Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene Jay Leie.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, and of course, on the Bloomberg. Our
Speaker 1: top story. I RAN's striking back, firing more than a
Speaker 1: dozen miss outside the Rocky Air basis hosting US troops.
Speaker 1: Foreign Minister Muhammed jabats a Reef, tweeting the following around,
Speaker 1: concluded proportionate measures in self defense, adding we do not
Speaker 1: seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
Speaker 1: The focus now assessing the damage done, US official insisting
Speaker 1: there were no US casualties, and, as Tom points out,
Speaker 1: the President expected to address the nation later today. Here's
Speaker 1: to take from Eurasia Group quote it RAN's attacks appear
Speaker 1: designed for maximum domestic effect with a minimum escalatory risk.
Speaker 1: Trump will likely declined to retaliate militarily. Eurisia joined us now,
Speaker 1: Henry rhyme, you write a group global macro analysts joined
Speaker 1: us on the phone. Henry, great to catch up with you.
Speaker 1: Walk me through what gives you the conviction that Iran
Speaker 1: has managed to appease the discontent at home and minimize
Speaker 1: the prospect of escalatory risk in the region. Hi, good morning,
Speaker 1: Tom and John. I think at this point what our
Speaker 1: our our biggest question going into last night was what
Speaker 1: Trump would do once I ran strikes back. We were
Speaker 1: fairly convinced that Iran would would would do so. The
Speaker 1: domestic pressure was extreme, and and and and I think
Speaker 1: looking at what Iran pulled off last night with no
Speaker 1: US casualties and a clear statement from the leadership that
Speaker 1: that that this round is over, I think gives us
Speaker 1: confidence that the President can come out today and say
Speaker 1: mission accomplished, essentially a perhaps a speak a speech version
Speaker 1: of his tweet last night. All as well, the last
Speaker 1: time we said mission accomplished, that didn't work out so well.
Speaker 1: What is going to be the outcome of a president
Speaker 1: saying in his press conference mission accomplished. How will the
Speaker 1: that be taken by Capitol Hill and far more, how
Speaker 1: will that be taken by Tehran? Yeah, well, that's perhaps
Speaker 1: a bad choice of words on my part, but but
Speaker 1: I think the Iranians will uh take that positively. Frankly, Look,
Speaker 1: I mean, what we're not out of the wood. Yet
Speaker 1: I want to emphasize that point the the the Iranians.
Speaker 1: I I don't think consider the debt of the Sulimani
Speaker 1: assassination to be fully paid. And I think we'll see
Speaker 1: a return to the kind of low level attacks, especially
Speaker 1: in the cyber world and in terms of terrorism that
Speaker 1: that the Iranians have have perfected over the decades. But
Speaker 1: in terms of a risk of a direct military clash,
Speaker 1: I think assuming the President comes out and says we
Speaker 1: got the job done, then then then I think that
Speaker 1: risk has gone down, and let's talk about objective. Secretary
Speaker 1: Pompeio said he wanted to establish an effective deterrence. Question
Speaker 1: now is whether taking out General Selimony was enough. And
Speaker 1: after the events of last night, where they feel confident
Speaker 1: that they have established the terrance with that air strike
Speaker 1: last week, well I think they will. I think the
Speaker 1: the US will be able to point to this moment
Speaker 1: or quite a few I mean certainly years, if not longer,
Speaker 1: down down the line, to demonstrate a what it what
Speaker 1: it looks like when the US loses patients uh with
Speaker 1: with Iranian activity. So so I think that the Iranians
Speaker 1: are are fairly chastened by what happened, and you saw
Speaker 1: that with what they decided to do last night. They
Speaker 1: launched sophisticated ballistic missiles. Absolutely, but they caused no casualties
Speaker 1: and it was a single round, if you will, of retaliation.
Speaker 1: I think that demonstrates that the Iranians were were quite spooked.
Speaker 1: But Henry, this is so important. I mean, it's like
Speaker 1: a sterile kind of retaliation. Did you say there were
Speaker 1: no casualties at least based on President's reports? Is there
Speaker 1: any way to run a war? Well, I mean, uh,
Speaker 1: we were we we we were expecting the Iranians to
Speaker 1: incur some casualties. But but it looks as though there
Speaker 1: was a good deal of concern about what that um,
Speaker 1: what that would cause. I mean sometimes, I mean with
Speaker 1: with things like this, you often there is um there's
Speaker 1: risk in over interpreting actions of a of a kinetic
Speaker 1: type that we don't know if it was an accident
Speaker 1: or intentional that that nobody was killed here. But I
Speaker 1: think the totality of the events last night seemed to
Speaker 1: indicate that the Iranians, uh decided to tone it down
Speaker 1: a notch. Henry. I think what was surprising for many,
Speaker 1: even experts looking at the country is that this was
Speaker 1: a conventional strike launched from Iran by Iranian forces. It
Speaker 1: was direct forces to direct forces. This wasn't fire proxies,
Speaker 1: this wasn't at US allies. And I think that's what
Speaker 1: everyone was quite surprised by, Henry. Do you really think
Speaker 1: that we can just move on from that as the
Speaker 1: dice progress, Well, I mean, I think we can move
Speaker 1: on in terms of uh that there will be a
Speaker 1: return to a kind of low level of of conflict
Speaker 1: that's kind of pervaded over the past few years, and
Speaker 1: extraordinary levels of of tension and a good deal of concern,
Speaker 1: especially about the Iranian nuclear program, which I think is
Speaker 1: a clear option for the Iranian to continue to escalate
Speaker 1: at this point. But but I would say that the
Speaker 1: risk and and and and panic about a Iran US
Speaker 1: military to military confrontation that takes out shipping in the
Speaker 1: Persian Gulf, destroys energy infrastructure in a big way. I
Speaker 1: think that risk has gone way down after last night.
Speaker 1: If you're just joining us, Henry rome with US. Here's
Speaker 1: the Eurasia Group, and of course we've been featuring their
Speaker 1: top risks of and and we're thrilled the Dector room
Speaker 1: could be with us here a few days ago and
Speaker 1: now joins us on this important morning. What I heard
Speaker 1: this morning, Uh, Henry, from Rupert Harrison over in London
Speaker 1: with his government work with the United Kingdom, from Sir
Speaker 1: Tom Beckett with on the ground experience in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: and from Ambassador Hormats was very simple the tone of
Speaker 1: the President. What kind of tone should the President affect
Speaker 1: this morning? Well, I think the most uh productive from
Speaker 1: kind of trying to deescalate the conflicts would be not
Speaker 1: to go on a victory parade about the killing of
Speaker 1: General Sulamani, not to kind of rub it in the
Speaker 1: Iranians face, either the the assassination or the ineffectiveness of
Speaker 1: the UH missile launch last night. Unfortunately, I don't think
Speaker 1: that's the President's style. I mean the I think it
Speaker 1: would have things would have turned out quite differently if
Speaker 1: the US had actually just not claimed responsibility for the
Speaker 1: Silman on the assassination, as you know, in the kind
Speaker 1: of Israeli practice of just letting it be uh, letting
Speaker 1: it be vague. But but but I think the President
Speaker 1: will find it hard not to botht uh and and
Speaker 1: perhaps gloat a bit this morning. But I think at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, as as long as he's
Speaker 1: somewhat restrained, and I would hope that the past few
Speaker 1: days have demonstrated to him clearly the risks that going
Speaker 1: up against Iran can entail, then then then I would
Speaker 1: expect things to be all right. Henry. By now, we're
Speaker 1: all familiar with the president's approach, but over the last
Speaker 1: twelve hours he has been quite restrained. We have had
Speaker 1: a single twite suggesting he'll address the nation later this morning.
Speaker 1: It made me just wonder what was happening inside the
Speaker 1: White House last night when the president was so restrained
Speaker 1: the decision making process at the White House? Who is
Speaker 1: informing the decision making process? Are they providing a menu
Speaker 1: of responses for the President of United States again or
Speaker 1: strongly counseling for the president to do one thing over
Speaker 1: the other. Your thoughts on what's happening right now as
Speaker 1: the United States calculates its response, Sure, I would expect
Speaker 1: that that that that the military, as always, will provide
Speaker 1: him a range of of options. Though I think at
Speaker 1: this stage she will be strongly counseled to take this
Speaker 1: blow and uh call it a day, if you will.
Speaker 1: I think the risk of retaliating significantly and and having
Speaker 1: this spiral further is just very high. And I think
Speaker 1: he's at a he's at a point now politically where
Speaker 1: he can claim victory. Will final question for you, Henry
Speaker 1: China's role expected to be in the United States next
Speaker 1: week on January for a signing ceremony closer to the
Speaker 1: Iranian certainly more so than the United States. What do
Speaker 1: you think that role will be in the coming weeks,
Speaker 1: if they will establish one at all. So, I think
Speaker 1: from the Chinese point of view, their big objectives here
Speaker 1: with regards to Iran is no war and no nuclear
Speaker 1: weapon and everything else in between there is negotiable. Think
Speaker 1: as the Iranians continue to escalate on the nuclear program,
Speaker 1: the Chinese are one of the more important countries to
Speaker 1: watch about how much pressure they are on Iran to
Speaker 1: try to keep things contained. So, yes, they are closer
Speaker 1: to Iran, but they also have a lot of leverage,
Speaker 1: so I would expect them to play an active, albeit
Speaker 1: quiet role in trying to tone things down or urge
Speaker 1: the Iranian the tone things now. Andry Rome, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Will you raise your group this morning as
Speaker 1: we move through the morning, with the markets doing better.
Speaker 1: John Farro now in our studio is an important guests,
Speaker 1: an important guests. Indeed, great to have you with us.
Speaker 1: Pop hole mass kissing to associates, Vice Chairman, I'm best
Speaker 1: always great to catch up with you. The allies have gone,
Speaker 1: miss Where are they? Where are the Europeans? Why they
Speaker 1: not more vocal over the last week? Well, I think
Speaker 1: the US has kept Europe more or less out of
Speaker 1: its diplomacy on a wide range of issues. There are
Speaker 1: obviously major trade frictions uh and the US did not
Speaker 1: notify its allies with respect to the strike and the
Speaker 1: killing of General Solimani, and doesn't seem to have been
Speaker 1: engaging the Europeans on virtually anything that has to do
Speaker 1: with the Middle East, which is a major departure from
Speaker 1: the past, when the United States worked hand in glove
Speaker 1: with the Europeans on a wide range of Middle Eastern issues,
Speaker 1: not always convincingly, but at least it worked with them.
Speaker 1: There was a hope this morning that we avoid escalation risk,
Speaker 1: underlined by the fact that we're just hearing from a
Speaker 1: US official that there were no US casualties in those
Speaker 1: strikes overnight. But the question remains America's future in a rock?
Speaker 1: What is it? Bob Well? I think for the moment,
Speaker 1: now we understand that we need to do what we can.
Speaker 1: I hope we understand least to help stabilized a very
Speaker 1: unstable Iraqi situation. If Iraq continues to deteriorate and become
Speaker 1: more unstable, They're two beneficiaries. One is Iran. Iran's already
Speaker 1: extremely influential in Iraq because Iraq is predominantly a Sunni
Speaker 1: a Shia country, although Saddam was Sunny, the government now
Speaker 1: and most of the leaders are Shia. And the other
Speaker 1: is that the Russians, now having made major steps forward
Speaker 1: and increasing their influence in Syria, will now be aiming
Speaker 1: to increase their influence in Iraq as well. Putin's visit
Speaker 1: to Syria, I'm sure it was not an accident and
Speaker 1: probably was planned before the killing of Sulimani, but um
Speaker 1: now he is playing a major role in Syria and
Speaker 1: will probably attempt to do so to a greater degree
Speaker 1: in Iraq. The Russians and the Iranians don't always get along,
Speaker 1: but they both want to defeat Isis, and they both
Speaker 1: I think we'll be competing for influence but also trying
Speaker 1: to cooperate to the extent they can and and and
Speaker 1: Ron wants to get the US out of the region,
Speaker 1: so does Russia. They work together to do it or
Speaker 1: will they also have conflict between them. And that's the
Speaker 1: final point, is perhaps the most important point. When you
Speaker 1: try and illuminate the path forward, what the future looks like,
Speaker 1: you have to look at individual objectives and quite clearly
Speaker 1: the Iranians making it clear right at night their objective
Speaker 1: is not war, but their objective is to get the
Speaker 1: United States out of the region. How do they come
Speaker 1: about doing that, Well, that's a complicated thing. First of all,
Speaker 1: they have increased their influence in Baghdad as as we've seen.
Speaker 1: And second now they're going to portray the us UH
Speaker 1: in an adverse light as a result of all this
Speaker 1: and demonstrate that they UH have backed off and try
Speaker 1: to deescalate and I want to play a greater role.
Speaker 1: They don't want more tensions in the region. They're going
Speaker 1: to advertise that point as well. But the other is
Speaker 1: that they still want to demonstrate they're going to be
Speaker 1: tough on ISIS that ISIS is not defeated, and Iraq
Speaker 1: needs them to defeat ISIS. And if the US is
Speaker 1: an uncertain ally and an uncertain presence, then the Iraqi
Speaker 1: government will have to call on them to a greater
Speaker 1: degree to make sure ISSIS doesn't undergo a resurgence and
Speaker 1: visitor homs. You served the nation under both Republicans and
Speaker 1: Democrats over the years, the last tour of duty with
Speaker 1: Secretary Clinton and with President Obama. What do we most
Speaker 1: get wrong about the day of a given secretary of state?
Speaker 1: I mean we see Secretary of State Pompeo come out
Speaker 1: and make comments and that what's the behind the scenes
Speaker 1: reality for any secretary of state, particularly given this moment.
Speaker 1: Rule one for the secretary of State is make sure
Speaker 1: of two things. One that you have influence over the president,
Speaker 1: that the president listens to you, that you have access
Speaker 1: to the president, that you are heard uh not only
Speaker 1: by the President by but by his national security apparatus
Speaker 1: in the White House. But the second is that you
Speaker 1: understand what the president wants. Because the most confusing thing
Speaker 1: to other countries is if the Secretary of State says
Speaker 1: one thing or thinks one thing, and the president says
Speaker 1: or thinks something else. It's very confusing to both our
Speaker 1: allies because they don't know who to listen to and
Speaker 1: to our adversaries since they're not sure what to do,
Speaker 1: and therefore they tend to take advantage of those gaps.
Speaker 1: And John we saw that, of course with this question
Speaker 1: about the cultural targets within Iran, and that had to
Speaker 1: be when it's a final question, let's ask it. How
Speaker 1: much dayline is the between what Secretary Pompeio would like
Speaker 1: to do and what the President of United States ultimately wants.
Speaker 1: Hard to say at this point, but Secretary Pompeio has
Speaker 1: taken in general a much tougher line on Iran. The
Speaker 1: President ran for office on the ground, so pulling the
Speaker 1: US back from the Middle East in general, So there
Speaker 1: clearly are differences in emphasis. In the end, the President,
Speaker 1: of course prevails in these things. He's the commander in chief. Ambassador,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today. Ambassador Robert
Speaker 1: Hormess's with Kissinger Associates, joining us now in studio as
Speaker 1: a gentleman who's truly expert on this. Greg Ferrell was
Speaker 1: a distinguished career in journalism looking at process of courts,
Speaker 1: not criminality, not civil issues, but just simply the making
Speaker 1: of the process what is the process of this press conference?
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts after observing an hour? In five minutes?
Speaker 1: Greg Um, First of all, this is an extraordinary thing
Speaker 1: to have a chief executive fighting allegations in a different country.
Speaker 1: This the whole saga that's gotten to to this point.
Speaker 1: So good question. I was thinking about this. What's his
Speaker 1: point today? A Um, this should be. I think, like
Speaker 1: the prosecutors, he needs to make a case that the
Speaker 1: Japanese authorities are wrong, that there's something wrong with the system.
Speaker 1: That's a legitimate, you know, platform to take. I think
Speaker 1: he's getting into too much detail too soon. Um that
Speaker 1: a twenty minute summary of this is what's wrong. I'm
Speaker 1: happy to play this out over time. But he's like
Speaker 1: he's trying a case right now this morning and in
Speaker 1: in the study of this that you have done and
Speaker 1: you're truly expert in this. Does he hire Sullivan and
Speaker 1: Cromweller name another law firm to go out and represent
Speaker 1: him in Japan or with the Japanese legal system? Is
Speaker 1: he is outside of Japan? Can he do that? I
Speaker 1: don't know. I do know he's been handled by a
Speaker 1: number of major law firms, including Paul weiss Um where
Speaker 1: his primary U S firm over there. But I think
Speaker 1: that bridge has been burned. I think any like attempt
Speaker 1: by a firm to at least it too soon right now.
Speaker 1: And he's he's getting personal. He mentioned Pearl Harbor like
Speaker 1: you know, he's going ballistic right off. Ballistic is a
Speaker 1: professional legal phrase of journalists ues. We would not want
Speaker 1: to use it. Actually after thought went ballistic last night.
Speaker 1: Now that I think Greg, seriously here, what's the next
Speaker 1: step for him after this lengthy press conference in Q
Speaker 1: and A, Um, this continues to be a public relations battle. Um,
Speaker 1: he needs to radio. You gotta keep talking. Okay, sorry,
Speaker 1: except you're so thoughtful. You always got me to be slower.
Speaker 1: But he needs to keep up the public relations battle.
Speaker 1: I think he needs to bring other people in. He
Speaker 1: has to do a better job or at least continue
Speaker 1: with trying to demonstrate the the what he described as
Speaker 1: the patent unfairness of how he was treated in Japan.
Speaker 1: So this is going to go on for some time.
Speaker 1: I think ideally, if you could find a neutral third
Speaker 1: country like the US where something like this could be adjudicated, uh,
Speaker 1: that would be a you know, there must be a
Speaker 1: face saving way. I think that's what he's going to
Speaker 1: look for in the Japanese eventually might look for a
Speaker 1: face saving way without them backing down completely. Can he
Speaker 1: leave and go somewhere? Can he go very quickly here?
Speaker 1: Can he go to Paris? Can he come to New York? No?
Speaker 1: He can go to Paris, yes, New York no. Because
Speaker 1: because strangely, the United States signed an extradition treaty with Japan,
Speaker 1: just along with South Korea. I'm not I didn't. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure why this happened, but the fact that it
Speaker 1: does have it means that it doesn't mean US will
Speaker 1: necessarily have to turn him over, but it just you know,
Speaker 1: creates a legal mechanism for that to happen. Greg, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us on a short notice.
Speaker 1: Mr Ferrell truly expert on the travails of Mr Gone.
Speaker 1: The scope and scale of Africa is extraordinary and any
Speaker 1: time we could get a vision into it, it is
Speaker 1: quite important. There's a gentleman in Nigeria who, through family
Speaker 1: and his grandfather and great grandfather were quite successful in
Speaker 1: West African business. There is a gentleman in Nigeria who
Speaker 1: has done better than good David Rubinstein with a peer
Speaker 1: to peer conversation with Mr Dan Gotti of Nigeria. Here
Speaker 1: is Mr Rubenstein and the scope of Africa. Okay, so
Speaker 1: in terms of Africa itself generally, are you bullish on
Speaker 1: Africa's prospects as a place to in which people can
Speaker 1: invest private equity firms or industrial companies to invest. I
Speaker 1: think I'm very, very bullish when it comes to Africa,
Speaker 1: and it is the main reason David to they we
Speaker 1: have twenty billion dollars though I invest in all you
Speaker 1: know what tele which will finish by the end of
Speaker 1: next day. First quota of you, I mean in the
Speaker 1: next two years. Listen in the next two years, David
Speaker 1: Rubinstein speaking with Elko. Then go to Mr Rubinstein joins us. Now, David,
Speaker 1: what an interesting individual. Give our American audience a little
Speaker 1: scope and scale of who this gentleman is. Okay. Aliko
Speaker 1: Dante is the wealthiest man in Africa. So it's a
Speaker 1: continent of a billion plus people and he is by
Speaker 1: far the wealthiest person. Range. His net worth ranges from
Speaker 1: twenty to thirty billion, depending on the stock market by
Speaker 1: the time. Um he's a Nigerian. His he was from
Speaker 1: a very wealthy family, but he was not given money
Speaker 1: when he started, and he basically built the largest cement
Speaker 1: business in Nigeria and then the largest cement business in Africa.
Speaker 1: And he's used that to build into other areas petro chemicals,
Speaker 1: particularly building a large refinery, the largest refinery now in Nigeria. UM.
Speaker 1: He is a very honest person, very philanthropic. He's very
Speaker 1: involved with Bill Gates and philanthropic things in Africa and
Speaker 1: around the world. So he's quite pressive individual, very modest
Speaker 1: on assuming in Nigeria. He drives his own car around
Speaker 1: without security guards. UM. He's very accessible to people, so
Speaker 1: he's quite a likable person in addition to being very successful.
Speaker 1: And David, what's so extraordinary and I'd love for you
Speaker 1: to comment on this with your expertise at Carlyle. He
Speaker 1: did what's so hard to do. He didn't sell out
Speaker 1: to Lafarge years ago, did he? He did not. Um.
Speaker 1: Lafarge wanted to buy him and at the time he
Speaker 1: probably could have used Lafarge because he was struggling at
Speaker 1: the beginning. But he uh built this big business and
Speaker 1: it's by far the biggest cement business now. He was
Speaker 1: probably aided by the fact though he wasn't responsible for it.
Speaker 1: It's it's not easy to import cement into Nigeria, and
Speaker 1: so by building the biggest cement company in Nigeria, he
Speaker 1: had a very large market uh in which to work.
Speaker 1: But he's built cement businesses in other countries in Africa
Speaker 1: as well. So very impressive, very smart, low key. If
Speaker 1: you were to have dinner with him, you wouldn't realize
Speaker 1: he's fabulously wealthy or fabulously successful. Were very well known
Speaker 1: in Africa, very modest and unassuming David. It's interesting. This
Speaker 1: is a fascinating interview from my perspective because I just
Speaker 1: I was not aware of Mr Dante. Is he have
Speaker 1: any sense that he would like to raise his profile
Speaker 1: in the West. Well, you may know that from time
Speaker 1: to time you'll see ads on CNN, dan Gote Industries
Speaker 1: and so forth, and those are probably raising his profile
Speaker 1: a little bit. But most of his investments, I would say,
Speaker 1: far as I know, of his investments are really in Africa.
Speaker 1: He hasn't really diversified out of Africa yet. He might
Speaker 1: do that at some point. Um. He has a number
Speaker 1: of daughters and they will ultimately be involved in investing
Speaker 1: some of his money. No sons and he's uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a well respected person. He doesn't use politics to get ahead. Uh.
Speaker 1: He knows all the political figures, but he basically built
Speaker 1: a very big business and that's the source of his strength.
Speaker 1: One time for one more question, David Rubinsteter, And of
Speaker 1: course this goes to something John Farrell said to me.
Speaker 1: Farrell emailed and said, you've got to ask, do you
Speaker 1: have an up to eight on his desire for the
Speaker 1: number one Arsenal fan in the world to take out
Speaker 1: Arsenal give us the Rubenstein update. He is fascinated by,
Speaker 1: uh by what we what is called football, we call soccer,
Speaker 1: and I would say that, uh um, it's something that
Speaker 1: has an appeal to people in certain parts of the
Speaker 1: world that Americans probably can't understand. But it's much bigger
Speaker 1: to people in Africa or in Europe than football American
Speaker 1: football is to us, or to baseball is to us.
Speaker 1: And so he is a gigantic football fan. There's no
Speaker 1: doubt about it, exactly. David Rubenstein, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. David Rubinstein show Peer to Peer Conversations
Speaker 1: airs tonight on Bloomberg Television at nine pm. Wall Street Times.
Speaker 1: Speaking with the Dan got a Group founder president CEO
Speaker 1: Aliko dan Gote uh is interesting, richest man in Africa
Speaker 1: and twenty billion dollars. I didn't know about this guy
Speaker 1: at all. It's just extraordinary. You know. Some of the
Speaker 1: moves be created in Africa. Yeah, in a major shoutout
Speaker 1: to France and Laque was really driven for the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: study of what he has done for Nigeria. Paul. This
Speaker 1: hearkens back to when you and I were starting out
Speaker 1: in international investment. Your only option in most countries was
Speaker 1: by shares in the phone company for by shares in
Speaker 1: the cement company. That was really yet exactly without exaggeration,
Speaker 1: exactly and that you know, I kind of got an
Speaker 1: understanding of the cement business, the construction business when you
Speaker 1: started looking at Latin America years ago, and that was
Speaker 1: one of the ways to play the growth in developing
Speaker 1: markets such as Latin American. Of course, uh, that would
Speaker 1: obviously apply to Africa as well. So UM, I'm not surprising.
Speaker 1: I guess if you think about developing markets, developing economies,
Speaker 1: what do they need to build? Maybe that's what Jim
Speaker 1: O'Neal meant when he said brick right, the brick countries
Speaker 1: as well, anyways, David Rubinstein tonight and through the week
Speaker 1: when Mr Dangote on Africa. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you refer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio.