Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Abramowitz. 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, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. He has been
Speaker 1: fabulous out front on the slowdown in GDP. Matthew Lazetti
Speaker 1: joins us with Deutsche Bank with one of the great
Speaker 1: calls of two thousand twenty three or recession. But it's
Speaker 1: out there, son there. I've got to ask you your
Speaker 1: arch call. How have you recalibrated your recession call? And
Speaker 1: how do you recalibrate after this inflation report today? Sure? First,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for having me, Uh, no doubt. You know,
Speaker 1: you look at the headline numbers, you look at core
Speaker 1: better than expected decelerations in a in a number of items.
Speaker 1: I think, interestingly we didn't mention it yet, but rent
Speaker 1: to know we are were actually strong. They rebounded, uh
Speaker 1: and bounce back up point eight point seven percent. Those
Speaker 1: are the sticky items we know we're going to be there.
Speaker 1: I think in terms of you know, the market certainly
Speaker 1: doesn't look at nuance at this point, and I think
Speaker 1: rightfully so because it's at a lower print. But if
Speaker 1: you think about some of the nuances here we u
Speaker 1: Mike mentioned you have medical services inflation in the CPI
Speaker 1: very very weak. That's something that sticks with with us
Speaker 1: throughout the rest of the year. But it's a completely
Speaker 1: different story in PC and so I think a big
Speaker 1: question and kind of story over the next year will
Speaker 1: be PC and cp I are going to converge a lot. Uh,
Speaker 1: They're converge a lot because you have different measures of
Speaker 1: health care inflation in the two of those, and you're
Speaker 1: gonna se disinflation in both of them, but it's gonna
Speaker 1: be less disinflation in the metric that the FED looks
Speaker 1: at and the and the metric that the FED targets.
Speaker 1: How do you think Cham and Pound aviogates this one tomorrow? Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's one where obviously they can step
Speaker 1: down to fifty basis points. I really do think that
Speaker 1: they want to step down to twenty five basis points
Speaker 1: as quickly as they can, and so data of this
Speaker 1: nature allows them likely to do that. In the February meeting.
Speaker 1: If we get another data point like this, and that
Speaker 1: really then allows them to calibrate policy the best that
Speaker 1: they can. If there is a path to US soft landing,
Speaker 1: going to down to bass points in February helps to
Speaker 1: optimize that. I think they also want to avoid this
Speaker 1: kind of stop start tightening cycle that they may have
Speaker 1: to do, meaning pause only to rehike at some point.
Speaker 1: I think they can avoid that the best by stepping
Speaker 1: down to twenty basis points at the February winning this
Speaker 1: type of data helps that well. Although I do want
Speaker 1: to go to nil Dot's point because it is a
Speaker 1: salient one that this essentially gives people more money on
Speaker 1: a real term, on a real basis in order to
Speaker 1: spend further, which only prolongs this economic cycle for longer.
Speaker 1: How do you factor that into the flip side the
Speaker 1: bullet case, which is saying that there is this natural
Speaker 1: disinflationary cycle that is taking hold and set to accelerate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think it's best to to think of that
Speaker 1: through chair PILs three different components that in the basket.
Speaker 1: You know, we're seeing very clearly core goods and disinflation
Speaker 1: and deflation coming in, you know, Rent and know we
Speaker 1: are we think twelve months ahead, given private rents are
Speaker 1: really going to be decelerating. It's that third part of
Speaker 1: the basket that creates a lot of uncertain DAN is
Speaker 1: tied to the labor market and wage growth, and there
Speaker 1: I think core services X shelter where we're likely to
Speaker 1: see in healthcare and these other components as we look ahead.
Speaker 1: If you're not seeing demand destruction as much as the
Speaker 1: FED needs, if you're seeing financial conditions ease substantially on
Speaker 1: these data, it does make their job harder. On that
Speaker 1: part of the basket. We can still see a lot
Speaker 1: of disinflation, but the question is does that get us
Speaker 1: simply from where we are to three percent? How do
Speaker 1: we get from three percent to two percent? And that's
Speaker 1: I think the more difficult part. I think on number
Speaker 1: one question for cham and Pounds tomorrow, the risk of
Speaker 1: doing too little? Does it still out why the risk
Speaker 1: of doing too much? How do you think he answers
Speaker 1: that tomorrow? I think he's still leans towards yes, meaning
Speaker 1: that they still want to lean towards overtightening rather than undertightening.
Speaker 1: But I think the committee is very divided on that
Speaker 1: that question um and I think he will have to
Speaker 1: balance that, and the more data we get of this nature,
Speaker 1: certainly that the risk balance comes comes into better balance
Speaker 1: as we look ahead, you know, stepping back, it's two
Speaker 1: data points. We're still at above course c P. I uh.
Speaker 1: They've been harised a few times in the past, and
Speaker 1: so I think that they will be very cautious about
Speaker 1: pulling the PUG. I think that's why I'm far more
Speaker 1: interesting Tom in the risk management question for Chairman Poal.
Speaker 1: You brought, agree with Max, a couple of months of data.
Speaker 1: We'll get the projections for whatever they're worth. But ultimately
Speaker 1: the risk management question tells you a little something actually
Speaker 1: about the bus of this FED going forward. I agree,
Speaker 1: And I had fold into that another phrase financial stability,
Speaker 1: which has really slipped away in the dialogue the last
Speaker 1: number of weeks. It was their big particularly the I
Speaker 1: m F perhaps on the SMPS back at four k, right,
Speaker 1: people aren't so worried about financial stability. Apparently we want
Speaker 1: to see it. I mean, we've got to continue to
Speaker 1: answer John, are we threw highs yet in this recovery
Speaker 1: and we went up and we pulled back, But I
Speaker 1: mean there's still a move from more than two percent
Speaker 1: on sp it's a party. Move yelds down by fourteen
Speaker 1: or fifteen basis points right the way through the curve.
Speaker 1: Two's out to tens and that dollar witness and make
Speaker 1: sure wrote dollar one six thirty four and big deal.
Speaker 1: I've got my cat ready to go to John. Very
Speaker 1: good to get to am as well, Matthew Lozetti of
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank. Thank you so uh this is important. Now
Speaker 1: we need to get an equity update as well. John,
Speaker 1: do you want to tell us about the nine o'clock
Speaker 1: and something about moving on? Well, I want to move on,
Speaker 1: but you know I'm not focused on Croatia beat Argentina
Speaker 1: with the new slow that we had to shocked. I
Speaker 1: mean Troy guy asked his only book because you want
Speaker 1: to talk World Cup soccer with him? Does have a
Speaker 1: chance of Mark and Stanley. That's the tastes it. Troy's
Speaker 1: here to talk football, FS investments, Matt hornback to talk
Speaker 1: about what he's here for football Stanley. Gary Chattery has
Speaker 1: given us the preview for tomorrow France. Yeah, big fan.
Speaker 1: Looking forward to that conversation and the next time I'm
Speaker 1: blame back answer my question. You have a choice, just
Speaker 1: Lozette does Deutsche Bank. Just that's not even set down
Speaker 1: Deutch Bank, Like does the whole place just stop at
Speaker 1: two o'clock. Yeah, okay, you can go to I can
Speaker 1: leave us. Wonderful this CoA have a chance. The answer
Speaker 1: is yes, of course they have a chance. Look what
Speaker 1: they did to Brazil. Okay, okay, that's a final word
Speaker 1: here we get lucky this morning. Joanna us around the table.
Speaker 1: Julian Emmanuel, the chief equity strategistic ever Core Si. Julian,
Speaker 1: good morning, good morning. We haven't had the cathartic moment
Speaker 1: according to you that the low earlier on this year
Speaker 1: is a low, not v low of this bear market.
Speaker 1: Why look, if you look at past bear markets, there
Speaker 1: is always that moment, and even in the sort of
Speaker 1: strange ones like the fourth quarter of ofen when we
Speaker 1: were in that you know, three month de grossing bear market,
Speaker 1: you still had a cathartic moment where people just said
Speaker 1: get me out um. And essentially that kind of selling
Speaker 1: pressure really creates the buying opportunity. And for us, when
Speaker 1: you look at two, yes, fatility has remained elevated and
Speaker 1: we have strangeness going on this week with the Vicks
Speaker 1: climbing as the market has climbed, but you have not
Speaker 1: had that moment of pat There really has been very
Speaker 1: little emotion in this two questions. What's a vixed level
Speaker 1: you need to see? It's not forty, is it? Uh?
Speaker 1: Ultimately will be cool. Everybody wants to know when you're
Speaker 1: sitting at that little table that that ed Hyman's got
Speaker 1: with a black pen. How you link the Emmanuel world
Speaker 1: into the ed Hyman world? You do it? In your
Speaker 1: note is ad alludes back to the seventies, the forties
Speaker 1: and the thirties. How is this inflation in this moment
Speaker 1: in the next year allude back to those troubled times.
Speaker 1: So it is very clear on this and and we
Speaker 1: we certainly agree wholeheartedly this is not the nineties seventies.
Speaker 1: The metastasizing effect of inflation uh at that we had
Speaker 1: for an entire decade is not there. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: clearly we've had these problems. However, we're on the other
Speaker 1: side of it. We're seeing these readings start to come in.
Speaker 1: But the other aspect of it, thinking about the nineteen
Speaker 1: thirties and the es and actually en seventy itself, is
Speaker 1: this decline in in money supply. M two going negative.
Speaker 1: That's a risk that the FED might have to step
Speaker 1: back and reassess. Just do you understand that so ce
Speaker 1: J Lawrence. I mean you're taking head back to see J.
Speaker 1: Lawrence when we go into him three m. This Well,
Speaker 1: it's look that Thursday afternoon release of the money supply
Speaker 1: was world stopped. Absolutely. What's going to lead the equity
Speaker 1: index is lower at this point, given that big tech
Speaker 1: has already sold off disproportionately, we think that story has
Speaker 1: more to be written. If you look at it value
Speaker 1: versus growth. The extremes are certainly less extreme after the
Speaker 1: year that we've had of growth under performance, but there
Speaker 1: is still really an embedded passion for let's say, fang
Speaker 1: uh amongst the part of the public whose equity holdings
Speaker 1: remain near all time highs as a percentage of household
Speaker 1: net worth, and we think that is going to be
Speaker 1: worked off in certainly the first six months or so.
Speaker 1: Can we talk about consensus just briefly. You published a
Speaker 1: little bit later in the year you white it. You
Speaker 1: white it, you published, and it sounds a lot like
Speaker 1: what we've heard already, which is next year dip and
Speaker 1: then we rip when we end the year at that's
Speaker 1: the call from ever coot Julian. How do you feel
Speaker 1: when everyone sank the same thing about a year ahead?
Speaker 1: Very uncomfortable, very no bones about it. And I will
Speaker 1: say that the most bullish thing about the set up
Speaker 1: right now is the fact that my competition on the
Speaker 1: strategy side, the average price target is four thousand. Okay,
Speaker 1: And you know I am not a raging bull by
Speaker 1: having a last time we were forecast in a flat
Speaker 1: market rent. I don't remember it. I don't know that
Speaker 1: there's any precedent for whatsoever. And that, along with the
Speaker 1: fact that this recession is the most anticipated recession of
Speaker 1: our entire lifetimes, really gives you pause for the potential
Speaker 1: for upside here. So where could the consensus and you
Speaker 1: be wrong if the recession doesn't come. Okay, we all
Speaker 1: know what's happening, we all know what the components of
Speaker 1: it are. But again, think about it. Would we have
Speaker 1: ever thought that we would have seen two negative quarters
Speaker 1: of GDP like we saw in the beginning of this
Speaker 1: year and that not be labeled a recession for the
Speaker 1: first time since the nineties. If somehow we skate on
Speaker 1: through you know, zero growth slightly below zero, Ed's forecasts
Speaker 1: zero percent GDP. That implies a mild recession. But if
Speaker 1: it doesn't happen, there is you know, upside in our view.
Speaker 1: Do you remember when you were challenged with talking about bitcoin? Gentmen,
Speaker 1: A good old thanks. I do. And and basically from
Speaker 1: our point of view in in thinking about it though
Speaker 1: is and we talked about this constantly, is that you're
Speaker 1: interviewing it continue is that there's an aspect of the technology,
Speaker 1: the blockchain. Most people would agree that there's validity to
Speaker 1: that technology, the same way there was validity to the
Speaker 1: transcontinental railroad system in the eighteen seventies, but yet the
Speaker 1: entire industry went bankrupt during the decade of the eighteen seventies.
Speaker 1: Before for further economics, a space that attracted a lot
Speaker 1: of capital and a lot of coverage, you covered it
Speaker 1: at your own shop. And I just wonder, for let's
Speaker 1: use that the core as an example, how difficult would
Speaker 1: it be to convince Himan now that this is something
Speaker 1: we should cover at the firm. Well, look, and isn't
Speaker 1: that kind of the point right now that this is
Speaker 1: going to be kind of hands off for the doubts
Speaker 1: for a long long time still to come. There's no
Speaker 1: question about the fact. And then again, if you think
Speaker 1: about the price action, the price action is telling you something.
Speaker 1: The fact that since this scandal was uncovered, the price
Speaker 1: of bitcoin really hasn't moved materially lower after the initial uh,
Speaker 1: you know, tribulations. It tells you that there is a
Speaker 1: fundamental belief in the technology, but yet is is typical
Speaker 1: for most markets. Once there's that sort of feeling of disgust,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a year, two years, three years, maybe
Speaker 1: more of just sideways price action to where only the
Speaker 1: true believers remain in the industry, and then likely you
Speaker 1: have your next bat of progress to you were taken
Speaker 1: about exactly that. I'm trying. I go with the railroad analogy,
Speaker 1: but I can't go there. I think this is something else,
Speaker 1: and I go back to Ken Rogoff in his most
Speaker 1: courageous book I've ever seen of the Generation, The Curse
Speaker 1: of Cash. This is about non regulation. It's like finance,
Speaker 1: far more international than ft X. I'm speaking as an
Speaker 1: amateur there, don't quote me. And the idea of this
Speaker 1: not that it was a scam, but it was wrapped
Speaker 1: around un regulated activity from day one and this morning,
Speaker 1: John the regulators. The adults showed up this morning. Well,
Speaker 1: the headlines and the adults, the sec challenging bankman freight
Speaker 1: with the frauding investors, Judy, and this was great. He
Speaker 1: can we just do this on a monthly basis, maybe
Speaker 1: even you know, every two weeks, just coming to the
Speaker 1: studio him and along, I'll sit out, you can, you know, okay?
Speaker 1: Instead of counting a proto conversation. It's extremely important that
Speaker 1: we dovetail in here first of all, to find the
Speaker 1: one congressman in America that will root for Croatia today
Speaker 1: against Argentina. And that would be the gentleman who is
Speaker 1: the fabric and soul of Dutch America. This is in
Speaker 1: western Michigan, North Kalamazoo. It is the second Congressional district
Speaker 1: of Michigan. Yes conservative, Yes, Dutch American, but also fixated
Speaker 1: on the new finance of America. Buildozinga joins us right now,
Speaker 1: Republican from Michigan, thrilled he could uh join us today.
Speaker 1: I've got to talk world coupy of the congressman first though,
Speaker 1: you've got to be rooted after what the Netherlands went
Speaker 1: through with Argentina. I mean Croatia has a chance today, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Croatia has got a chance today. Now, I will note
Speaker 1: that the Dutch beat the United States. That was a
Speaker 1: little tougher conversation. But I know all the football talk
Speaker 1: has gotten me very excited about my Detroit Lions. So
Speaker 1: that's true, hottest team in the NFL. So a little
Speaker 1: different football that is. I've got it's it's gonna be
Speaker 1: a good day. I've got Michael Barb briefing me on
Speaker 1: that in Bloomberg Radio on a daily basis a legend
Speaker 1: from Detroit to the east. Congressman, I must ask you
Speaker 1: about this meeting this morning at ten am, all the
Speaker 1: emotion and all the politics. I want you to take
Speaker 1: the bizarreness of bitcoin, crypto, blockchain. How do you explain
Speaker 1: this moment to your conservative constituency. Yeah, Constituty, seeing frankly
Speaker 1: two colleagues as well, and uh, we've all of us
Speaker 1: on the Financial Services Committee have had uh colleagues of
Speaker 1: ours coming up to us. Uh and you know, and
Speaker 1: and not to mention obviously the constituents saying what is
Speaker 1: going on with this? And the sad element of this,
Speaker 1: Tom is that this situation is creating the conversation, which
Speaker 1: is not a healthy one, or the direction we should go,
Speaker 1: which is maybe we should just ban all of this.
Speaker 1: You know, it's too confusing, it's a way too many
Speaker 1: options and our opportunities to to cheat, lie, steal in it.
Speaker 1: So how about we just ban it? Well, that's not
Speaker 1: gonna happen, you know, and we we've got to remember
Speaker 1: that this is more than just about crypto. It is
Speaker 1: about the blockchain technology that underlies that, and that is
Speaker 1: going to be transformative for the financial services but also healthcare,
Speaker 1: you name it. I mean, on my backgrounds in construction
Speaker 1: and housing, Um, you look at what you're gonna be
Speaker 1: able to do in that field with with blockchain technology.
Speaker 1: It's all very exciting. But this which appears to have
Speaker 1: all the hallmarks of Enron and Bertie Maynoff blended together,
Speaker 1: named Sam Bankman freed Uh, that is putting a very
Speaker 1: different spin on what the what the conversation has been
Speaker 1: here in Washington. Congressman, how give you the timing of
Speaker 1: the arrest given the planned meeting this morning on Capitol
Speaker 1: Health Well, um, I would assume I would certainly, let's
Speaker 1: hope that that Ginzler's revised calendar release yesterday had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with that. But I have been talking to
Speaker 1: a number of my colleagues who were former prosecutors, who
Speaker 1: are saying, well, wait a minute, this if if you're
Speaker 1: giving a witness or a potential UH potential mark UH
Speaker 1: an opportunity to come in under oath, spend four hours
Speaker 1: in you know, just freewheeling conversation with Congress where they
Speaker 1: might just end up purjuring themselves. Why would you not
Speaker 1: give them that opportunity. So it's got a lot of
Speaker 1: just kind of question marks around own that about the timing.
Speaker 1: I'm welcome his arrest. I what I don't understand is
Speaker 1: why it wasn't a week ago or a week from now.
Speaker 1: Why did it have to be yesterday or last evening?
Speaker 1: What do you think would have been accomplished and what
Speaker 1: do you want to be accomplished at today's meeting. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: and of course, as you know we're having UH the
Speaker 1: new interim CEO Ray is coming in UH and I
Speaker 1: would have wanted to hear his answer. The conversation that
Speaker 1: I was going to have was going to be surrounding
Speaker 1: uh FTX dot com. You know, the separation between uh
Speaker 1: US as well as international funds, and was there commingling
Speaker 1: of that illegally potentially if there was a U S
Speaker 1: dollars getting put into those international funds like that, I
Speaker 1: wanted to hear from both of them what their take
Speaker 1: was and whether there was any any evidence of that,
Speaker 1: because I want to protect US consumers and I want
Speaker 1: to protect US taxpayers as well, because there's obviously been
Speaker 1: some plans for we gotta bail it out, which can't happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, people have looking for the Secretary of Treasury,
Speaker 1: whether it's yelling or before. I mean, you know this
Speaker 1: stretches back a number of years and administrations, Congressmen, but
Speaker 1: you've got to believe at some point we decide if
Speaker 1: bitcoin and all that is an asset, is it blodable,
Speaker 1: can you audit it? And can it provide text advantage
Speaker 1: when it has a huge gain to the I R
Speaker 1: S and such? Are we at that point right now
Speaker 1: where we need to codify bitcoin to be an I
Speaker 1: R S item? Well, there's not consensus of that yet.
Speaker 1: And look you've got you've got some arguing it's commodity,
Speaker 1: some arguing it's a security. Uh, you know, we like
Speaker 1: things to be either fish or foul here in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. And it turns out this is a platypus right,
Speaker 1: it's got it's got hallmarks of both UH and we
Speaker 1: we have not reached that consensus. Clearly, Gensler Chair Gensler believes, well,
Speaker 1: he did believe when he has had to see f
Speaker 1: TC that it was a commodity. He now seems to
Speaker 1: think it's a security. But you know, we we we
Speaker 1: are going have to wrestle with this one right now.
Speaker 1: I should know it. Also, by the way, we have
Speaker 1: not seen Gary Ginsler in front of our committee in
Speaker 1: over a year. It was last October. So Lisa was asking,
Speaker 1: you know, what kind of questions you would like to
Speaker 1: ask today. I'd like to ask what has the interaction
Speaker 1: been with this Curies in Exchange Commission UH leading up
Speaker 1: to this point? And that's a very important thing. Sam
Speaker 1: Bankman Freed was here in December of twenty one. It's
Speaker 1: ironic that he would have been here more often than
Speaker 1: Gary Ginslo in front of our committee. Carson, I've got
Speaker 1: to ask you this, and we do this with all
Speaker 1: of our politicians, particularly when they're not lawyers. You are
Speaker 1: steeped in the core industrial process of America and sand, gravel,
Speaker 1: crushed stone, that's what you do out in western Michigan.
Speaker 1: How do we jump start investment in those core industrial
Speaker 1: and housing construction processes. What does Washington need to do
Speaker 1: to help somebody not busy and gravel right now? Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: and here's the interesting thing, Tom, is we actually are
Speaker 1: pretty busy. Infrastructure has continued to go on, and your
Speaker 1: last guest was talking about that, you know, some of
Speaker 1: those underlying pressures that normally would have had us going
Speaker 1: in a different direction. As we've seen inflationary pressures still continue.
Speaker 1: There's still a lot of activity, but we've got to
Speaker 1: we've got to solve this. Uh. The supply chain part
Speaker 1: of that is in construction, is is making sure that
Speaker 1: we've got domestic oil production in world oil production because
Speaker 1: of a barrel of oil goes into PVC pipe, shingles,
Speaker 1: ash for all the you know, siding, all of those things.
Speaker 1: So if we're if we're looking at how to housing
Speaker 1: and infrastructure, we've got to make sure that the materials
Speaker 1: and the labor is actually there and available. Cox thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your time today. From the second
Speaker 1: District of Michigan, Billa Zinga, thank you. We have inflation
Speaker 1: here in two hours, and part of inflation has been
Speaker 1: your gallon of gas. And for business diesel and Maria
Speaker 1: send has been a huge value of Bloomberg surveillance in
Speaker 1: Bloomberg worldwide and joins US now from energy aspects uh
Speaker 1: A Marina. Is oil disinflating or is it becoming a
Speaker 1: true deflation area item within the reports at eight thirty.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, in the near term, it's obviously been deflationary, right,
Speaker 1: We've seen all the prices collapse. But I will say
Speaker 1: this has got very little to do with fundamentals. Yes,
Speaker 1: there were good fundamental reasons why you know, we were
Speaker 1: expecting around the year end that did materialize, given the
Speaker 1: new Chinese long gowns, French strikes, all of those factors. Right, Sure,
Speaker 1: we should have probably been in the low nineties, late eighties,
Speaker 1: but not collapsing down to where we have. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about Brent here of fort Um. This has been a
Speaker 1: massive year end liquidation event, Lots and lots of funds
Speaker 1: of liquidated and I think that's what's drag prices here,
Speaker 1: and that's obviously been deflationary, at least in the near term.
Speaker 1: I just don't think this is gonna last. Well, it's
Speaker 1: not gonna last, But when's it going to go and
Speaker 1: what will make it go? Is it a sense of
Speaker 1: Pacific room demand, is a global demand or is there
Speaker 1: some supply adjustment. I think it's going to be demand,
Speaker 1: and I think it's going to be Asia, China in particular,
Speaker 1: that's going to be the biggest driver of oil markets
Speaker 1: next year. They are finally giving very clear indications of reopening.
Speaker 1: So far, you know, we've been very cautious and we've
Speaker 1: been kind of expecting April onwards. But yesterday we put
Speaker 1: out a note we raised our Chinese demand numbers because
Speaker 1: these are the very first concrete they have taken, and
Speaker 1: I think that is meaningful. Again, it doesn't mean overnight
Speaker 1: China can reopen. It will be a slow, gradual reopening.
Speaker 1: But imagine Tom, it's been three years con February that
Speaker 1: China would have had COVID. We've seen the kind of
Speaker 1: pent up demand in the West when the West opened up,
Speaker 1: and you're talking about bill Land, one billion plus people.
Speaker 1: The bent up demand is going to be huge, and
Speaker 1: you'd appreciate this is the multiplier effect. The impact is
Speaker 1: going to have on the rest of the region. Korean
Speaker 1: exports highland tourism everywhere. I think that's where the big
Speaker 1: demand push is going to come from. So why is
Speaker 1: that not being priced into markets at all? Why is
Speaker 1: nobody following through on the story that everyone seemed to
Speaker 1: be on board with not so long ago, that are
Speaker 1: reopening in China would be bullish for oil prices. I
Speaker 1: these there are two things for me. One, I have
Speaker 1: a feeling this is a we need to see it
Speaker 1: to believe it, because we've had a couple of quote
Speaker 1: unquote false starts right even earlier this year. People after Shanghai,
Speaker 1: we're expecting loosening of restrictions that didn't quite materialize um
Speaker 1: and they are still not buying crude in the market
Speaker 1: the way they used to. That's because they bought a
Speaker 1: lot of crude in November. They need to run that down.
Speaker 1: So I think both of that those things need to
Speaker 1: go inside. And more generally, it's your red right. If
Speaker 1: people have squared off their books, they don't want to
Speaker 1: necessarily put to positions now. Having said that, if you
Speaker 1: look at the curve, if you look at the price
Speaker 1: set right now for three, it does look extremely attractive.
Speaker 1: You don't need major supply losses to tighten this market up.
Speaker 1: Just the end of the SPR and China reopening does
Speaker 1: provide some huge, huge bowcases for next year. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, the strategy in petroleum reserve releases are
Speaker 1: still ugoing, the last one having just been finished. With
Speaker 1: respect to the distribution, how much has that influenced the
Speaker 1: price hugely? If you take a step back this year,
Speaker 1: what has actually happened is that we haven't lost much
Speaker 1: while the door from the Russian invasion right, because the
Speaker 1: embargo has just only kicked in. Since the invasion, we
Speaker 1: have had two hundred and seventy million barrels of global
Speaker 1: SPR released and maybe half a million barrels of of
Speaker 1: Russian losses. So you can do the numbers. And yet
Speaker 1: commercial infantries, yes, we've built, but only built by about
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million barrels. So had it not and
Speaker 1: for the strategic petroleum reserves, we would have run out.
Speaker 1: Avoid example basis of energy aspects. This is the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from
Speaker 1: seven to ten a m. Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Television each day from six to nine am
Speaker 1: for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, and of course, on the terminal. I'm
Speaker 1: Tom Keene, and this is Bloomberg.