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, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. Right
Speaker 1: now with us is James Sweeney of Credit Sweets in
Speaker 1: our New York studios and John Fair. And I know
Speaker 1: that we've read very carefully James Sweeney over the years,
Speaker 1: always counseling against inflation fears. You updated you published yesterday
Speaker 1: on this arch fear that's out there. Tell us what
Speaker 1: you wrote, well, I mean, the FED has gotten some
Speaker 1: criticism recently for claiming that the declines and inflation that
Speaker 1: we've seen lately are due to temporary factors that will
Speaker 1: go away. And we looked at it closely in we
Speaker 1: found that it's due to temporary factors that will go away.
Speaker 1: Does the FED look at temporary factors which is a
Speaker 1: two point to four percent ten year yield and a
Speaker 1: two year yield that's gonna drop under two at some point,
Speaker 1: or do they look at the the Sweeney inflation rate
Speaker 1: or the Powell inflation rate, which are they a slave
Speaker 1: to right now. I think they're definitely a slave to
Speaker 1: the bond market and the incoming growth data and the
Speaker 1: fears about what's going to happen next more than what's
Speaker 1: happening on inflation. I mean, this is lagging, this is statistical,
Speaker 1: this is not particularly interesting. We're not We're not kind
Speaker 1: of plunging towards deflation or anything like that. There are
Speaker 1: many inflation measures and they are broadly sideways and dull.
Speaker 1: But there is a growth issue. But there's there's a
Speaker 1: growth issue. And you know, folks, let's get this straight.
Speaker 1: There's two There's two mandates in the United States one
Speaker 1: in some other countries, including the EU. Jeffrey Frankel of
Speaker 1: Harvard did a great thing for n b R a
Speaker 1: number of years ago, folding in the growth dynamic. Does
Speaker 1: Chairman Powell have a Jeffrey Frankel like growth dynamic in
Speaker 1: his mix? Well, I think the growth dynamic is that
Speaker 1: we have weakening and pretty weak US manufacturing growth right now.
Speaker 1: We have a shock right in the heart of that
Speaker 1: with the trade dispute. So you know, I think the
Speaker 1: I S M figure for for June coming up in
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks will be a very important data
Speaker 1: point because it's possible that that will plunge from an
Speaker 1: already low level. And we've been getting weak p M
Speaker 1: s UH. That's the sort of thing that drives markets,
Speaker 1: drives yields lower and and and de FED even intend
Speaker 1: to react to that even in the absence of broader
Speaker 1: weakness in the economy. And right now when you look
Speaker 1: at labor market indicators, there are not signs of broader
Speaker 1: weakness in the economy. We we have not seen jobless
Speaker 1: claims rise, we have not really seen payrolls growth slow.
Speaker 1: We certainly haven't seen unemployment rise. So so where we
Speaker 1: are right now if if you think of really the
Speaker 1: three variables is being the labor market, short term manu
Speaker 1: facturing and investment momentum UH, and inflation. You know, inflation
Speaker 1: basically ignore temporary factors manufacturing very bad, big risks given
Speaker 1: the trade war and the labor market fine, but bears watching,
Speaker 1: and that that I think is why the FED is
Speaker 1: in wait and see mode right now. Um, but there's
Speaker 1: some things there that can go in different directions rather quickly.
Speaker 1: You can have a deal on the trade war, or
Speaker 1: you can have disappoint on the labor side. See John
Speaker 1: how he's doing that. He's hedgended as an economist. We're
Speaker 1: going in different directions. That's what economists do, Tom James.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the experience of Europe in the last
Speaker 1: twelve months. They've managed to get by okay, and largely
Speaker 1: because the weakness in manufacturing hasn't spread to services. The
Speaker 1: experience of Europe is that something we can expect in
Speaker 1: the United States. Well, this is really typically the case.
Speaker 1: We have manufacturing slumps all the time around the world,
Speaker 1: where labor markets are not affected very much. I mean,
Speaker 1: you'll recall two thousand, fifteen sixteen, we had a large
Speaker 1: manufacturing slump globally, also two thousand twelve and thirteen, and
Speaker 1: neither of those cases did you see the US labor
Speaker 1: market materially weakened. So uh yeah, I mean Europe has
Speaker 1: been hit by the trade concerns, but it's also had
Speaker 1: some troubles last year in the chemical sector. It had
Speaker 1: some troubles in the auto sector which persists to this
Speaker 1: day and are being partly driven by by fears of
Speaker 1: potential tariffs. But you know, the labor market in Europe
Speaker 1: also bears watching it. As you said, you just got
Speaker 1: a little bit of a blip on German unemployment. But
Speaker 1: when you start to see labor data broadly start to slow,
Speaker 1: then you you you have a different threshold of of
Speaker 1: of worry. I mean, I look at where the market
Speaker 1: is priced for FED cuts and and I don't see
Speaker 1: the market pricing for a high probability of one or
Speaker 1: two cuts. I see it pricing for a lower but
Speaker 1: rising probability of a lot more cuts than that in
Speaker 1: the case that labor market weakness really falls off. Do
Speaker 1: you think what it's priceful right now is misplaced? James,
Speaker 1: what do you think of market pricing at the moment? No,
Speaker 1: I think the market is is priced for for the
Speaker 1: risks of moving towards a U S for session and
Speaker 1: getting many many cuts from the FED. UM and and
Speaker 1: so I think what we're what we've done recently is
Speaker 1: we've moved away from this idea of insurance cuts. And
Speaker 1: really the conversation in the market is are you going
Speaker 1: to see the labor data start to break down in
Speaker 1: the US so that the FED needs to cut a
Speaker 1: hundred basis points two hundred basis points big moves? So
Speaker 1: you know, my conversations with investors have really been about
Speaker 1: you know that outlier scenario rather rather than you know,
Speaker 1: an insurance cut or two a little bit of a
Speaker 1: little bit of a tweak. Well, let's take the GDP
Speaker 1: second look that we're gonna have and basically a bypart
Speaker 1: economy we all agree many elements of any given domestic
Speaker 1: nation economy now is actually pretty good. And then there's
Speaker 1: old trade component as well. Do you look at as
Speaker 1: a is a by part analysis or do you aggregate
Speaker 1: into a moldy us g d P. Now we we
Speaker 1: really do look at it as as pretty separate because
Speaker 1: we see constantly, you know, we have many many charts
Speaker 1: and models where you see the sensitivity of both FED
Speaker 1: decisions and market behavior. Two wobbles in momentum in manufacturing
Speaker 1: growth where the labor data are just not affected. So
Speaker 1: it's it's during the two thousand eights and the two
Speaker 1: thousand ones. These are the rare times where the labor
Speaker 1: data broadly does get affected. So that is the big
Speaker 1: question right now we are not assuming a material slow
Speaker 1: down in the labor data. So so that means if
Speaker 1: you think the labor market is going to be fine, yeah,
Speaker 1: when either they're completely stable or they only hike once
Speaker 1: or twice in a little bit of a panic. This
Speaker 1: has been great. James Sweeney, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: the attention to her, particularly after you publish on our
Speaker 1: fears of deflation. Mr Sweeney with credit sweets joining us.
Speaker 1: Someplace to say is Jerome Schneider. Good morning to Jerome,
Speaker 1: Good morning overseeing short term rates here at PIMCO. What
Speaker 1: a morning for it? What is going on in this
Speaker 1: bond market? What do you tell clients this morning? Short
Speaker 1: term rates, long term rates? Basically, the market believes that
Speaker 1: defense wins championships at this point in time, and ultimately,
Speaker 1: when you see what the movement and rates has done
Speaker 1: over the past few days, the markets clearly romancing the
Speaker 1: fact that perhaps recessionary environment is on the horizon, and
Speaker 1: we clearly need to be thinking about that. From the
Speaker 1: rate move for much of this year, For much of
Speaker 1: we've been pricing in the idea, at least many people
Speaker 1: have the idea of a soft landing in the United States.
Speaker 1: Are we moving past that idea to something maybe a
Speaker 1: little bit more sinister now? Well, it's definitely not at
Speaker 1: the forefront, and most investors mind at this point in time.
Speaker 1: In fact, you know, when you look at the frictions
Speaker 1: that are going on and emanating in the marketplace. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's some disjointed, desjointed views, and I think originally that
Speaker 1: was thought as a low probability event or a lower
Speaker 1: probability event has moved towards the forefront. Clearly, trade and
Speaker 1: trade frictions have placed on that. And when people think
Speaker 1: about that, they quickly exacerbate and extrapolate what is going
Speaker 1: to happen in the environment, not just for the next
Speaker 1: few days or weeks, but the next few years. And
Speaker 1: we're seeing the rallying rates happened for two reasons. One
Speaker 1: risk off scenario too when you think about the the
Speaker 1: the continued evolution of where of where growth is going
Speaker 1: in the United States. Again, a lower lower for longer,
Speaker 1: which we've positive here for a long time here at PIMCO.
Speaker 1: The reality is is that a lower growth rate probably
Speaker 1: means that there's more susceptibility to re seasionary trends. And
Speaker 1: when you have that, ultimately the race to a nearer
Speaker 1: or closer to zero yield is going to be is
Speaker 1: going to be in the cards to ye rights right
Speaker 1: now two percent. It was only three years ago that
Speaker 1: the two year Treasury not how to yield a fifty
Speaker 1: basis points. We went up, we can come down just
Speaker 1: as quickly, can't. Wait. Well, I mean that was the
Speaker 1: idea behind the FED. Ultimately, what they want to do
Speaker 1: is create a bandwidth, create some type of distance to
Speaker 1: that zero bound, and timately with that zero bound, you know,
Speaker 1: we really don't The FED wanted to simply use their
Speaker 1: ordinary tools or traditionary tool kit at that point in
Speaker 1: time to effectively cut rates. Should we have a recession
Speaker 1: environment and don't expect anything, you know, much beyond that,
Speaker 1: we're not going to be hitting negative rates in the
Speaker 1: United States. But simply put, they're gonna be focusing on
Speaker 1: on the sequencing a risk. And and mind you that
Speaker 1: the market is well ahead of itself. There's a pretty
Speaker 1: high barrier to cut rates, much a higher barrier than
Speaker 1: than the market might appreciate at this point in time.
Speaker 1: And so with that in mind, uh, you know, three
Speaker 1: plus rate hikes priced into where we are right now, Uh,
Speaker 1: does you know, does seem a little full at this
Speaker 1: point in time. That being said, if if processionary environment
Speaker 1: does come to fruition, you know, you can quickly see
Speaker 1: tenure rates move well past that two percent threshold all
Speaker 1: the way down to your rates. As you highlighted before,
Speaker 1: could you know could quickly obviously recalibrate much lower considering
Speaker 1: a rate cut that might happen. She's just joining us
Speaker 1: worldwide John Farrell at Newport Beach, California with pim Co.
Speaker 1: He begins a terrific day of conversations on Bloomberg, surveillance
Speaker 1: and all the other feral properties, beginning now with Jerome
Speaker 1: Schneider on short rates. Jerome, how do you measure the
Speaker 1: left tail? Speak to our global Wall Street audience. You
Speaker 1: walk into Pimco early early morning, You've got three logins
Speaker 1: on your Bloomberg. How do you measure left tail instability
Speaker 1: right now? Well, for me, the left tail instability it
Speaker 1: comes from what I view as the great barometer of
Speaker 1: financial markets, which is the funding markets, the repo markets,
Speaker 1: and as we've discussed on many times, that has given
Speaker 1: us great indicators of the health of the overall liquidity
Speaker 1: and and overall aquidity of the marketplace and leverage within
Speaker 1: the marketplace. You know, late, you know, the third quarter
Speaker 1: of last year, we saw that begin to deteriorate as
Speaker 1: we hit into your end. Actually, right now, there's very
Speaker 1: little inclination that there's instability in those markets right now,
Speaker 1: So it seems seems fairly stable at this point in time.
Speaker 1: What I would say is that we clearly are focused
Speaker 1: on the acro economic changing macro economic conditions tom which
Speaker 1: ultimately says rates are moving lower in the US on
Speaker 1: a relative basis, U s yields look relatively high compared
Speaker 1: to the rest of the world, clearly from the Eurozone,
Speaker 1: even even other jurisdictions, you know, like Canada, etcetera. So
Speaker 1: from that perspective, there's probably valid reason why rates should
Speaker 1: coalesce at a lower degree than they were just even
Speaker 1: a few days ago. You think that spread needs to
Speaker 1: come in, well, I can understand why it should come
Speaker 1: in at this point in time. Does it need to Well,
Speaker 1: it all depends upon what your trajectory of growth is
Speaker 1: and how higher probability do you think that recessionary environment
Speaker 1: UH is going to happen. Well, let's talk about your
Speaker 1: trajectory for growth and how it might differ with everyone else.
Speaker 1: Right now, you say this market might be a little
Speaker 1: bit ahead of itself with the right cuts. Is pricing
Speaker 1: in to what degree to run? Well, so from that
Speaker 1: point of view, you know, we've we've had a view
Speaker 1: that there's been moderating growth in the economy, in the
Speaker 1: U S economy for some time. You have I S
Speaker 1: M S that have continued to be above fifty, but
Speaker 1: are deteriorated off the other peaks over the past few
Speaker 1: past few months. At the same time, UM that others
Speaker 1: response in the FED as as quickly elicited UH an
Speaker 1: appetite for risk, for risk taking that we've seen at
Speaker 1: the beginning of the part of the year. UM. When
Speaker 1: you look at that, you know, there's clearly implications that
Speaker 1: were much more positive just a few weeks ago. Now
Speaker 1: we have trade frictions. Those might resolve tomorrow, they might
Speaker 1: be resolve over the course of the next year or two,
Speaker 1: and then the longer they take, there's obviously going to
Speaker 1: be more to demand more drained on that growth expectation.
Speaker 1: So from our point of view, you know, this is
Speaker 1: just simply a point in time where you should be
Speaker 1: playing a little bit more defense from a point in
Speaker 1: the cycle where very late in the cycle, as we've highlighted,
Speaker 1: we want to basically be picking our spots in terms
Speaker 1: of credit, picking our spots in terms of credit portfolio
Speaker 1: differentiations of having a diversified portfolio and ultimately, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: focusing on that aspect of defense, focusing on the front
Speaker 1: end of the YO curve, which we still find is
Speaker 1: pretty safe at this point in time, self liquidating assets
Speaker 1: and you can pretty much still hunt around and find
Speaker 1: assets that are closer to about three percent compared to
Speaker 1: the interest on access reserves, which is the Fed's benchmark
Speaker 1: of about two point three percent. Snod as Beth McLean
Speaker 1: joining us now. Tom. Thank you very much, pim Coage
Speaker 1: portfolio manager on leverage lines. Beth. Great to have you
Speaker 1: with us on the program. It is one of those
Speaker 1: much talked about areas of fixed income, but perhaps one
Speaker 1: of the least understood, the federal reserve piling in over
Speaker 1: the last couple of years. Saying that it's an area
Speaker 1: of worry, perhaps an area that could cause some kind
Speaker 1: of systemic risk. Let's start there, Beth, your thoughts on that, sure,
Speaker 1: Thank you and thanks for having me this morning. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I do think it's interesting leverage zones have
Speaker 1: become a real topic of conversation from the Fed to
Speaker 1: the Hill and definitely in the media. But um, we
Speaker 1: think in a way it's become a case of the
Speaker 1: people aren't seeing the forest for the trees, right. There's
Speaker 1: an increased risk across all of credit. The investment grade
Speaker 1: market is now fift triple b s. There's weaker terms
Speaker 1: and conditions in the loan market, yes, but also in
Speaker 1: the high yield market, which is an unsecured market versus
Speaker 1: loans which are which are secured um and and then
Speaker 1: overall the growth of the private credit market, which is
Speaker 1: completely unregulated. So I think there's plenty of risk to
Speaker 1: go around. And importantly, you have to to boil it
Speaker 1: down to you know, picking the individual credits, doing the
Speaker 1: bottom up credit research so that you're picking the healthiest trees,
Speaker 1: if you will, in in in the forest. The rny
Speaker 1: of it all is that maybe the risks we're building
Speaker 1: when the Federal Reserve was cutting hiking interest rates rather
Speaker 1: because there was this massive wall of demand for floating
Speaker 1: right product. Just how much have the covenants have some
Speaker 1: of the securities that invested would typically have Just how
Speaker 1: much have they been beaten up over the last couple
Speaker 1: of years. Yeah, I think that's been an area of
Speaker 1: focusing rightly. So, I think that the demand for income
Speaker 1: across you know, high yield and leverage loans has driven
Speaker 1: to weaker terms. So generally we see most of the
Speaker 1: market now over it was quote unquote covenant light, which
Speaker 1: means there's no maintenance covenants. But importantly there are still
Speaker 1: incurrence tests, so companies can only incur debt if their
Speaker 1: leverages is peaked at a certain level. So there are
Speaker 1: some protection still in the documents. And then the other
Speaker 1: area of weakness, if you will, has been you know,
Speaker 1: maybe looser baskets. UM. There there's more room for adding
Speaker 1: incremental indebtedness, there's more room to make restricted payments or dividends.
Speaker 1: So those are the things that again it gets down
Speaker 1: really to us to how do you underwrite these loans
Speaker 1: and are you in your models? You know, we have
Speaker 1: our our global credit research team that that you hear
Speaker 1: Markquisel and others talk about. UM. That team is very
Speaker 1: focused on doing that bottom up analysis and taking a
Speaker 1: look at the structure and saying, what if we fund
Speaker 1: that incremental debt and it pays a dividend. So it's
Speaker 1: not really doing anything to help the company, if you will,
Speaker 1: but to help equity investors. UM. You know, how does
Speaker 1: that look, what does that impact our you know, our
Speaker 1: view on their ability to deleverage over time, how the
Speaker 1: company can fare through a downturn. So we're always under
Speaker 1: writing to what is that downside? What if they pull
Speaker 1: all of these triggers that they have in their credit
Speaker 1: agreements and how do how do how will they be
Speaker 1: able to sustain cash flows and pay down debt during
Speaker 1: during a weaker economic And let's talk about the prospect
Speaker 1: of a much weaker economy. We have a global bond
Speaker 1: market pricing in right cuts in the treasury market, for instance,
Speaker 1: the prospective recoveries the default cycle. What it could look
Speaker 1: like now for this error fixed income versus what it
Speaker 1: looked like ten years ago. Has it changed in your mind?
Speaker 1: I think it has changed. Um you know, you can't
Speaker 1: have this this fundamental shift in weaker terms, etcetera, and
Speaker 1: not have some expectation on how it's going to impact
Speaker 1: the behavior through the next economic cycle. Um. So I
Speaker 1: think a couple of things. One, we do think that recoveries.
Speaker 1: In the last couple of cycles, you've had cumulative default
Speaker 1: rates oft with recoveries and loans of about sevent If
Speaker 1: we go through the next cycle, and let's say you
Speaker 1: have the same cumulative default rate but recoveries of same
Speaker 1: were like sixty to sixty five percent, which is what
Speaker 1: the UM, what the rating agencies are are generally forecasting. Obviously,
Speaker 1: that's increased losses to UM you know two investors. But
Speaker 1: I think if you put it in in in the
Speaker 1: broader framework, the loan market is about a trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: Let's say we have that thirty percent cumulator default, right,
Speaker 1: and a more draconian scenario of fifty percent recoveries. That's
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty billion of losses. So that's not
Speaker 1: not unmeaningful. But think about what the fang stocks lose
Speaker 1: sometimes in an afternoon, right, If you put it in perspective,
Speaker 1: that's not that big. And and then secondly, those losses
Speaker 1: are going to be born primarily by CLLO equity investors.
Speaker 1: CLOS owned two thirds of the loan market and Cello
Speaker 1: Equity is the first loss. So even in that scenario
Speaker 1: where you have fifteen percent cumulative losses, most of that
Speaker 1: actually hits just the CLLO equity and maybe the double bs.
Speaker 1: Beth really smart stuff and gas get your insight this
Speaker 1: morning on an area of fixed thing. Come Tom, But
Speaker 1: I think he's talked about a lot but not understood
Speaker 1: very well. Beth McLean that of pim cut really good
Speaker 1: perspective in a series of conversations with John Farrow at
Speaker 1: Newport Beach with PIMCO. Today, we now get a clinic
Speaker 1: on China from Hugo Rogers, chief investment strategist at Dell Tech.
Speaker 1: He's smarter than I am. In February he's in the Bahamas.
Speaker 1: Even now in May he's in the Bahamas. So, Hugo,
Speaker 1: you're smarter than I am. But your note on China
Speaker 1: is jaw dropping. You clearly take the gloomy side. Why well, Um,
Speaker 1: there's a very thank you for your introduction. My ability
Speaker 1: to focus the weather is is well famous. Maybe I'm
Speaker 1: very tough to do in the Bahamas, but continue exactly. Um.
Speaker 1: So the gloomy view and China really is that there
Speaker 1: are long term structural issues in China. China is has
Speaker 1: been running a series of stimulus since the Great Financial Crisis.
Speaker 1: They've all been debt fueled fixed asset investment, and the
Speaker 1: marginal returns on those kinds of investments have been falling.
Speaker 1: You know, the the credit impulse has led to a
Speaker 1: lower and lower GDP response each time. So there is
Speaker 1: a problem with the old way of stimulating growth. That
Speaker 1: mechanism is broken, Um. And there's actually it's worse than that.
Speaker 1: There's a direct conflict. The way you're funding that growth
Speaker 1: away that China is funding that growth is your effectively
Speaker 1: expropriating savings from your consumers. And it's the consumer you
Speaker 1: need to pick up the economy. You know, it's less
Speaker 1: than half the economy and it's just not growing. What
Speaker 1: do you make of the bank failure and inner mongolia
Speaker 1: four or five, six days ago? Is that a one
Speaker 1: off video syncretic moment or not. It's it's potentially a harbinger.
Speaker 1: But you know, let's not let's not read too much
Speaker 1: into a small banker. But the you know, I've seen
Speaker 1: the Chinese banks I met when the i PR however
Speaker 1: long ago, and they all are state controlled, so they
Speaker 1: have to lend where they're told and as provide the
Speaker 1: balance right now of the political economics of Beijing with
Speaker 1: the trade war and with the classic answer, which is China,
Speaker 1: what outpatients us? Do they have the underlying economic slash
Speaker 1: financial to out patients? President Trump, Um, Yeah, I hate
Speaker 1: to be consensus, but the answer is they do have
Speaker 1: They have less domestic political pressure. They control the narrative,
Speaker 1: they control the press. They can they can play a
Speaker 1: long game. But I think it's clear that that is
Speaker 1: what they are betting on. They are turning around and
Speaker 1: saying that we can play the long game. Trump isn't
Speaker 1: the presidential election cycle right now. Um, so if we
Speaker 1: wait out, we get a softer Um administration, we can
Speaker 1: maybe we can maybe win. Come on, they're not a
Speaker 1: currency manipulator. There was an uproar one year ago, two
Speaker 1: years ago, five years ago. They were a currency manipulator.
Speaker 1: I guess they still aren't. Fine. We've got rarers now,
Speaker 1: know not the band folks from a million years ago? Rarers, Cobalt,
Speaker 1: selenium and the rest of it. Go on. We got
Speaker 1: all that. Are those distractions or should we actually study
Speaker 1: those as we try to study China? Um? They are.
Speaker 1: I think there's there's small weapons. You know that the
Speaker 1: problem is that actually right now China is in such
Speaker 1: a weak position because it's trying to stimulate its economy.
Speaker 1: It's it's been suffering. There's been in credit contraction for
Speaker 1: a period of time in China, and and so Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has got them over a battle barrel. So that
Speaker 1: the best defense they have is a long term We're
Speaker 1: playing a long term, patient game. But I find it
Speaker 1: quite interesting that they're talking. They are trying to back
Speaker 1: channel at the same time as trying to retaliate. At
Speaker 1: the same time is trying to circumvent what So, which
Speaker 1: one of those three should we focus on as we
Speaker 1: try to figure out what to do? So this is
Speaker 1: where I think, this is where China is actually smart,
Speaker 1: because it does how it's it's playing all three games simultaneously.
Speaker 1: When Trump is pushing home in advantage along a single line,
Speaker 1: which is if FX reserves, if if if the Chinese
Speaker 1: surplus falls, they have they have problems. They have significant problems.
Speaker 1: That's that's like a lightning one that's going straight through.
Speaker 1: But China is playing three games simultaneously to try and
Speaker 1: try and circumvent that. Are they going to import Iranian
Speaker 1: oil for example? Are the other ways of having some
Speaker 1: kind of allegiance with with Europe if they get if
Speaker 1: you get auto taris placed on them. So it's the
Speaker 1: best it's the best response they have is to play
Speaker 1: these these these small, subtle games. But they are in
Speaker 1: a weaker position and it can't be denied. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So much with del Tector today are chief investment strategies,
Speaker 1: even from the Bahama. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keene before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio