Speaker 1: Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane.
Speaker 1: Daily we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance,
Speaker 1: investment and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg John
Speaker 1: Farrell and Tom Keane and we welcome all of you,
Speaker 1: particularly and serious in examy in Texas and in the
Speaker 1: district of the Federal Reserve System of Texas with us
Speaker 1: Robert Kapp and he is President of the Chief Executive
Speaker 1: Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. One of
Speaker 1: the high points for my year was our extended conversation
Speaker 1: at the Council on Foreign Relations. Also one of the
Speaker 1: high points of my year was when Michael McKee was
Speaker 1: given the honor of final questions that chare yelling an
Speaker 1: insulted the chair by asking her which dot was her?
Speaker 1: Did you ask President Caplan of Dallas which dot was his? Did? Actually,
Speaker 1: we'll do it again, because, uh, you know, the idea
Speaker 1: of how many rate increases from the Fed next year
Speaker 1: is paramount uh on everybody's mind on Wall Street. So
Speaker 1: why don't we why don't we start with that oddly.
Speaker 1: For some reason, Rob Kaplan has always been a longtime
Speaker 1: fan of Bloomberg surveillance, so maybe he'll let us get
Speaker 1: away with this. Um. It's one of the My father
Speaker 1: darkened the door of a small college and college station,
Speaker 1: Texas where there were no girls at the time. Anyway,
Speaker 1: leaving all that aside, UH, where is your dot? And
Speaker 1: uh do you think three rate moves in two thousand
Speaker 1: eighteen is a reasonable assumption? Well, and I said to you, Uh,
Speaker 1: and we've talked before. UM, gradual and patient is my
Speaker 1: is my key comment. My own dot was three h
Speaker 1: Whether it will turn out that way, we'll have to see. Um.
Speaker 1: And and what would change? The economy could grow faster
Speaker 1: than I expect. Uh, we can make more progress on unemployment.
Speaker 1: Inflation might cause me to be higher than three or um. Uh.
Speaker 1: The tenure treasury is something I'll be watching. And what
Speaker 1: the tenure does will also influence how many rate increases
Speaker 1: next year. Yeld curve is something I'll be watching carefully,
Speaker 1: so that could augur the other way. The yield curve
Speaker 1: is flattening. UM, and I wonder whether what the signal
Speaker 1: really is there because most people would say there's a
Speaker 1: massive balance sheet over the ECB. There's a massive balance
Speaker 1: sheet over the b J, and that's why we've got
Speaker 1: this flattening. That's why the tenure yield's not rising. Do
Speaker 1: you see anything in that does that? Aren't you resonate
Speaker 1: with you? So it's a part of it, and by
Speaker 1: the way, I wish it was. I wish that was
Speaker 1: all of it. But my my own view is a
Speaker 1: part of what's going on is global liquidity. But I
Speaker 1: think the bigger part of why the tenure is muted
Speaker 1: is sluggish expectations for out year GDP growth. And what
Speaker 1: I mean by that if you look at what potential
Speaker 1: GDP growth is five years from now, I think it
Speaker 1: is actually declining from where we are today. Why is
Speaker 1: that happening? Aging demographic slowing workforce growth, and sluggish productivity
Speaker 1: unless the United States improves early childhood literacy, college readiness,
Speaker 1: and middle skills training. So I think the tenure treasury
Speaker 1: tells you more about expectations for future growth, which are sluggish.
Speaker 1: And so if you told me we were going to
Speaker 1: have solid GDP growth the next two or three years,
Speaker 1: trailing off to maybe below two percent five years from now,
Speaker 1: I would have expected a flatish yield curve, and that's
Speaker 1: what you're seeing. But you expect the need to address
Speaker 1: structural issues from your response just that. So what's the
Speaker 1: Fed's role in this? Fed? FED has a part in this,
Speaker 1: but not all of it. And I've been a big
Speaker 1: advocate of saying monetary policy is going to be a
Speaker 1: key part of economic policy the next five years. But
Speaker 1: structural reform. Worms were at the stage where we need
Speaker 1: structure re forms. What do I mean regulatory review is
Speaker 1: a good thing. Uh, the corporate The elements of the
Speaker 1: tax bill that involve corporate tax reform I think are constructive.
Speaker 1: We'll come back to the rest of it. I think
Speaker 1: beefing up education. We are lagging in this country in
Speaker 1: terms of educational attainment. It's hurting productivity. And lastly, middle
Speaker 1: skills training is going to be essential, particularly an economy
Speaker 1: where technology enabled disruption is accelerating, and I think we're
Speaker 1: lagging in those areas. You're talking about the tenure as
Speaker 1: an indicator of the market's view of long term potential growth.
Speaker 1: That is completely different than the man down in Washington
Speaker 1: who seems to think the tax cut is going to
Speaker 1: change the whole fundamental picture for the United States? Is
Speaker 1: the market wrong or is the president wrong? So let
Speaker 1: me answer it this way. I've been in the markets
Speaker 1: my entire adult life and been watching them since I
Speaker 1: was before I was an adult, And what I learned
Speaker 1: is I don't always know what the market is saying,
Speaker 1: but I know it always pays attention to try to
Speaker 1: decipher what it's saying. And I think the market is
Speaker 1: saying the bond market is saying expectations for future growth
Speaker 1: are sluggish, and I think it's worth paying attention to that.
Speaker 1: We know Chairman Paul is not listening this morning. He's
Speaker 1: at the dentist. Getting a root can help. I believe
Speaker 1: in Chris Kringle, You're gonna be giving the gift that
Speaker 1: keeps on giving to Jerome Powell, and that would be
Speaker 1: I know what you told me, what you're gonna buy you.
Speaker 1: You're gonna get him a copy of What you really
Speaker 1: Need to lead your heart, your wonderful book. You no
Speaker 1: doubt bought it off Amazon, Chapter four. You can't do
Speaker 1: this alone. Learning to build relationships and harness the power
Speaker 1: of a group Blogny. There were two cents. Every chairman
Speaker 1: is different. What do you presume will be the method
Speaker 1: of Governor Paul as he becomes chairman. So the good
Speaker 1: thing j Pale is outstanding. We've been working together for
Speaker 1: I've been working together with him for more than two years.
Speaker 1: He's been on the FED board for a number of years.
Speaker 1: And the most important thing, and I think Jay will
Speaker 1: be a great leader for this is debate, disagreement, UH
Speaker 1: and UM and to extend humanly policy possible a lack
Speaker 1: of politics, and I think Jay will take that approach.
Speaker 1: Give us a window of what happens at that long
Speaker 1: wooden table. So here here's what happens. We meet on
Speaker 1: Monday UH in d C, and we normally have committee meetings.
Speaker 1: The f O m C starts on Tuesday, and we
Speaker 1: sit around the table. Each of us talks for ten
Speaker 1: minutes and gives our views of the economy and and
Speaker 1: we debated out on day one, that's Tuesday. And on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: we each for ten minutes give our view on monetary policy.
Speaker 1: The chair goes last, as they do on Tuesday, and
Speaker 1: the chair goes last. We debate that out and then
Speaker 1: in the last thirteen seconds of the meeting we vote.
Speaker 1: And so the nice thing about the f O m
Speaker 1: C process, the federal up a market committee process is
Speaker 1: we debate, we disagree, and if someone in the room
Speaker 1: says something, regardless who they are, and I don't agree
Speaker 1: with it, I'm gonna raise my hand, and vice versa.
Speaker 1: And we're each trying to listen, carefully, learn and add insight.
Speaker 1: And so I think it's a pretty healthy dynamic. So
Speaker 1: the man from Minneapolis turns around on Wednesday afternoon and
Speaker 1: says to you guys, no, no, because there's a message
Speaker 1: in the bond market to slow down. You guys should
Speaker 1: slow down. What do you say back to the man
Speaker 1: from Minneapolis. So I think the nice thing, and I
Speaker 1: think it's it's excellent. I think it's a good thing
Speaker 1: that we have disagreement, we have people willing to dissent. Uh.
Speaker 1: We gotta remember, we've been debating. We've been debating around
Speaker 1: the table each of our views. So what happens in
Speaker 1: the last thirteen seconds of the meeting when we vote
Speaker 1: is not a surprise. We already know every each other's
Speaker 1: views and we debate amount and we disagree. Some of
Speaker 1: the disagreements get resolved and some go unresolved. And I
Speaker 1: think that's a good thing. If you my my, my
Speaker 1: rebuttal though, just so you know, is I believe we
Speaker 1: need to take a balanced approach to monetary policy. I'm
Speaker 1: more of a centrist. That means you you look at
Speaker 1: the degree of the full employment overshoot, which I think
Speaker 1: is going to be substantial in two thousand eighteen. You
Speaker 1: look at the degree of the inflation undershoot, which I've
Speaker 1: been a big advocate of, saying part of it is cyclical,
Speaker 1: but bigger part of it is structural. And when I
Speaker 1: weigh those two, I think we'd be well served here
Speaker 1: to remove accommodation, because what you don't want to do
Speaker 1: is wait too long to where your playing catch up. Michael,
Speaker 1: get one last one. Not in the Denver brodcast or
Speaker 1: the Dallas Cowboys, neither one having a season to remember. Um,
Speaker 1: although cowboys getting a little better. Well, the broadcast will
Speaker 1: debate that outside the studio, right. Uh back to that debate,
Speaker 1: though you say we get a substantial overshooting undershoot in
Speaker 1: terms of that unemployment rate, you got a number for that.
Speaker 1: Uh No, I mean there the full employment what is
Speaker 1: theory is a theotal radical level will know it in hindsight,
Speaker 1: But our judgment of the Dallas Fed is we're already
Speaker 1: either there or we're under it. Here's the number I
Speaker 1: look at. I like to look not at the unemployment rate.
Speaker 1: I look at you six. As we've mentioned before, unemployed
Speaker 1: plus discourage workers plus people working part time for economic
Speaker 1: reasons is eight percent, the prerecession low. We're basically at
Speaker 1: the prerecession. That's the number I watch quickly. Does the
Speaker 1: text legislation make the American economy more Texas Like? Uh,
Speaker 1: here's my here, here's there's here's the positive of them
Speaker 1: of this legislation. I think corporate tax reform, incentives for
Speaker 1: people to locate their businesses in the United States are positive.
Speaker 1: I think one of the posities of Texas why people
Speaker 1: are coming. It's a very attractive place to locate your business,
Speaker 1: and a lot of other things, uh no, no state tax, etcetera.
Speaker 1: The part that I'm concerned about is the part that's
Speaker 1: a tax cut financed by increasing the deficit makes a
Speaker 1: problem that's already unsustainable more challenging, and that's my concernin
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Michael McKee, Thank you so much
Speaker 1: as well. Dr Caplin, Thank you with the Dallas Fed
Speaker 1: as well, Champ Farron, Tom King's this is Bloomberg and
Speaker 1: now for the Minneapolis Fed the dissenter Neil cush Curry, Neil,
Speaker 1: wonderful to have you with us this morning. Is there
Speaker 1: a distinction between your descent and that of the descent
Speaker 1: of Mr Evans of Chicago or are they saying the
Speaker 1: same thing? First of all, Tom, nice to chat with you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. I think Charlie Evans and I
Speaker 1: are probably in the same place. We're both worried about
Speaker 1: low inflation and low inflation expectations and the risk that
Speaker 1: that could become anchored in the economy, and how difficult
Speaker 1: that is to deal with if it does become anchored. Neil,
Speaker 1: why is there a message in the bond market this
Speaker 1: time around, when there was such big balance sheets at
Speaker 1: the e c P and b l J keeping a
Speaker 1: lid on long term yields. Why did you still see
Speaker 1: a message in the yield curve? Well, I think the
Speaker 1: fact that I mean there's I mean, I agree term
Speaker 1: premiums are low now, and so some people say, well,
Speaker 1: this is different because of the big quis and the
Speaker 1: balance sheets that are out there. But the fact that
Speaker 1: the long end of the curve is not responding to
Speaker 1: our rate increases and not responding to the tax cut
Speaker 1: package that has now come together. I think there is
Speaker 1: information contained in that. I mean, even if the quees
Speaker 1: are still having some effect, I would still expect to
Speaker 1: see some movement in the long end of the curve
Speaker 1: in response to this new information. The fact that it's
Speaker 1: not and we're, in my opinion, we're sending a very
Speaker 1: hawkish signal by raising rates at a time of low
Speaker 1: and seemingly falling inflation. I think the FED is responsible
Speaker 1: for pushing up the front end and keeping a lid
Speaker 1: on the back end, so going full ward. I just
Speaker 1: wonder what this means for policy. It's the message in
Speaker 1: the yield curve recession risk, because most people would say
Speaker 1: it's not that, it's the message slowed down. Is that
Speaker 1: what you've taken away from its slowed down or recession risk?
Speaker 1: I think it's Look, it could be both. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, every time somebody says this time is different,
Speaker 1: they usually end up regretting saying that because it ends up.
Speaker 1: You know, the future looks more like history than we
Speaker 1: maybe we recognize at the time. Number one. Number two,
Speaker 1: the fact is, if the bond market is telling us
Speaker 1: that they've got low inflation expectations, or they're pricing in
Speaker 1: a local low neutral real interest rate, a low our
Speaker 1: star as we call it. Both of those should be
Speaker 1: telling us, hey, we should be cautious about raising interest
Speaker 1: rates further until we actually see the inflationary pressures building.
Speaker 1: You know, when I first dissented in March, I was
Speaker 1: just saying, I don't see any inflationary pressures building. Why
Speaker 1: are we raising rates. What's happened since then, inflation has
Speaker 1: actually fallen, not gone up. I think we should take
Speaker 1: these signals seriously. Each voice is just inctive. You are
Speaker 1: the engineer at the FED. Twenty years ago, you were
Speaker 1: in the acclaimed Sun Race, which was an intercollegiate solar
Speaker 1: car race Illinois. I believe did better than good within
Speaker 1: that race. Is there physics envy at the FED? Do
Speaker 1: you look around, you know, from a Newtonian standpoint of
Speaker 1: where you are, do you look around at people being
Speaker 1: too mathy, too certain in their physics versus what you
Speaker 1: observe within the economy. Well, I I do think there's
Speaker 1: some of that, and I think I've described it as
Speaker 1: a as a tension between faith and data. I think
Speaker 1: there's some folks who have tremendous faith in the Phillips
Speaker 1: curve that this is the way the economy works. Labor
Speaker 1: markets get tight, wages go up. That leads to inflation
Speaker 1: versus looking at the data. And I I keep coming
Speaker 1: back to what is the data actually telling us? And
Speaker 1: we're trying to assess supply and demand in the labor market.
Speaker 1: If you want to assess supply and demand in a market,
Speaker 1: let's start by looking at the price. What is the
Speaker 1: price telling us, Well, we know that wage growth is
Speaker 1: not accelerating. We've been expecting it to accelerate, but it's
Speaker 1: not accelerating. That tells me there's probably still more slack
Speaker 1: in the labor market and that's why we're not seeing
Speaker 1: these pressures building. Now, do you have any on data
Speaker 1: on how much lower unemployment can gug because we're in
Speaker 1: the low full as you're looking for something in the
Speaker 1: low threes. Well, I think that that number is uh,
Speaker 1: probably somewhat distorted right now because if you look at
Speaker 1: prime age labor force participation, so workers roughly fifty five,
Speaker 1: there are still more than a million workers on the sidelines.
Speaker 1: If you look at labor force participation and employment to
Speaker 1: population ratios. Now, can all million be brought back in?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it does seem to be that
Speaker 1: there's more slack in the labor market than that headline
Speaker 1: unemployment rates suggests. I mean, what we're learning is that
Speaker 1: the deep that the Great Recession was so destructive to
Speaker 1: the labor market, some of these measures are a little
Speaker 1: broken right now, that the measures themselves seem to be
Speaker 1: flawed right now. A lot of people are criticizing you,
Speaker 1: MR because you're looking simplistically at the dynamics of the
Speaker 1: yield curve in your essay on the Minieapolis FED website.
Speaker 1: You go right to it and you say, what is new?
Speaker 1: Is the flattening yield curve? Is it new in the
Speaker 1: recent months or is it new in FED history that
Speaker 1: we're getting these odds fixed income dynamics. No, it's new recently.
Speaker 1: I mean we've seen flattening yield curves before. We saw
Speaker 1: it in the mid two thousands, we saw it in
Speaker 1: the late nine nineties, and by the way, look at
Speaker 1: both of those periods. In the late nineties and in
Speaker 1: the mid two thousand's, the stock market was rocketing. So
Speaker 1: I don't take any comfort from the fact that the
Speaker 1: yield curve is flattening and the stock market is rocketing
Speaker 1: because it's done it in the past, and the bond
Speaker 1: market was right and the stock market was wrong. And
Speaker 1: I'm not predicting a recession. I'm simply saying inflation is low.
Speaker 1: It's been falling this year. Why are we in such
Speaker 1: a rush to go raise rates? Why not actually allow
Speaker 1: that inflation to reveal itself. Well, you know, we have
Speaker 1: very powerful tools to deal with high inflation. We are
Speaker 1: very limited tools to deal with low inflation soil, So
Speaker 1: why are we jumping the gun? The pushback will be
Speaker 1: financial distortions, negative yielding debt north and nine trillion dollars worldwide.
Speaker 1: There's a tradeoff here, and it's a tradeoff over about
Speaker 1: fifty basis points on PC. If you wait for inflation
Speaker 1: to get up towards two, financial distortions are going to
Speaker 1: get even bigger. You're not sensitive to the trade off
Speaker 1: between what's happening in financial markets and what might happen
Speaker 1: with PC. Well, this goes back to UH and I
Speaker 1: wrote a long piece on my website about this. This
Speaker 1: goes back to using interest rates to try to deal
Speaker 1: with the stock market bubble and how costly. That is
Speaker 1: you both know Alan Green's band declared that we had
Speaker 1: a rational exuberance. If he had used monetary policy to
Speaker 1: try to stop the stock market from rising, I think
Speaker 1: that would have been much more costly to the economy
Speaker 1: into workers than the actual correction that took place in
Speaker 1: two thousand and the fairly mild recession and that followed.
Speaker 1: So to me, we have to look out for financial
Speaker 1: stability risks like two thous the tech bubble, the tech
Speaker 1: bubble bursting was not a financial stability event. Neil Cosh Curry,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, greatly appreciated. He is a president
Speaker 1: of the Filler Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Greatly appreciate his
Speaker 1: attendance today. That's pretty good, John Capital and Cash Curry.
Speaker 1: That's quite a morning. That's quite a morning. Thank you
Speaker 1: to Michael McKee. This is Bloomberg. This is a joint
Speaker 1: and honor. He's out of Purdue and Penn State. His
Speaker 1: name is William Hoblin. And his experience in Washington with
Speaker 1: Alice Rivlett at CBO a few years ago and was
Speaker 1: senators first of Tennessee Senator to Manici as well, has
Speaker 1: been extraordinary and he is deeply experienced in the realities
Speaker 1: of text legislation. William Hoglan is UH very important voice
Speaker 1: at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. I'm gonna give
Speaker 1: you an open question, Bill, because you've got such experience,
Speaker 1: breadth and depth. Is you look at the different scenarios,
Speaker 1: the analysis of the last three or four days. What's
Speaker 1: the thing that sticks out to you in this website,
Speaker 1: this website and that website. Well, first of all, thank you,
Speaker 1: You're very kind of your introductions. Tom. What stands out
Speaker 1: to me, I guess as I look at this is
Speaker 1: the fact that the American public, in terms of polling
Speaker 1: on this particular UH piece of legislation, seems to be
Speaker 1: somewhat negative. That they perceive it as a privately probably
Speaker 1: mostly a benefit to the upper income and corporate America,
Speaker 1: no benefit to them. And I see this as juxtaposed
Speaker 1: up against a president who says, this is a cut
Speaker 1: for the middle This the reduction in tacts for middle class,
Speaker 1: it will grow the economy, and the and the benefits
Speaker 1: are straight. So there seems to be a real disconnect
Speaker 1: what Congress is doing and what the American public believe
Speaker 1: this legislation will do. I'm assuming William Hogan is going
Speaker 1: to tell us there's gray in the middle. Well, where's
Speaker 1: the gray? Is it towards the president or is it
Speaker 1: towards our listeners? Well, I think that that's a very
Speaker 1: good question. I think it's gray. I think there have
Speaker 1: been I think first of all, when you look at
Speaker 1: what will what is likely to happen when this is enacted,
Speaker 1: And as I understand, the Secretary of Minution and the
Speaker 1: Treasury Department are moving in I R. S is moving
Speaker 1: to change the withholding tables so that they will have
Speaker 1: an impact upon twenty withholding. It should be some benefits there.
Speaker 1: When you look at the legislation, it does have reductions
Speaker 1: across the board. It seems now some people will benefit,
Speaker 1: some people won't, but overall there will be a reduction
Speaker 1: in average tax take out there from the American public.
Speaker 1: How Ever, the big problem is, as I see it,
Speaker 1: is that a number of these and particularly the rate
Speaker 1: cuts and the child credits and things that the middle
Speaker 1: class America are looking for, go away in and so
Speaker 1: and yet the corporate tax cuts and the other larger
Speaker 1: tax cuts for for business continue on. So there is
Speaker 1: what I'm afraid this legislation is not going to unite
Speaker 1: UH the American public. I think it will continue to
Speaker 1: divide us and continue to add to the polarization that
Speaker 1: seems to be somewhat rather pervasive throughout the country today, Bill,
Speaker 1: I want to dig into the polarization and maybe draw
Speaker 1: distinction between perception and reality. On the perception. Is this
Speaker 1: a communication problem with this administration? Have they sold this
Speaker 1: plan badly over the last couple of months? Um, listen,
Speaker 1: I I I believe that we need a tax reform.
Speaker 1: I believe the President UH and the administration in Republican
Speaker 1: Democrats believe that we need tax reform. I think what's
Speaker 1: been done where they missed on this is and I
Speaker 1: no no surprise coming from the Bipartisan Policy Center where
Speaker 1: I worked today that I think it would have been
Speaker 1: a much more acceptable plan had they had. Republicans chose
Speaker 1: not to go the route of using what we call
Speaker 1: the budget reconciliation process. It requires them to only have
Speaker 1: a simple majority in the Senate to passage. Like the
Speaker 1: tax reform bill was done in a biparson way and
Speaker 1: it had sustainability in it. I think this particular legislation
Speaker 1: will have for Republicans. It will be similar to what
Speaker 1: President Obama had with the Affordable Care Act, where it
Speaker 1: was not passed with any Republican support, only Democratic support.
Speaker 1: Now we have a legislation only passing with Republican support.
Speaker 1: That means, from my perspective, we're going to be debating
Speaker 1: tax reform all the way through the next midterm and
Speaker 1: into the presidential election. Bill Hope. Then I want you
Speaker 1: to take this out to your perdue in the Lafayette
Speaker 1: zip code for seven nine o nine. Good morning, Pretty Materials.
Speaker 1: You've got a concrete come pretty out in western northern Illinois,
Speaker 1: south of Gary where perdue as I get it, okay,
Speaker 1: Pretty Materials. What does this mean to a normal small business,
Speaker 1: not some real estate tycoon on Fifth Avenue. What does
Speaker 1: it mean to a company like Pretty Materials? Well, I
Speaker 1: do think that the pass through changes that the changes
Speaker 1: in the past through the S corporation. I think the
Speaker 1: reductions there. I do think that there is a benefit
Speaker 1: to some of the smaller businesses and small business out there,
Speaker 1: the individuals and entrepreneurship. I do think that that is positive.
Speaker 1: I also think generally that that there that as we
Speaker 1: get into this and we start to see the implementation
Speaker 1: of it, and uh, and individuals uh maybe see a
Speaker 1: little bit more in their take home pay that that
Speaker 1: will benefit those individuals working for that particular company in
Speaker 1: northern Indiana and uh and has some been in So
Speaker 1: I think the issue here is it will be beneficial,
Speaker 1: it should be beneficial in the show term, and whether
Speaker 1: it's Bruce to sustain Mike, but that's fine. I still
Speaker 1: think it's Paul. We'll have to see Bill Hogland. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast.
Speaker 1: You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio