Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz. 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, Suncloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course, on the Bloomberg terminal. Richard Hass came
Speaker 1: out of Oberlin College of what I'm gonna call the
Speaker 1: Eastern Midwest, with the Council Foreign Relations and their president
Speaker 1: and all of that. Hearkens back to a Midwest isolationism
Speaker 1: personified by Colonel McCormick at the Chicago Tribune a zillion
Speaker 1: years ago. Here is Hass writing in foreign affairs, and
Speaker 1: he is absolutely blistering. No other way to put it.
Speaker 1: There is a paradigm shift in the United States approach
Speaker 1: to the world. The new paradigm dismisses the court tenant
Speaker 1: of our twentieth century approach that the United States has
Speaker 1: a vital stake in a broader global system. Ambassador has
Speaker 1: are we all reading the Chicago Tribune? Are we going
Speaker 1: back to my grandfather's age. I wouldn't call it quite
Speaker 1: that extreme. The United States under the last two administrations
Speaker 1: both Mr Trump and Mr Biden has a fairly muscular
Speaker 1: policy towards China. So I wouldn't call it isolationism, but
Speaker 1: it's a narrowism. It's a domestic first. It doesn't particularly
Speaker 1: concern itself with building or even joining many international arrangements
Speaker 1: or or or institutions. There really is a domestic first
Speaker 1: approach to the world. How do we minimize what we
Speaker 1: do in the world? Are for instant Laquix interviewed Secretary B.
Speaker 1: Lincoln in Paris in the last I think forty eight
Speaker 1: hours are you Are you conflating Anthony B. Lincoln with
Speaker 1: Rex Tillerson? Yea no, But this administration has been surprisingly
Speaker 1: maladroid and its diplomacy. You've got all these people who
Speaker 1: speak French fluently. You would have thought they could have
Speaker 1: picked up the phone several months ago and told the French, look,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense to sell these diesel submarines to Australia.
Speaker 1: They don't have the range, they're not sufficiently quiet. But
Speaker 1: we want to get you involved in Asia. We want
Speaker 1: to find a way to compensate you for the lost
Speaker 1: submarine cell. This ought to have been within the realm
Speaker 1: of doable diplomacy. That's what the Brits frenchying would call
Speaker 1: an own goal. Richard, How significant is it that we're
Speaker 1: talking this morning about the fairy tale a lot of
Speaker 1: your Putin coming to the rescue for the energy situation
Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom in Europe? More broadly, is this
Speaker 1: signify the changing world regime? But what this signifies is
Speaker 1: that Vladimir Putin has played his his limited cards very well,
Speaker 1: whether it's his nuclear, his conventional military, his cyber obviously,
Speaker 1: his his his energy, and he's he's got outsize influence
Speaker 1: in Europe, and the Europeans have it into it, whether
Speaker 1: it's here with nord Stream to the Germans and the Brits,
Speaker 1: they've not been strategic and they've allowed themselves to become dependent.
Speaker 1: So today Putin Gibbeth, but tomorrow he could take it away. Well.
Speaker 1: But it's interesting that the likes of Germany, the biggest,
Speaker 1: most robust economy in the euroregion, is facing increasing dependency
Speaker 1: not only on Vladimir Putin, but also on j and
Speaker 1: Ping at the time when the United States is actually
Speaker 1: having a serious issue with both nations. I'm wondering how
Speaker 1: much the reason for this is because of the increasing
Speaker 1: isolationism of the United States. I don't think so. I
Speaker 1: think it's more European commercialism, a lack of a serious
Speaker 1: strategic culture, putting economics UH first, and almost not taking
Speaker 1: a serious role in the world. It's particularly true of
Speaker 1: Germany under under Merkel. I know she's getting lots of,
Speaker 1: you know, positive things said about her, but the lack
Speaker 1: of a strategic approach to the world I think was remarkable. No,
Speaker 1: you're seeing similar things. What you're seeing in Germany many
Speaker 1: parts of Europe. What you're seeing in the United States
Speaker 1: is a domestic first as we may change the label here,
Speaker 1: and they used to call it here America first. Now
Speaker 1: we've got foreign policy for the middle class. But the
Speaker 1: myopi is pretty similar Richard, as I want to go
Speaker 1: back to foreign policy begins at home. And of course
Speaker 1: the movie was great, A World in Disarray. When you
Speaker 1: wrote a world in disarray, you could not imagine the
Speaker 1: fiscal cast. John Farrell was just describing the debt ceiling,
Speaker 1: the kiketh of the can down the road. How do
Speaker 1: we prosecute whatever foreign policy with our domestic front in
Speaker 1: such disarray? Look, the short answers, we can't do it. Well,
Speaker 1: the disarray means we're no longer a model that others
Speaker 1: respect or want to emulate. We're not predictable, we're not
Speaker 1: reliable to raises fundamental questions for those Tom, who are
Speaker 1: dependent upon us, were security for their security. They look
Speaker 1: at us and they wonder is that a wife's choice.
Speaker 1: Let me give you mentioned some of my previous books.
Speaker 1: The book I'm writing out, Tom is on you're talking about.
Speaker 1: It's on America's domestic turmoil, on the threats to American democracy.
Speaker 1: I actually think the greatest threat to our standing in
Speaker 1: the world, to our standing at home, is not China
Speaker 1: or North Korea, or Ran or Russia. It's ourselves. It's
Speaker 1: farign policy, farn policies that does begin at home. It
Speaker 1: doesn't end there. It begins here, and right now our
Speaker 1: base is extraordinarily weak. Well, then how does the moderate
Speaker 1: take the high ground? I mean, we're advantage here, Richard
Speaker 1: auson that John Farrell looks at the zaneing nous of
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with your every day you know, we
Speaker 1: we look like we're on another planet. How do we
Speaker 1: rediscover the middle ground of American politics? If I'd be
Speaker 1: answered to that, Tom I'd put it out there, and
Speaker 1: you know, I try to bring it about. I think
Speaker 1: there's things we can do over time. A lot of
Speaker 1: talk about renewing civics education. Americans don't understand why democracy
Speaker 1: is valuable, what they have to do to make it.
Speaker 1: But we're also going to need some profiles encourage. Kennedy's
Speaker 1: book needs to find some new people to live in.
Speaker 1: The Republican performance the debt ceiling was really disappointing. The Romneys,
Speaker 1: the raw Apportman's why are these serious centrist Republicans following
Speaker 1: an irresponsible path? I do not understand that, Richard. How
Speaker 1: do you talk about the idea of globalization as being
Speaker 1: a positive thing at a time when they're increasing supply
Speaker 1: chain disruptions, when you have some of the consequences of
Speaker 1: globalization still impeding a labor market, or at least that
Speaker 1: is the perception here in the United States. I mainly
Speaker 1: see globalization as a thing. It's both positive and negative,
Speaker 1: and the challenges to push back against the negatives and
Speaker 1: take advantage of the positives. I think trade is blamed
Speaker 1: for all sorts of problems which were really about productivity increases,
Speaker 1: about technology innovation. People haven't done a good job of
Speaker 1: explaining it. But but that accounts for the fact that
Speaker 1: we don't have a trade policy the ahead of the US.
Speaker 1: The U S. Trade representative gave a speech the other day.
Speaker 1: It was essentially it could have been given by a
Speaker 1: Trump administration official. Meanwhile, the United States is not doing
Speaker 1: anything to reform the w t O. We're not participating
Speaker 1: in the principal trade agreement in the Asia Pacific region.
Speaker 1: We are hurting American workers across the board. We're hurting
Speaker 1: ourselves strategically, so we pay it across an incredible price
Speaker 1: for this rejection of globalization quote unquote Richard, thank you, sir,
Speaker 1: as always great to have you with us on the program.
Speaker 1: Richard House, the Council on Foreign Relations Presidents an important interview.
Speaker 1: Now to summarize and really we could spend an hour
Speaker 1: on this discussion with no bar Afian of Modenner. It
Speaker 1: is Mode M O. D E. R n A. He
Speaker 1: is co founder and chairman and front and center worldwide
Speaker 1: with where we are with his terrific horrific I should
Speaker 1: say pandemic as well. Dr Fan, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. I want to go back to Harold
Speaker 1: Edgerton in M I T. You have two degrees from
Speaker 1: M I T. You personify the excellence of biochemistry and
Speaker 1: bio engineering. What is next for you? Harold Edgerton? Always
Speaker 1: move forward in optics? How do you move forward after
Speaker 1: the two thousand twenty you've had? Uh? Well, thanks for
Speaker 1: having me and thanks for their kind words to say
Speaker 1: flattering comparison to Dr Edgerton. And perhaps when I'm done
Speaker 1: doing what I'm doing, it might be more apt than now,
Speaker 1: or I've got a long way to go. But basically,
Speaker 1: as you may know, through my company Collection Pioneering, we
Speaker 1: have a platform through which we've able to make innovations
Speaker 1: that might otherwise exist years from now bring them forward.
Speaker 1: And it's a process that we've followed for a number
Speaker 1: of years. We have a team of over a hundred
Speaker 1: scientists engineers to do this and out of that have
Speaker 1: come multiple straight through platforms, Maderna being an important one,
Speaker 1: but several dozen others which are working on some important
Speaker 1: problems in in from batting disease as well as allowing
Speaker 1: for more sustainable development in agriculture, et cetera. So a
Speaker 1: lot of problems left unsolved, and so that's all the
Speaker 1: people working on Dr Effie, and you need to expand
Speaker 1: to the frontier economies of this world. It's easy to
Speaker 1: bring mode RNA to America, to Europe, etcetera. Do you
Speaker 1: have to bring the fanciness of the present vaccines to
Speaker 1: Africa or do you have to find a different process,
Speaker 1: a different technology. I don't think you needed as a technology.
Speaker 1: And as you may be aware, we just announced today
Speaker 1: the commitment environment Arena to establish the first ever mrn
Speaker 1: A manufacturing plants of drug substance as well as the
Speaker 1: faux finished product UM. We will we will select the
Speaker 1: location in the content of Africa over the coming months
Speaker 1: through discussions that are ongoing. But we announced today that
Speaker 1: we had planned to half production capacity up to five
Speaker 1: a million doses of vaccines, multiple different vaccines that we
Speaker 1: have under development as well as of course I've needed
Speaker 1: for COVID, and that will involve an investment up the
Speaker 1: potom million dollars. Is certainly sourcing right now. So that's
Speaker 1: one approach. But I should say the technology there work.
Speaker 1: Sensy of course, could also mean substificated US to be
Speaker 1: pretty simple, it's an information molecule. Everything else has been
Speaker 1: used for vaccines before. I've been dramatically more complex than this.
Speaker 1: This is a pure information molecule, and if you get
Speaker 1: it safely administered, ourselves know what to do with it,
Speaker 1: and they make the emergine that's needed to cause the
Speaker 1: immune system to attack any kind of threat, including the
Speaker 1: respiratory viruses that we're going after. So so I think
Speaker 1: the technology is actually lends itself to deployment globally. Doctor,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at your shares. MODERNA shares up more than
Speaker 1: eight hundred nine percent since the end of March last year.
Speaker 1: There's been a huge surge of money into the pharmaceutical
Speaker 1: industry on the heels of the m R and A advancements,
Speaker 1: and also because there does seem to suddenly be more
Speaker 1: money for vaccines. How much is this going to be
Speaker 1: consistent that more money will continually be deployed to vaccine
Speaker 1: development at a time when traditionally this has really seen
Speaker 1: a dearth of investment. Well, you're making a good observation
Speaker 1: in that remarkably the most effective pharmaceutical company, which is
Speaker 1: actually our own and use system that we carry around
Speaker 1: with this every single day's saying more lized, it's spots
Speaker 1: back more viruses, and it's within US, and yet historically
Speaker 1: we have no real access to being able to use
Speaker 1: it on our behalf, and so occasionally people of their
Speaker 1: own vaccines over decades of work, and that's why it's
Speaker 1: been the back waters of the farmer industry. I'm very
Speaker 1: pleased to see the people have seen a proof concept
Speaker 1: of what vaccines can do. They're in neatly powerful if
Speaker 1: you know how to control them, and so I think
Speaker 1: that that money is not just kind of following a
Speaker 1: short term opportunity that recognizes a real shift in what's
Speaker 1: civil and our effective new system can be. I should
Speaker 1: also say, though, that another phenomenon is driving I think
Speaker 1: the capital that has to do with a shift in
Speaker 1: this industry from being a rather probabilistic shocks on goal.
Speaker 1: We call it in the industry kind of almost lottery,
Speaker 1: where you've been on a lot of different drugs and
Speaker 1: maybe one or two out of a fifty naked versus
Speaker 1: a gradually more deterministic activity. But that I don't mean
Speaker 1: that everything we do will work, but that we should
Speaker 1: expect many things, if not most two works. It's a
Speaker 1: question of iterating and learning and making better and better products.
Speaker 1: That has not been the investment pieces of the pharmaceutical industry,
Speaker 1: and so I think, well, the beginning stages of where
Speaker 1: this begins to look more like tech and less like
Speaker 1: this complicated speculative activity the Bifectors went for the fully
Speaker 1: clive years I've been in it interesting. Mr Affian is
Speaker 1: great to catch up. Let's continue this conversation another time
Speaker 1: there went in on how much that industry is set
Speaker 1: to change. She is absolutely exquisite at the microeconomics and
Speaker 1: micro dynamics, the price theory of hydrocarbons em and joins
Speaker 1: us some energy aspects we've tried for three days, I think,
Speaker 1: to get around the show. We're thrilled she could join
Speaker 1: us at this morning, Emerita. When you look at the
Speaker 1: martial Ian cross of demand and supply, what's the single
Speaker 1: thing our listeners are viewers need to know what's the
Speaker 1: dynamics of oil price and supply demand right now? Well,
Speaker 1: you flattered me Tom firstly, but I'll say this much
Speaker 1: that look, infantries around the world are extremely low everywhere,
Speaker 1: and that is ultimately the reason because supply just isn't
Speaker 1: keeping up with demand. Yes, open aspect capacity, but it
Speaker 1: is choosing to bring back production slowly because there are
Speaker 1: a lot of uncertainties going into the northern hemisphere winter.
Speaker 1: We don't know whether there's going to be COVID flare ups,
Speaker 1: so fair enough they're being cautious, but infantry, every crude particularly,
Speaker 1: but even products very very low. When you look at
Speaker 1: inventory dynamics and your guestimates, your forecast, how far out
Speaker 1: does a pro like you look given what you just said,
Speaker 1: are you trying to guess out a week or a month,
Speaker 1: a quarter? How what's the length of the guests right
Speaker 1: now given these growing demand, Well, we do it all
Speaker 1: the way through to the end of next year, so
Speaker 1: we try and at least have a twelve to eighteen
Speaker 1: month period for the short am outlook. But of course,
Speaker 1: you know, it does become less and less certain the
Speaker 1: further out you go. For the next three months, we
Speaker 1: can be a lot more certain given all the kind
Speaker 1: of high frequency data that we are looking at. And Richa,
Speaker 1: we had two pieces of verbal intervention yesterday, one from
Speaker 1: the Russian president and another from the Energy secretary here
Speaker 1: in the United States, Secretary Grand Home. Out of those two,
Speaker 1: which one or both are actually credible statements? What if
Speaker 1: I said neither, But honestly, I think jokes are part
Speaker 1: of the reality. Is what we've seen from the White
Speaker 1: House in particular is that they're not talking about an
Speaker 1: SPR release as an imminent policy tool. This was a
Speaker 1: question asked and the answer was that, yes, of course,
Speaker 1: all options are on the table. Apec says that to
Speaker 1: us all the time, all options are on the table.
Speaker 1: The key to remember is that the Biden administration is
Speaker 1: very very keen to have low gas line prices for consumers,
Speaker 1: so we should always keep that in mind. And if
Speaker 1: prices continue to go up and overheat, then yes, they
Speaker 1: will be putting more pressure on OPEC, and yes, then
Speaker 1: SPR can become a tool with regards to gas. And
Speaker 1: what Prutin said, you know, the reality is that Russian
Speaker 1: gas infantries are low. Even if they wanted to increase exports,
Speaker 1: they have to refill infantries themselves, and that's why europe.
Speaker 1: European gas prices are so so high. Again, stocks are
Speaker 1: very very low in Europe. So frame winter for me
Speaker 1: and RATEA. I'm trying to understand how it's headed. The
Speaker 1: oil story is to what happens with gas. Given we're
Speaker 1: having a bigger conversation about substitution. Now, what does that
Speaker 1: look like for you through a cult winter in Europe.
Speaker 1: I think if it's a cold winter, um, we just
Speaker 1: have to be prepared for very very high gas and
Speaker 1: oil prices. To your point, I mean, yes, the substitution
Speaker 1: in Europe, it's actually very small because there are a
Speaker 1: lot of environmental restrictions. The place to look out for
Speaker 1: will be actually in the US and particularly on the
Speaker 1: East Coast. You can get more heating oil burn even
Speaker 1: in Asia, Japan can burn more fuel oil, so that
Speaker 1: will again push up prices. So gas and oil kind
Speaker 1: of pull each other up. But ultimately, you know, this
Speaker 1: is a fallout of energy transition, the policies of Western
Speaker 1: policymakers where you've retired coal file plans before demand has
Speaker 1: come off. So we are going to be in this
Speaker 1: era of kind of high fossil fuel or high energy
Speaker 1: prices till demand for fossil fuel comes off, and that's
Speaker 1: going to be that's still years away. Well and read that,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what I wanted to go. What is the
Speaker 1: correct broader narrative to view the recent increases in oil prices?
Speaker 1: Is it what you're just talking about the idea of
Speaker 1: the fallout from the mismatches here in energy policy and
Speaker 1: a stiflationary like tige trend or is it recovery the
Speaker 1: fact that demand is increasing at a time that seems
Speaker 1: to be faster than supplies can come back online. I mean,
Speaker 1: of course, it's a combination of both. In the latter
Speaker 1: point that you're making, I mean, you can't ignore that. Yes,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of pent up demand after COVID and
Speaker 1: if anything, in a way, COVID's kind of brought more
Speaker 1: demand to the market because people just want to go
Speaker 1: get on and you know, whether it be driving or flying.
Speaker 1: But the underlying narrative is absolutely about energy transition and
Speaker 1: the choices policy makers will have to make, because these
Speaker 1: are very stark choices that potentially need to be make
Speaker 1: as soon as this winter. Are you going to have
Speaker 1: rolling blackouts? Are you going to sacrifice economic growth? And
Speaker 1: this is something you know, we have been talking about
Speaker 1: for a while. There is no investment in oil. That's
Speaker 1: why this is a structural move higher in oil prices.
Speaker 1: This is a structural move higher in gas prices. Not
Speaker 1: saying gas will stay here, it will come off, but
Speaker 1: it will still remain much higher than it has been
Speaker 1: for the last ten years and rata. Thank you for
Speaker 1: waynkin and great to catch up. As always, they close
Speaker 1: somewody to send that of energy aspects right now, Sarah House.
Speaker 1: It helps us with the jobs report wells fargal securities
Speaker 1: and of course all of this back to the tradition
Speaker 1: of the Great John Sylvia. They go deeper. Sarah House,
Speaker 1: you and your team have looked at this pandemic, our
Speaker 1: labor dynamics and women. How are women doing within the
Speaker 1: pandemic and within the jobs reports we see tomorrow. So
Speaker 1: women are still lagging behind in terms of the labor
Speaker 1: market recovery, so particularly when it comes to mothers, just
Speaker 1: given the childcare considerations that women and parents generally have
Speaker 1: had to contend with. But you know, we've seen it
Speaker 1: disproportionately on on women. So for example, the labor force
Speaker 1: participation rate of mothers has declined about five times the
Speaker 1: amount as as we've seen for men. So I think
Speaker 1: as we head into the fall, though, we have seen
Speaker 1: some of those burdens and begin to ease, and so
Speaker 1: I think when we look ahead we are expecting to
Speaker 1: see some improvements in the labor supply. I think there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of hype around September and just the
Speaker 1: calendar turning there between schools being back and the unemployment
Speaker 1: insurance benefits ending in all states, and I think you'll
Speaker 1: see some incremental improvement. That these are dynamics and issues
Speaker 1: that are going to take months to play out. Let's
Speaker 1: go back to your work at London School of Economics
Speaker 1: on development. Let's look at national development within three point
Speaker 1: five trillion, whatever the number is going to be of
Speaker 1: social programs forward, is some form of US European like
Speaker 1: childcare the most productive way to get more women employed.
Speaker 1: I think it could certainly help. So we've seen labor
Speaker 1: force participation among women in the US. We used to
Speaker 1: lead the pack back in the late nineties early two thousands,
Speaker 1: and we've just continued to follow behind. It's because we
Speaker 1: haven't made a lot of those investments in childcare. So
Speaker 1: if you look at the labor force participation rate among
Speaker 1: women with if children under under the age of six,
Speaker 1: it's about ten percentage points lower than school age children,
Speaker 1: which I think really speaks to the importance of a
Speaker 1: more robust childcare system in allowing women and you know,
Speaker 1: basically a large share of your population to to work
Speaker 1: and contribute to the overall economy. In the meantime, Sarah,
Speaker 1: we've seen that participation rate is broadly continue to remain
Speaker 1: far below where it was pre pandemic. How do you
Speaker 1: look at this rate to determine the tightness of the
Speaker 1: labor market, considering that some of these people may never
Speaker 1: come back to the labor market. Well, I think it's
Speaker 1: still a big question in terms of what extent workers
Speaker 1: do come back. So you I think some of the
Speaker 1: issues that are keeping workers on the sideline are more
Speaker 1: temporary in nature. I think, you know, some of the
Speaker 1: childcare issues related to at least those parents of school
Speaker 1: aged children where they were having to guide their children
Speaker 1: through remote learning. Perhaps not fully sure how consistently they'll
Speaker 1: be back in the classroom this fall. But I think
Speaker 1: there's questions over Okay, to what extent is this permanent.
Speaker 1: You know, we've seen substantial retirements. If you look at
Speaker 1: labor force participation across age, it's you recovered about half
Speaker 1: its loss for for prime age workers, but it hasn't
Speaker 1: gone anywhere for your your older workers. So those sixty
Speaker 1: five are older, and so I think we've seen um
Speaker 1: some permanent loss of labor of labor supply, although I
Speaker 1: still think there's there's still a decent amount of latent
Speaker 1: supply on the sidelines that can can come into the
Speaker 1: labor market over the next year. John, this is one
Speaker 1: of the most confusing aspects to me out there, the
Speaker 1: idea that we don't have a sense of how many
Speaker 1: people are going to return, how many people have retired,
Speaker 1: who has found a new job, what these frictions are.
Speaker 1: I mean, some of the mysteries underputting the labor mark.
Speaker 1: How much slack is that? How tig is this labor market?
Speaker 1: How loose is I've got no idea. Let's make it
Speaker 1: very simple, Sarah, big question for this market into tomorrow.
Speaker 1: How low is the bar for the Fed to execute
Speaker 1: in any November. How low is it? I think Palace
Speaker 1: at the bar fairly low. So in his press conference
Speaker 1: coming out of the last Fence meeting, all he said
Speaker 1: they only need to see a reasonably good report. It
Speaker 1: does not need to be a knockout. So what could
Speaker 1: be reasonably good? I think probably anywhere around three fifty
Speaker 1: or higher would tick that box. So that's still well
Speaker 1: above even the best year that we saw over the
Speaker 1: last cycle, where the run rate um in that best
Speaker 1: year was about two hundred sixty thousand, and so I
Speaker 1: think given that you have seen directionally some improvement when
Speaker 1: it comes to the health situation again, some of these
Speaker 1: supply constraints easing. I think we should see the payroll
Speaker 1: report tomorrow clear that bar Sarah, Thank you Sarah House.
Speaker 1: Then have last found our securities whanking on the laper
Speaker 1: market report on what it makes for they fed. This
Speaker 1: is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join us
Speaker 1: live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern 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 In. This is Bloomberg m