Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg P and L Podcast. I'm Pim
Speaker 1: Fox along with my co host Lisa Abramowitz. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews
Speaker 1: for you and your money, whether at the grocery store
Speaker 1: or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg P L Podcast
Speaker 1: on iTunes, SoundCloud and at Bloomberg dot com. We want
Speaker 1: to prepare for the upcoming Federal Reserve meeting that takes
Speaker 1: place this Wednesday. I want to bring Bob Michael, chief
Speaker 1: investment officer at JP Morgan Asset Management, who's here in
Speaker 1: the studio with us in Bloomberg eleventh. Three. Oh, Bob,
Speaker 1: is this FED meeting a non event at this point?
Speaker 1: Even if they raise interest rates by a whole quarter
Speaker 1: of a percentage point? I think they should make it.
Speaker 1: They shouldn't make it a non event. They should make
Speaker 1: it an event. They should use this as an opportunity
Speaker 1: to guide us for what they want want to do
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seventeen. Currently the market thinks they
Speaker 1: should do one or two tightenings. I think they should
Speaker 1: do at least four. I think they should go in March,
Speaker 1: and even if they do four, next year plus one
Speaker 1: in December. That's one in a quarter total. That only
Speaker 1: gets you to have Fed Funds target rate of one
Speaker 1: and a half to one in three quarters percent. Why
Speaker 1: do you think that they should hike four times next year?
Speaker 1: Because I think policy at a quarter to a half
Speaker 1: a percent, or even if they go in December and
Speaker 1: four times next year at one and a half to
Speaker 1: one in three quarters percent, looks out of sinc With
Speaker 1: the evolving economic reality. We talk as though they're already
Speaker 1: at a zero real Fed funds rate that they're at
Speaker 1: two to two and a quarter percent, they're at a
Speaker 1: quarter to a half a percent. They're at emergency levels,
Speaker 1: and the emergency isn't there anymore. Okay, you talk about
Speaker 1: the emergency not being there, But if you are a
Speaker 1: bondholder and you look at your portfolio, I would imagine
Speaker 1: that there's a little red light that might be flashing
Speaker 1: because of all the losses that depending upon when you
Speaker 1: purchased obviously your bonds. But I'm just looking at the
Speaker 1: thirty year for now three point one eight percent, the
Speaker 1: tenure at almost two and a half percent. Uh, When
Speaker 1: does a trade turn into an investment in the bond market? Now?
Speaker 1: I mean who's holding all that paper that's now under water.
Speaker 1: Well him, you're right it it's shaping up to be
Speaker 1: allowsy four years ahead to be a bond investor. That
Speaker 1: much is for sure. I think when you look at
Speaker 1: the FED funds rate relative to ten your treasuries, there
Speaker 1: is a pretty good spread. Now we've had a pretty
Speaker 1: dramatic backup, there are going to be investors who think
Speaker 1: that's far enough for the time being. I'm interested to
Speaker 1: see if the foreign investors come in and help take
Speaker 1: down the auctions. Certainly pension funds have an opportunity to
Speaker 1: de risk. You don't go on a straight line up.
Speaker 1: But I think as the normalization process evolves over the
Speaker 1: next couple of years, there will be by is a
Speaker 1: very backup or second guess. The steepness of the curve
Speaker 1: is telling me that the Fed is behind the curve,
Speaker 1: that the market recognizes they need to get to something
Speaker 1: that looks more neutral, and the longer they drag their feet,
Speaker 1: the steeper the curve will get and the higher long
Speaker 1: term meals will become. So here's what I'm confused about.
Speaker 1: A lot of people have come on this program and
Speaker 1: talked about how the effects of President Elect Trump's plans
Speaker 1: won't really be seen until the beginning of two and eighteen.
Speaker 1: What's going to sustain this feeling of optimism and growth
Speaker 1: over the next year, which will inevitably be uh somewhat
Speaker 1: contentious even among Republicans in the U. S. Congress. I mean,
Speaker 1: is it just the US and President electrumpers or something
Speaker 1: else giving you confidence? I think saying that, pardon me,
Speaker 1: that his plans won't be seeing the impact until two
Speaker 1: thousand and eighteen is a load of rubbish. It feels
Speaker 1: to me as though the Trump administration elect is already
Speaker 1: running the government. There in the news every day, they're
Speaker 1: talking about appointments. When you look about when you think
Speaker 1: about Tillerson's candidacy, it seems as though we're in the
Speaker 1: consultation period and they're taking feedback. I think his first
Speaker 1: hundred days are going to be breathtaking. I don't think
Speaker 1: there will be a lack. I expect you will see
Speaker 1: tax cuts by the end of the first quarter that
Speaker 1: will have an immediate impact. This is not a two
Speaker 1: thousand and eighteen thing. This is March two thousand and seventeen,
Speaker 1: and then you're going to start seeing the fiscal span
Speaker 1: and maybe the deregulation rolls out into two thousand and eighteen,
Speaker 1: but they are not dragging their feet. Bob. I just
Speaker 1: want to have you expand on on this because not
Speaker 1: many people have been so forthright in describing what they
Speaker 1: believe will happen in two thousand seventeen with the new administration.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned news and the control of the news cycle.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that that is really what is spurring
Speaker 1: people's attention because you've never had a president, for example,
Speaker 1: a president elect that is able to command the attention
Speaker 1: of the news media or the populace directly the way
Speaker 1: President elect Donald Trump has well, well, certainly he's understood
Speaker 1: the value of social media. I think one of the
Speaker 1: things that that we're talking about here is a bit
Speaker 1: of the disconnect of where the market's position, what we
Speaker 1: expect to happen, and the like. In my view, what's
Speaker 1: happened is there's been a five percent probability that's become
Speaker 1: a central case scenario. Another huge mover right now to
Speaker 1: movers CBS and Viacom CBS down more, Viacom down more
Speaker 1: than six percent. US is on news that Sherry Redstone
Speaker 1: withdrew her proposed merger of CBS Corp. And Viacom that
Speaker 1: ends the potential to create a new colossus in the
Speaker 1: television industry. With us to find out more is Alex Sherman,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News reporter covering all things entertainment and mergers and
Speaker 1: acquisitions related. Alex, can you explain what happened here? Maybe
Speaker 1: a week or so ago that things were looking increasingly
Speaker 1: unlikely that a deal would come together? And the why
Speaker 1: depends on which side you ask um. From Viacom standpoint,
Speaker 1: Viacom met with CBS just before Thanksgiving and has been
Speaker 1: waiting for weeks now to hear back from CBS. Viacom
Speaker 1: believes that their presentation to CBS was so strong for
Speaker 1: their standalone plan that CBS started to realize, we're going
Speaker 1: to have to pay a pretty big premium if if
Speaker 1: we want Viacom to go along with this. Uh, And
Speaker 1: maybe that made a deal more only because CBS didn't
Speaker 1: see Viacom's prospects as strong as Viacom did. From my
Speaker 1: CBS sources, the main issue was less Moonvez wanted de
Speaker 1: facto control over a combined CBS and Viacom company, which
Speaker 1: would mean he would have to convince Sherry Redstone, uh,
Speaker 1: some of the Redstone's daughter. Some of the Redstone owns
Speaker 1: National Amusements, which controls both companies. Less, Moonvez would have
Speaker 1: to convince Sherry to give him her voting shares or
Speaker 1: at least give him control in some sort of arrangement.
Speaker 1: Sherry Redstone was unwilling to do this, and this has
Speaker 1: been an ongoing conversation and perhaps that was really the
Speaker 1: sticking point about why this deal failed. Because the two
Speaker 1: sides realized we were going to reach an impast less
Speaker 1: Moonves didn't want to do the deal, and that's why
Speaker 1: this thing fell apart. You know, can I just say
Speaker 1: really quickly, it seems like the market is viewing this
Speaker 1: as a negative for both companies, is it. Well, it's
Speaker 1: certainly a negative for Viacom in the short term because
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people do not investors do
Speaker 1: not really have a lot of faith in Viacom's go
Speaker 1: alone plan. Viacom is a mess right now, so it's
Speaker 1: gonna need to be a complete turnaround story. Now. They
Speaker 1: do have a new CEO bought back who's replacing right,
Speaker 1: I mean, he's been there in nineteen years, absolutely, so
Speaker 1: he's been with the cup, so that may or may
Speaker 1: not give you faith exactly. Um, but at least he
Speaker 1: is aware of the fact that Viacom needs to do
Speaker 1: some drastic retooling. They have a whole bunch of networks
Speaker 1: that they own that are very much underperforming. Netflix has
Speaker 1: really cut into the affiliate fees they get paid from
Speaker 1: other PATV providers for their crown jewels of MTV, Nickelodeon,
Speaker 1: Comedy Central, etcetera. UM. So that's why I think Viacom
Speaker 1: shares are falling. CBS needs scale. So the question now
Speaker 1: for CBS will be is there someone else that CBS
Speaker 1: can potentially merge with? Is Sherry Redstone even willing to
Speaker 1: consider a merger with another company, because again, she's gonna
Speaker 1: want control theoretically of CBS. So that's why CBS is falling. Alex,
Speaker 1: I wonder if you could explain that if Sherry Redstone,
Speaker 1: through National Amusements, has a controlling stake in both Viacom
Speaker 1: and CBS, can't she just say to the board of CBS,
Speaker 1: this is what we're gonna do, this is what I
Speaker 1: want to do, and if you don't like it, we'll
Speaker 1: get someone else who will. She can, but I think
Speaker 1: she risks losing less moon Vez. If she does, he's
Speaker 1: that key to the whole program. And I think less
Speaker 1: Moon Vez is seen in the broader media industry as
Speaker 1: the gold standard of CEOs. He has when Viacom and
Speaker 1: CBS split back in two thousand six, because they were
Speaker 1: the same company. When they split, Viacom was seen as
Speaker 1: the crown jewel and CBS was seen as sort of
Speaker 1: the dregs because CBS had this underperforming broadcast network which
Speaker 1: didn't collect any of these affiliate fees at the time
Speaker 1: in two thousand six, uh, and they also had showtime.
Speaker 1: CBS has upended this whole uh the way the whole
Speaker 1: economic model works by basically saying, and by the way,
Speaker 1: all the broadcast channels did this, ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS.
Speaker 1: They said, we should be paid like the cable channels are.
Speaker 1: We're part of your cable bundle, and we have NFL
Speaker 1: football and all these hit primetime shows. Unless Movements has
Speaker 1: done a great job of keeping CBS number one season
Speaker 1: after season after season in entertainment. So the combination of
Speaker 1: sports getting these affiliate fees starting to get paid like
Speaker 1: a high priced cable channel two or three dollars per
Speaker 1: month pay TV distributor, which is right up there with
Speaker 1: some of the best cable channels. He has turned around CBS.
Speaker 1: At the same time, Viacom has really suffered under Felipe Almonds.
Speaker 1: So the whole thing got tilted in ten years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta say, I'm kind of confused because Time Warner
Speaker 1: and Disney shares are down, and I would think that
Speaker 1: they would be up real quick. Does this make you
Speaker 1: know what else is down? Which is really on my attention?
Speaker 1: Twenty one century Fox. They made this deal last year
Speaker 1: to buy this last week, I should say, exactly, the
Speaker 1: bios shares of the UK has satellite programmer Sky that
Speaker 1: they didn't already own, and Foxes down five and a
Speaker 1: percent today in the wake of that agreement. So go figure.
Speaker 1: Dave Wilson, Alex Sherman, Bloomberg News. I want to imagine
Speaker 1: a world in which President elected Donald Trump does not
Speaker 1: adhere to the One China UH provision that has really
Speaker 1: guided relations between the US and China and frankly China
Speaker 1: and the rest of the world for the past few decades.
Speaker 1: I want to bring in Patrick Chauvinik, chief strategist at
Speaker 1: Silver Crest Asset Management, to sort of break down what
Speaker 1: the significance of this is. So Patrick, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. Uh. First, let's start with what's
Speaker 1: at stake with respect to honoring this One China policy. So,
Speaker 1: the One China Policy was established between Mao and Nixon
Speaker 1: when he went to China in the early nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: and it really laid the foundation for the opening between
Speaker 1: China and the United States and it's been the foundation
Speaker 1: for the relationship ever since. And it basically says that
Speaker 1: he and i It States throughout the Cold War backed
Speaker 1: the Republic of China on Taiwan, which had fled to
Speaker 1: Taiwan after the Communist takeover, and UH, the US wanted
Speaker 1: to continue to do that, but China didn't want the
Speaker 1: US to recognize. UH basically recognized that as the government
Speaker 1: of China. So so they kind of agreed to disagree,
Speaker 1: and they said, uh, there's one China. The United States
Speaker 1: won't recognize an independent Taiwan. But but the differences between
Speaker 1: Taiwan and China had to be resolved peacefully. Now, the
Speaker 1: deal between China and the United States doesn't take into
Speaker 1: account a trade war between the two nations, and that
Speaker 1: is also something that the President elect Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: at least sparked debate about, wonder if you could bring
Speaker 1: that into there, is it going to be a quid
Speaker 1: pro quo on Taiwan and trade. Well, that is exactly
Speaker 1: what the President elect raised explicitly in his interview over
Speaker 1: the week end. He said, we won't necessarily adhere to
Speaker 1: the One China policy unless China makes a deal with US.
Speaker 1: Uh and UH. That raises all kinds of questions because
Speaker 1: for the past week after the Taiwan call um, all
Speaker 1: of his cirrocuits, including the Vice president elect, have been
Speaker 1: saying that the call did not change the US commitment
Speaker 1: to the One China policy. And now Trump has raised
Speaker 1: the prospect that it does and and and it really
Speaker 1: is kind of a at least China will see it
Speaker 1: as a dagger to the heart because because this is
Speaker 1: something that even just in the past twenty four hours,
Speaker 1: the Chinese state media has come out and said this
Speaker 1: is absolutely non negotiable, and it's the foundation and relationship
Speaker 1: and we have nothing to talk about with the United States.
Speaker 1: UH if they're going to go down this path. So
Speaker 1: how can China potentially retaliate for the US rejecting the
Speaker 1: one China pass. Oh, it's you know, it's it's so
Speaker 1: u disheartening to start thinking about the deterioration and relationship
Speaker 1: that could take play. Um. If you know, if if
Speaker 1: this intensifies, Um, there's any number of ways that the
Speaker 1: relationship could break down. And and you know, maybe Trump's
Speaker 1: defenders will say, well, this is this is hardball, this
Speaker 1: is brinksmanship, but it's it's certainly, um, the most intense
Speaker 1: kind of brinksmanship that you can imagine with China. Can
Speaker 1: you speculate perhaps or give us some thoughts on Terry
Speaker 1: Brandt's that he is the governor of Iowa and he
Speaker 1: has been nominated to be the ambassador to China, and
Speaker 1: he's got a relationship with the president Chi jing Ping, right,
Speaker 1: he has a relationship going back to when Chi Japing
Speaker 1: actually studied in Iowa and also visited Iowa subsequently. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, the Chinese talk about friends of China, and
Speaker 1: it's good that there's a relationship there. I don't think
Speaker 1: it will change the substance of any of the issues
Speaker 1: between the United States and China. And ultimately, there's there's
Speaker 1: one president and he's going to set the tone for
Speaker 1: what that relationship there is going to be uh and
Speaker 1: it looks like it's gonna be a rocky one. So Patrick,
Speaker 1: as an investor, how do you trade on this? It's Uh.
Speaker 1: I think the market recently has been sort of blithely
Speaker 1: ignoring the prospect of trade disruptions, so that they've been
Speaker 1: looking at the upside of, you know, fiscal stimulus from
Speaker 1: a Trump administration. Uh. And I think they've been sort
Speaker 1: of rushing aside and saying Trump can't possibly mean what
Speaker 1: he says when it comes to trade, because that would
Speaker 1: be too disruptive. And I have all along taken him
Speaker 1: very seriously when he talks about trade. Uh And and
Speaker 1: because ever since the nineteen eighties, Trump has had a
Speaker 1: very consistent line and saying the trade is not good
Speaker 1: for the United States, that the US loses from trade,
Speaker 1: and so I wouldn't I'm not at all surprised that
Speaker 1: he's taking a very hard line on it. What's interesting
Speaker 1: about this, though, is that it has this added component
Speaker 1: of geopolitical risk that's being added on top of it
Speaker 1: in an attempt the game leverage on China. So, Patrick,
Speaker 1: if you're right, or let's say somebody wants to execute
Speaker 1: a trade based on the view uh that that President
Speaker 1: Electrump is very serious and there could be some sort
Speaker 1: of escalating trade scuffle between the US and China. How
Speaker 1: could somebody play that, Well, I think you've got to
Speaker 1: look at countries companies that are exposed to China UM,
Speaker 1: which have a lot of their uh, a lot of
Speaker 1: the revenues or a lot of their profits from China.
Speaker 1: Major US exporters because this like this trade policy. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, he already tweeted about Boeing. Uh, There's Caterpillar,
Speaker 1: There's a whole host of other company companies in the
Speaker 1: United States that that have UH. China is a major
Speaker 1: part of their market, and so any kind of breakdown
Speaker 1: in relationship or tension over that relationship is going to
Speaker 1: cast a shadow over over their outlook. The Boston Consulting
Speaker 1: Group predicts that China is that the consumer market in
Speaker 1: China is going to reach at least six and a
Speaker 1: half trillion dollars by any that's got to be at
Speaker 1: least potentially positive for American companies, right like retailers, Macy's,
Speaker 1: Costco Target, don't they want to bet on that Chinese
Speaker 1: middle class. It's potentially huge UM, but a couple of
Speaker 1: things need to happen. The Chinese need to UH dis safe.
Speaker 1: They need to encourage the Chinese consumer, and I would
Speaker 1: argue by keeping the reman be strong UH is one
Speaker 1: thing that they can do to to accomplish that. The
Speaker 1: second thing is that they need to open their markets.
Speaker 1: They need to be persuaded that opening the markets is
Speaker 1: not bad for them, it's actually good for them. UH.
Speaker 1: So some rebalancing needs to take place in the relationship
Speaker 1: between China and the United States. The question is what
Speaker 1: are the tools that the US can use to constructively
Speaker 1: bring China to the table on that Patrick, What are
Speaker 1: you looking for specifically that could be uh the one
Speaker 1: straw too far that means that the relations cannot be
Speaker 1: repaired between US and China. I think the danger here
Speaker 1: is conflicting or mixed signals. You know, it's one thing
Speaker 1: to change policy. It's another thing, which is what's happened
Speaker 1: over the past week, to say we're not Asian policy,
Speaker 1: then say we are changing the policy, especially on something
Speaker 1: that's very crucial to China. So you don't want to
Speaker 1: get into such situation where other countries China, lots of
Speaker 1: other kinds of Japan Taiwan are questioning what the U,
Speaker 1: what the real US policy is, and where the real
Speaker 1: red lines are, because that could lead to a serious miscalculation.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for spending time with us. Patrick
Speaker 1: Chavanicki is a managing director chief strategist Silver Crest Asset Management.
Speaker 1: Oil prices on a tear up, uh more than double
Speaker 1: where they were in February. Can of this last? I
Speaker 1: want to bring in John Killeduff, founding partner of Again Capital,
Speaker 1: who has gotten oil right time and time again. John,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Good morning, good morning, so almost good afternoon, not quite yet.
Speaker 1: We're getting there, John. What's your take on this latest
Speaker 1: leg up in oil prices in Saudi Arabia's planned to
Speaker 1: cut more than they originally agreed to. Do you think
Speaker 1: that this is actually going to happen and this will last? Yeah?
Speaker 1: That m that bit of a throwdown over the weekend
Speaker 1: after the aftermath of the meeting by the Stati oil
Speaker 1: minister I think punctuated uh, the sort of change in
Speaker 1: viewpoint and actions by the kingdom. Um, they have really
Speaker 1: uh you know, buckled down here and and and given
Speaker 1: up quite a bit to make this deal. Happen. I'm
Speaker 1: basically nothing was required of Iran, for example, to come
Speaker 1: along here, and even Russian production was fully accommodated in
Speaker 1: the hopes of getting some kind of stabilization that the
Speaker 1: Staddi's desperately want and needs. So um, and I think
Speaker 1: the market has reacted appropriately to this sea change. The
Speaker 1: question is there's a lot of moving parts in this
Speaker 1: market now more than ever before. That's gonna you know,
Speaker 1: make the upcoming months here, I think quite bolical, Well,
Speaker 1: give us, give us a little window onto this if
Speaker 1: you can sch on. I mean, I think from oil
Speaker 1: independence in the United States, a potential tweet from the
Speaker 1: President elect and fifty three dollars for a barrel of oil. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and while it's a terrific you know, rally off
Speaker 1: the recent lows we've got as low as forty two
Speaker 1: twenty back in November. Um, you know, ten bucks is
Speaker 1: ten bucks for sure, but you know it's it's not
Speaker 1: it's not really all that terrific in a reward if
Speaker 1: you if you think about it from a longer term perspective,
Speaker 1: when we were you know, at a hundred a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago. Um. But the problem, the Saudis are
Speaker 1: going to have now is that we're already seeing it
Speaker 1: as the resurgence in US shell production which kicked off
Speaker 1: this whole, uh, this whole things. We've been in a
Speaker 1: low oil prices when the Saudis oversupplied the market in
Speaker 1: order to break the back, or or they thought they
Speaker 1: could be able to break the back of the shell producers,
Speaker 1: but they ended up the piers breaking their back as
Speaker 1: much as anybody else's, So that's gonna be a problem
Speaker 1: for them. And also to compliance is a problem. And
Speaker 1: even just last month's Daddy output rose to another new record.
Speaker 1: The levels that all these guys are producing, that all
Speaker 1: these countries are producing at is extraordinary, and there's going
Speaker 1: to be a lot of cutting that has to occur
Speaker 1: for the production goals to be reached. And to me,
Speaker 1: it's it's almost seems unattainable, and certainly given their history
Speaker 1: of trying to do this, it doesn't work out. So
Speaker 1: right now oil is about fifty three barrel. In February
Speaker 1: it was about twenty six dollars a barrel. Where will
Speaker 1: we be in six months, Well, there's there's likely to
Speaker 1: be some more upside here, but I think that as
Speaker 1: the details come out, and if what the market is
Speaker 1: going to punish come January and February is the lack
Speaker 1: of production cuts if they don't materialize. So I think
Speaker 1: that at the very least or um in the short
Speaker 1: term it's some cold weather, we could probably push upwards
Speaker 1: at fifty five, but I don't think we get much
Speaker 1: more than that, and I think the downside risk remains
Speaker 1: the greater risks to this market because of things beyond
Speaker 1: oil supplies. You know, we come into a demand season
Speaker 1: that lessons come the spring, and we also have a
Speaker 1: strong dollar that's going to be contended with here and
Speaker 1: has to be still priced into this market. There's been
Speaker 1: a breakdown in that correlation, and I expect that to
Speaker 1: come back into the market. So let's say the dollar
Speaker 1: does strengthen and production cuts aren't as significant as people
Speaker 1: are expecting, how low could the price go. It's pretty
Speaker 1: easy to see it get back down towards the recent
Speaker 1: lows near forty dollars a barrel. I think at this
Speaker 1: point that that's the easy shot. The question then becomes,
Speaker 1: you know, will the production cuts take hold at all
Speaker 1: or does the deal completely fall apart? And then the
Speaker 1: market goes into another deep dive price wise. Um, that's
Speaker 1: a bit of an Allier view, and but it's one
Speaker 1: I think you have to consider John Keystone XCEL. If
Speaker 1: the President elect were to indicate his support for Keystone
Speaker 1: XL and also have Rex Childisen as Secretary of State,
Speaker 1: and I believe the State Department has to sign off
Speaker 1: on the deal. Uh what would that do to oil prices?
Speaker 1: It should help bring them down as well, a little
Speaker 1: one little unleash um more supplies out of Canada where
Speaker 1: the cost of production is relatively low. And but more importantly,
Speaker 1: it will get that oil really to the Gulf Coast
Speaker 1: and then out for export. That was one of the
Speaker 1: criticism of the pipeline. It wouldn't necessarily serve US interests
Speaker 1: per se, it would really serve the interests of Canadian
Speaker 1: producers who are trying to outlet their crew to the
Speaker 1: global market. And we're seeing more and more of our
Speaker 1: own u s crewed repwards of around thousand plus barrels
Speaker 1: per day that are now being exported. Our shale guys
Speaker 1: are competing for market share in Asia and this this
Speaker 1: Canadian crewed. If we're able to get down here via
Speaker 1: a new pipeline, would only would only add to that.
Speaker 1: And so this is what I mean about this is
Speaker 1: being we're in a totally new year in terms of
Speaker 1: the multiple players and facets to this market, with more supply,
Speaker 1: more flexible supplies, and even Saudi Raving now selling spot
Speaker 1: what's called spot or or or sort of cash deals
Speaker 1: rather than their strict contractual terms that they historically dealt with.
Speaker 1: We've gotta we gotta leave it there. Thank you very much,
Speaker 1: John Kildoff. He is the founding partner of Again Capital.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at iTunes, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Pim Fox. I'm
Speaker 1: out there on Twitter at Pim Fox. I'm out there
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast.
Speaker 1: You can always at catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio