Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
Speaker 2: with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordernt. Join us each day
Speaker 2: for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics
Speaker 2: from our global headquarters in New York City. We are
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine
Speaker 2: am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or
Speaker 2: anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. So here's the lacest
Speaker 2: this morning. The US amassing it's the largest military build
Speaker 2: up in decades around around with current and former officials
Speaker 2: saying the Trump administration appears ready for strikes on military
Speaker 2: and strategic targets. Joining us to discuss as Stephen Kirk,
Speaker 2: the senior Middle East Fellow at CFR. Stephen, welcome back
Speaker 2: to the program. I asked Jonathan, our colleague, what does
Speaker 2: success look like? Struggle to answer, think most people do.
Speaker 2: But there's an additional question we've all got to ask
Speaker 2: as well. What is success and are the risks of
Speaker 2: pursuing get worth it? What's the answer to that, Stephen.
Speaker 3: Well, first, on the question of success, the success is
Speaker 3: anything that President Trump defines it as, and I think
Speaker 3: that that's the issue here, and that's what I think
Speaker 3: people are struggling with. He operates in a totally different
Speaker 3: foreign policy level than most of us who have grown
Speaker 3: up around the US foreign policy establishment, which is, he
Speaker 3: could very well order the strikes, and however they come out,
Speaker 3: he'll declare it a success, whether it's regime change or
Speaker 3: attacking the around nuclear program. Now you asked a very
Speaker 3: important question about the risks. The risks are, of course,
Speaker 3: one that it does not work, and that the regime
Speaker 3: remains in place, retaliates against American partners in the region,
Speaker 3: fires on American forces in the region, and we're often
Speaker 3: running into a broader regional war. That is, I think
Speaker 3: the worst case scenario for the United States of the
Speaker 3: Iranians are greatly weakened, but the Iranians still have the
Speaker 3: ability to cause a lot of trouble around the region.
Speaker 3: So if the United States goes, it's going to have
Speaker 3: to be sure that it's going to be able to
Speaker 3: affect the kinds of changes it's seeking.
Speaker 4: The question is what.
Speaker 3: Are those changes? Is it removing the nuclear program, which
Speaker 3: by the way, last June the President said was totally obliterated.
Speaker 4: Is it regime change?
Speaker 3: Is it going after the ballistic missile program as the
Speaker 3: Israelis have been advising. We won't know until if and
Speaker 3: when he orders those strikes.
Speaker 5: Stephen, If there is a strike, what do you expect
Speaker 5: the Iranians to do immediately in terms of retaliation?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have been full of bravado. In the last week,
Speaker 3: they conducted an exercise for several hours in the Strait
Speaker 3: of Hormuz, a very strategic waterway that connects the Persian
Speaker 3: Gulf in the Indian Ocean. They have threatened to rain
Speaker 3: missiles down on Tel Aviv. I think that that is
Speaker 3: probably the most likely response from the uron Ins, which
Speaker 3: is why the President has ordered the USS Gerald R
Speaker 3: Ford and its carrier Battlegroup into the region.
Speaker 4: That group of ships, along with.
Speaker 3: The USS Lincoln, provide and augment air defense systems for
Speaker 3: Israel's already robust air defense systems and provides air cover
Speaker 3: for America's partners in the Golf. But the Iranians are
Speaker 3: limited in terms of their ability to take on the
Speaker 3: United States. So that's why it seems likely they'll use
Speaker 3: what remains of their ballistic missile force to try to
Speaker 3: do a lot of damage to Israel and perhaps other
Speaker 3: partners in the region.
Speaker 5: When the USS Gerald r Ford arrives this weekend, it's
Speaker 5: going to be a massive military build up. Do you
Speaker 5: think that build up is enough for the Ruddians to
Speaker 5: come to the table in earnest on the three top
Speaker 5: issues this administration has outlined ballistic missiles, nuclear as well
Speaker 5: as money to proxies.
Speaker 3: Well, that would probably be the best possible outcome for
Speaker 3: the Iranians, But so far, at least publicly, they are
Speaker 3: digging in. They are saying that they will retain their
Speaker 3: right to enrich They're willing to negotiate enrichment around the margins.
Speaker 3: They've come up with some ideas about a pause, which
Speaker 3: really doesn't matter shipping enrich uranium out of the country.
Speaker 3: But I think the theory is a mass a lot
Speaker 3: of force. If the Iranians don't capitulate, then you really
Speaker 3: do have to use that force, because otherwise your credibility
Speaker 3: is blown unless you use it. And the President has
Speaker 3: been clear they either come to terms within the next
Speaker 3: ten or fifteen days or he's going to use that force.
Speaker 5: What did you think the outreach has been between the
Speaker 5: administration and allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and
Speaker 5: Israel as well on the oil front, do you think
Speaker 5: the OPEC members if Iran starts to strike some tankers
Speaker 5: or close the strait of her moves, are they willing
Speaker 5: to get some more exports on the market to keep
Speaker 5: prices down.
Speaker 3: Certainly think that the Saudis and the Amoradis, who have
Speaker 3: said that they will not participate in American strikes on Iran,
Speaker 3: will definitely play ball on the oil front. First, I
Speaker 3: think there's a lot of American force in the region,
Speaker 3: so whatever disruptions there might be to the oil market,
Speaker 3: it'll be temporary. But of course, the Iranians have been
Speaker 3: putting oil on the market despite being under heavy sanction.
Speaker 3: But I do think we are at a moment where
Speaker 3: the Saudis and the Marats, despite Saudi financial and fiscal troubles,
Speaker 3: would play ball if it does mean a positive change
Speaker 3: to Iran.
Speaker 5: How close is coordination right now between Israel and the
Speaker 5: United States, Because, as you said, if there's going to
Speaker 5: be a retaliation, it's going to be across the Israeli skies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there is a very significant amount of coordination.
Speaker 3: There has always been a significant amount of coordination, and
Speaker 3: at these moments, the United States and Israel are working
Speaker 3: hand in hand. The Israelis has said that though this
Speaker 3: is going to be an American operation and they are
Speaker 3: going to be the wingman for the operation, there's also
Speaker 3: a close coordination with other members of SENCOM. If you
Speaker 3: look at where the United States is moving assets, it
Speaker 3: is throughout the region. So countries, although they are somewhat
Speaker 3: reluctant to publicly say that they support or will participate
Speaker 3: in this operation should it come to pass, are nevertheless
Speaker 3: keeping up with their responsibilities to Sencom and opening access
Speaker 3: to their bases and allowing the United States to operate
Speaker 3: from those bases.
Speaker 4: Stay with US. Multilanberg surveillance coming up after this. Let's
Speaker 4: move on.
Speaker 2: Let's turn to Netflix, the company's co CEO Ted Sarandosk,
Speaker 2: countering a key complaint in the High Stakespencil for Warner Brothers.
Speaker 6: We're going to keep Warner Brothers running pretty much like
Speaker 6: they are today. And in fact, it's even quite better
Speaker 6: for theaters because now they are going to be in
Speaker 6: that business and own a theatrical distribution entity. We're going
Speaker 6: to take some of the Netflix films and put them
Speaker 6: through that as well, So it's very likely that you'll
Speaker 6: have even more outcome of high quality films or the
Speaker 6: theaters if this deal goes through.
Speaker 2: His comments coming is the Justice Department assesses the deal's
Speaker 2: impact on theaters. Alisha Race of Wetbush Securities writing, we
Speaker 2: believe that Netflix can create jobs, boost production, and offer
Speaker 2: consumers more value at a reasonable price. The Netflix deal
Speaker 2: is superior to paramounts guidance. Alisha joins us now for more. Alisha,
Speaker 2: welcome this tracks on is it becoming a distraction for
Speaker 2: the stock.
Speaker 1: It is a distraction for the stock. Absolutely. The issue
Speaker 1: is that Netflix is perfectly well balanced as a company
Speaker 1: without the acquisition. It has significant growth opportunities, particularly in advertising.
Speaker 1: Now this certainly would help if they got the deal
Speaker 1: through for long term growth, especially if they're able to
Speaker 1: leverage their new advertising vehicle throughout Warner Brothers as well.
Speaker 1: I have that global growth, but they don't need it,
Speaker 1: and it's certainly been a distraction and has weighed heavily
Speaker 1: on the stock. But ultimately, you know, we do think
Speaker 1: you know, Netflix will be okay without this deal, and
Speaker 1: the regulatory headwinds are you know, significant.
Speaker 2: Well, Alicia, let's talk about why you believe they'll be okay,
Speaker 2: and you alluded to it. Do you think we're underpricing
Speaker 2: how their position to take advantage of a big rebound
Speaker 2: in global add growth?
Speaker 1: Oh? Absolutely, yeah, you know, and I think without the
Speaker 1: deal the shares would have been okay. You know, they
Speaker 1: did have a bit of a hiccup a couple quarters
Speaker 1: ago with their reporting just because you know, the expectations
Speaker 1: are enormously high, you know, for the stock because they've
Speaker 1: bet you know, so healthy for so long. But the
Speaker 1: AD opportunity is growing. They're adding more capabilities throughout the
Speaker 1: AD stack, and the ability to do targeting on a
Speaker 1: global scale is significant with all of the users. So
Speaker 1: I think a lot of that performative marketing capabilities that
Speaker 1: they have or will have in our building are wildly
Speaker 1: underappreciated at this point.
Speaker 2: Because everyone else is looking ow swear. So let's talk
Speaker 2: about the set one feats release. As you know of
Speaker 2: the hold up and closing this deal. One aspect of
Speaker 2: all the complications theatrical releases, have they got a pr problem?
Speaker 4: And what are they doing to counter that now.
Speaker 1: Well, going on Bloomberg yesterday and on Matt Belanie's The
Speaker 1: Town podcast, Ted Srando's I think dispelled some of the
Speaker 1: concerns around that. You saw, you know, Sean Gamble, the
Speaker 1: CEO of Cinemark the other day on his earnings call,
Speaker 1: noted that, you know, the forty five day window that
Speaker 1: was promised, it wasn't clear, you know, is that going
Speaker 1: to streaming right afterwards or is that going to go
Speaker 1: to the t VOT window where you can buy a rent.
Speaker 1: The actual windowing matters a lot to Hollywood, and so
Speaker 1: Ted Surrandos did clarify that yesterday that he does intend
Speaker 1: to take the titles to t VOD before the streaming window,
Speaker 1: and that helps a lot. They have an opportunity Netflix
Speaker 1: does to show Hollywood the real intent. They have Narnia
Speaker 1: coming out later this year. They have it set for
Speaker 1: an exclusive Imax release and then going to streaming directly.
Speaker 1: If they change that to you know, an Imax exclusive
Speaker 1: release and then created a wide release for that with
Speaker 1: a t VOD window, perhaps that would give Hollywood a
Speaker 1: lot more backing for this deal. This would create a
Speaker 1: lot less friction.
Speaker 5: Do you think they need to do that to really
Speaker 5: show Hollywood that they're committed to theaters.
Speaker 1: I think there's still a lot of skepticism, you know,
Speaker 1: even with those promises. The skepticism is that they'll do
Speaker 1: that at first for the first few years, and then
Speaker 1: they'll shift back to their old ways. And so doing
Speaker 1: that with Narnia where they don't have to, I think
Speaker 1: that would create a lot of goodwill.
Speaker 5: I think it's obvious why people think that. Remember Netflix
Speaker 5: was the blockbuster killer. You get they used to get
Speaker 5: the DVDs in the mail. And what's the point then,
Speaker 5: why you want to go to a theater? You say
Speaker 5: in your note, The bottom line is that Paramount Skuy
Speaker 5: needs this deal along Netflix does not. Why does Paramount
Speaker 5: need this deal?
Speaker 1: Well, Paramount needs it because they you know, they're struggling
Speaker 1: to you know, get to profitability and they need more
Speaker 1: you know, theatrical and they'll be out. They'll have to
Speaker 1: cut costs though you know, they're cutting costs pretty significantly
Speaker 1: right now with the current integration, and so you know,
Speaker 1: looking for growth in this market, especially if they have
Speaker 1: the linear TV deal, and especially if they bring on
Speaker 1: the Warner Brothers linear as well. You know, there's just
Speaker 1: a lot that needs to be cut, and there's not
Speaker 1: a lot of natural growth in that market particularly, so
Speaker 1: Paramount will have to build on its theatrical releases and
Speaker 1: build in other areas of the business, and that's not
Speaker 1: necessarily easy to do organically in these in its market.
Speaker 4: They should just to wrap things up.
Speaker 2: Can I get your thoughts on the other threats to
Speaker 2: the studio business in this projection for the price of content?
Speaker 2: Given the amount of AI initiatives we've seen developed more recently,
Speaker 2: and we've all seen these examples come out in social
Speaker 2: media of people just making their own movies. I have
Speaker 2: to say started out not so good, and now at
Speaker 2: the moment, from what I've seen over the past few weeks,
Speaker 2: things have moved on pretty quickly. What are your thoughts
Speaker 2: on the trajectory of things?
Speaker 1: They are moving on pretty quickly. But you're seeing the
Speaker 1: studios come out vehemently against this and you know, putting
Speaker 1: out some c syndicist orders. This isn't going to fly
Speaker 1: because the issue is that those models were learning based
Speaker 1: off content that they shouldn't have had access to and
Speaker 1: they certainly didn't pay for if there were deals in
Speaker 1: place that they had paid for to teach those models. Sure,
Speaker 1: but a lot of the AI models are based on
Speaker 1: content that you know, they shouldn't have had access to,
Speaker 1: and they certainly didn't legally, and so there are a
Speaker 1: lot of ways for the studios to protect themselves against this,
Speaker 1: and hopefully that's swift enough to be meaningful over time.
Speaker 2: Though for the studios. Do you see reduced in the
Speaker 2: price of content?
Speaker 1: Sure? I mean, just as you know, user generated content
Speaker 1: has become more and more popular, it creates an alternative,
Speaker 1: certainly to more expensive content. But you know, really it
Speaker 1: comes down to what's the most compelling, and so I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: these kind of combinations like you see, you know, Netflix
Speaker 1: wanting to do with Warner Brothers is more meaningful because
Speaker 1: you know, there are a lot of content alternatives out there.
Speaker 1: But if studios are able to leverage that to get
Speaker 1: better content to screens faster, that can certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: thwart some of those AI efforts.
Speaker 2: Stay with us more Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this
Speaker 2: stocks adding to losses after snapping a three day winning
Speaker 2: straight to Chiney contownary of more can standing investment management writing.
Speaker 2: We see a shift from concentrated sources of growth and
Speaker 2: return to a greater dispersion and wider set of opportunities
Speaker 2: both within the US and across global markets. Jatania joins
Speaker 2: us now for more. Jatania, Good morning. How are you
Speaker 2: considering developments in the Middle East and the risk of
Speaker 2: version we're starting to see and the moving crude off
Speaker 2: the back of threats of military strikes in Iran.
Speaker 7: Yes, I do think that the probability of that is
Speaker 7: clearly rising. I do also believe that the Middle East
Speaker 7: is now one of the Middle powers as you as
Speaker 7: you can see that region between the western and the
Speaker 7: Eastern hemisphere which is getting dominated by US on the
Speaker 7: west and China on the east, and that region is
Speaker 7: becoming very critical from a logistics standpoint, from a trade
Speaker 7: capital standpoint. So I do think that the higher likelihood
Speaker 7: of tensions in that is going to cause some market volatility.
Speaker 2: Gapolitics is traditionally very very hard to predict, so I'm
Speaker 2: not going to put you on the spot and ask
Speaker 2: for prediction. I'd like to go through a range of scenarios.
Speaker 2: One in particular, if we do get another spy car
Speaker 2: and crude, and yesterday we've already seen a move of
Speaker 2: almost twenty percent on crude, whether that would upend some
Speaker 2: of the cyclical traits that a lot of people have
Speaker 2: gained some enthusiasm for coming into twenty six.
Speaker 7: I think the most important manifestation of an increase in
Speaker 7: oil prices will be on the CPI, and I think
Speaker 7: that that the inflation outlook, which has been relatively okay
Speaker 7: even the expectations of core PCE in our models, is
Speaker 7: about two point seven percent if assuming crude prices at
Speaker 7: these levels. So I think that can really be detrimental
Speaker 7: to the inflation situation, which then leads to the rate
Speaker 7: story and therefore cost some of the cyclical traits unwinding.
Speaker 7: And so that's something to keep in mind. But I
Speaker 7: do not think our base case view here is there
Speaker 7: is still supply. There is still opeque capacity to supply oil,
Speaker 7: so there could be an interim move, but I think
Speaker 7: overall the demand supply situation is not justifying a spike
Speaker 7: in prices once the dust settled.
Speaker 5: Could it, though, galvanize the hawks on the FED to
Speaker 5: potentially want to continue their weight and see mode or
Speaker 5: even hike.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean I think that you know, the interest
Speaker 7: rate expectations in terms of two cuts are the maximum
Speaker 7: we can get, and based on the current CPI and
Speaker 7: the PCE at two point seven percent, as I mentioned,
Speaker 7: I think that at these levels one can expect maybe
Speaker 7: a cut or maybe none. So that will definitely be
Speaker 7: an issue for FED cuts.
Speaker 5: When do you have your first cut price ten?
Speaker 7: Next year?
Speaker 5: Next year, so this whole year will be weight and
Speaker 5: sea mode when it comes to federal reserve, is that
Speaker 5: even possible to Kevin worship the Fed?
Speaker 7: Well, you know, I think it's going to be a function,
Speaker 7: as I said, of inflation, but also employment and that
Speaker 7: clearly there has been some stabilization, but if you're not
Speaker 7: out of the woods there, so there will be an
Speaker 7: equal emphasis there. So I think we could definitely see
Speaker 7: a cut. But the fact that QT is over and
Speaker 7: the FED is expanding their balance sheet that may be
Speaker 7: under question under wash because he has not been really
Speaker 7: a proponent of that.
Speaker 2: Let's down equities on the equity side. In the US,
Speaker 2: the rually stored at the index level, and we can
Speaker 2: see that the SMP within around two percent of all
Speaker 2: time highs. It's taken off elsewhere Japan's South Korea. South
Speaker 2: Korea has had a massive move yere today and AM equities.
Speaker 2: Looking at the AM equity story for year today, double
Speaker 2: digit gains so far. What's happening there? What am I buying?
Speaker 2: What's the story at the moment, what's the best.
Speaker 7: I think you're buying uncoorrelated sources of alpha outside the
Speaker 7: AI trade and the maximum juice on the AI trade,
Speaker 7: which is the AI enablers. So in Asia, it's a
Speaker 7: lot about the semiconductors and network working equipment, exports, the
Speaker 7: capex that's coming with those exports, and the networth effect
Speaker 7: that's happening with the buoyancy and exports. In pockets of
Speaker 7: Latin America, you have a commodity tailwind because a lot
Speaker 7: of these countries are actually in the critical mineral supply
Speaker 7: chain and copper, in uranium and all that we need
Speaker 7: to power this AI story. And then in Eastern Europe
Speaker 7: you have spillovers from pockets of Europe and the stimulus there.
Speaker 7: So the core versus the periphery versus Eastern Europe. I
Speaker 7: think the smaller cap countries look interesting, which are in
Speaker 7: the emerging space, So different sources of drivers across different
Speaker 7: regions which is powering this. And lastly, the monetary and
Speaker 7: fiscal orthodoxy in the EM world has been much more
Speaker 7: superior than the DM world. So that is showing up
Speaker 7: up in terms of central banks cutting rates, in terms
Speaker 7: of fiscal balances, being in a much better situation than
Speaker 7: the developers, especially the US.
Speaker 2: When you look at the bankdrop, how much of it
Speaker 2: is a cyclical story versus secular?
Speaker 4: Is it a mix of.
Speaker 7: Both, It's a mix of what I'd say. One interesting
Speaker 7: theme that is developing in North Asia specifically, which seems
Speaker 7: to have structural legs, is US will not be able
Speaker 7: to really onshore everything, right, whether it's shipping some electronics, biotech,
Speaker 7: automation robots and that supply chain, the autonomy supply chain.
Speaker 7: They won't buy from the China, but they buy from
Speaker 7: North Asia which have exports similarity like China, and where
Speaker 7: those vendors will be US preferred in terms of supply
Speaker 7: of all these things. So I think that's another area
Speaker 7: outside SEMIS and tech that is seeing momentum in terms
Speaker 7: of the markets.
Speaker 5: So you want to be exposed to those What potentially
Speaker 5: are these partners when with the United States when it
Speaker 5: comes to national security and core features of the AI.
Speaker 7: Trade right, and even like shipping in autonomy. Look at
Speaker 7: the about density in China compared to the US, so
Speaker 7: the second derivative place of sensors and lied doers and
Speaker 7: you know everything that is in the supply chain of autonomy,
Speaker 7: which is coming on the factory floor in the low
Speaker 7: low altitude economy in space. So yes, I think Korea
Speaker 7: Japan are some interesting markets there to source a lot
Speaker 7: of this because China is going to not be the
Speaker 7: preferred vendor.
Speaker 5: Do you think the midterms will be a catalyst to
Speaker 5: potentially pour money back into the United States because there'll
Speaker 5: be loose surfaceco policy.
Speaker 7: The interesting thing is that, you know, there has been
Speaker 7: the Americanization on the trade side, where regional trade blocks
Speaker 7: and trade deal and are being made. On the capital side, interestingly,
Speaker 7: we're still seeing a lot of FBI come into the US.
Speaker 7: So I think that is because part of the trade
Speaker 7: negotiation has been bring capital back. You know, I was
Speaker 7: at a healthcare conference. A lot of the companies said
Speaker 7: we're bringing manufacturing backs. I think that seems to happen
Speaker 7: and will continue. But I think the big thing on
Speaker 7: the midterm is what has a Democratic win of the
Speaker 7: House mean. You know, we've seen a lot of Trump
Speaker 7: trades in the market. Does that come under question? You know,
Speaker 7: a goal is a trump trade in regional banks and deregulation,
Speaker 7: So I think one has to be really discerning because
Speaker 7: that could have some sentiment impact tactically in the market.
Speaker 4: Then the financial story is vulnerable.
Speaker 7: I don't think the financial story is vulnerable because I
Speaker 7: do believe that the consumer and the private sector from
Speaker 7: the banking side, is delevered in the US. It's there's
Speaker 7: no excesses, the accesses are citing more else, you know,
Speaker 7: in private probably, But I don't think it's vulnerable. But
Speaker 7: I think there has been a decent momentum trade there
Speaker 7: and one has to be just discerned.
Speaker 4: Can we finish on that in private markets?
Speaker 2: So I'm not going to talk about the story too
Speaker 2: directly because I know I imagine you can't talk to
Speaker 2: it directly either.
Speaker 4: I'll talk about it in general terms.
Speaker 2: When you start to see redemptions and certain fund struggle
Speaker 2: to make redemptions, people start to have concerns about what's developing.
Speaker 2: And the story this morning, of course is blue out
Speaker 2: and the stock is down again by three point seven percent.
Speaker 2: Do you see risks of contagion broader systemic risk emerging
Speaker 2: care or is leveraged so much lower this time compared
Speaker 2: to say seven, Oh wait, you can have pockets of
Speaker 2: instances like this that don't necessarily mean we've got bigger
Speaker 2: problems around the corner.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I don't think there has been excessive and a
Speaker 7: systemic crisis in the making here. Of course, that market's
Speaker 7: grown because the banks have retreated due to all the
Speaker 7: regulatory issues. Some of that will with the deregulation, the
Speaker 7: banks will come back into that space. So the returns
Speaker 7: you made in private credit in the last few years,
Speaker 7: maybe you cannot make those same amount of returns. But
Speaker 7: there have been very strong players in this space, and
Speaker 7: I don't think this will lead to a systemic crisis.
Speaker 7: But definitely there is more competition in that space coming
Speaker 7: from the traditional banks.
Speaker 2: Given how much though this economy increasingly has become dependent
Speaker 2: on being powered by private market, do you think the
Speaker 2: economy in general could be vulnerable to a tightening of
Speaker 2: credit conditions.
Speaker 7: I really don't believe there is a systemic crisis here,
Speaker 7: because in the history of markets, there is crisis only
Speaker 7: when there's excessive leverage, when credit grows way above GDP.
Speaker 7: You know, the half hum rule is when credit grows
Speaker 7: twenty percent more than GDP over a five year period,
Speaker 7: that is a red flag. I don't see that in
Speaker 7: pretty much many pockets of the world, Like you don't,
Speaker 7: a lot of the credit side. There's been de leveraging.
Speaker 7: So yes, you know, there's been retrenchment on the households
Speaker 7: and the corporate side of in traditional banking channels, and
Speaker 7: some of these pockets have grown, but there is not
Speaker 7: like an excess in terms of empirical numbers.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best
Speaker 2: in markets, economics, an gio politics. You can watch the
Speaker 2: show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am
Speaker 2: to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple,
Speaker 2: Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.