metrics,
Speaker 1: look at the real look at Brazilian bonds, look at
Speaker 1: Brazilian stocks. But also by the time we're sitting here
Speaker 1: in twelve months time, we'll know whether the president has survived.
Speaker 1: We're hearing a lot in the Brazilian Congress about impeachment.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of things are probably going to
Speaker 1: become clear. We're in the Maelstrom now. I like this
Speaker 1: call because, as you said, it is contraryan but I
Speaker 1: also like the reasoning that while everyone else is concerned
Speaker 1: that this very credible finance minister has gone, that there
Speaker 1: may be a silver lining to this person who's more
Speaker 1: of an all out of the president. There's been a
Speaker 1: fairly intense debate over the past year. Is Brazil's problem
Speaker 1: fundamentally one of politics or fundamentally one of economics? We
Speaker 1: will find out. All right, that's Dan Mass You can
Speaker 1: catch him on the Benchmark podcast. Thanks, thank you, all right, well,
Speaker 1: thanks everyone for listening to another episode. Yeah, thanks everyone
Speaker 1: for joining us in and I'm looking forward to a
Speaker 1: full year of odd lots in. I'm Joseph Wisn't thought.
Speaker 1: You can follow me on Twitter and was Stillbert and
Speaker 1: I'm Tracy Alloway. I'm on Twitter at Tracy Alloway. Thanks
Speaker 1: very much. Joe and I are very proud of our
Speaker 1: new podcast, Odd Lots, but we are also very proud
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg's other growing suite of original podcast all designed
Speaker 1: to help you navigate the complexities of business, financial markets,
Speaker 1: and the global economy. So in addition to our own podcast,
Speaker 1: please don't miss Benchmark with Dan Moss, Tory Stillwell and
Speaker 1: Aki Edo, an informative, jargon free look at the inner
Speaker 1: workings of the global economy. Then there is a Deal
Speaker 1: of the Week with our M and A reporter Alec Sherman,
Speaker 1: which is a breakdown of the biggest M and A
Speaker 1: deals and gives you an inside peek at corporate board rooms.
Speaker 1: All three shows are available on iTunes, SoundCloud, pocket Cast
Speaker 1: for Android, Bloomberg dot Com, and of course, the Bloomberg Terminal.