Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane
Speaker 1: jay Ley. 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 I
Speaker 1: do want to dig into that Deutsche Bank barger. I
Speaker 1: think if it's fascinating for a lot of perspectives, what
Speaker 1: did I talk about it? Let's talk about it because
Speaker 1: he's been on the cards for absolutely h s And finally,
Speaker 1: I guess it's official now that they're actually in talk
Speaker 1: do we just assume it's executed? Um, well, I think
Speaker 1: that they're probably are a whole bunch of potential challenges
Speaker 1: here still, I mean, I think that the question is
Speaker 1: what form is this going to take? Is this murder?
Speaker 1: And I think Luigi's and Galis actually has some views
Speaker 1: on this. He's a finance professor at the Niversity of
Speaker 1: Chicago at the Booth School of Business and he joins
Speaker 1: us here in our Bloomberg Director Broker Studios. Luigi, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being here. What do you think
Speaker 1: about this murger? So this is a merger of failed
Speaker 1: banks banks that don't succeed in the marketplace by themself,
Speaker 1: and they have to merge because they're very weak, even
Speaker 1: if in the past they have shown that they are
Speaker 1: not very good at merging, because if you remember comments
Speaker 1: back comes from a very bad merger with Dresden and
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank tried to integrate deutge post Bank and did
Speaker 1: not do very well and at some point try to
Speaker 1: sell it and they couldn't even sell it. So I
Speaker 1: don't think they have a good record in merging, and
Speaker 1: the only reason why they're emerging is because they're trying
Speaker 1: to basically achieve three things. One is fire more people,
Speaker 1: and they have to have the permission of the German
Speaker 1: government to fire people. They got it that that's a Hinterestly,
Speaker 1: it comes from a Social Democratic minister, so imagine what
Speaker 1: the Conservative would have done so in so that's one.
Speaker 1: The second is probably they can gain a little bit
Speaker 1: of market power, but most importantly they certainly become too
Speaker 1: big to fail, and they are trying to sell that
Speaker 1: this is the German national champion. Now, Germany has a
Speaker 1: lot of good things going for itself, but this is
Speaker 1: not one of those. Deutsche as a tradition of cheating.
Speaker 1: I think it's more, uh pay more fines than it
Speaker 1: is worth in the equity market today because and so
Speaker 1: I don't think and it's not very profitable. So I
Speaker 1: think that a bank in this condition is not in
Speaker 1: the situation to acquire another one. And the fact that
Speaker 1: that's the only thing that they figure out means how
Speaker 1: bad the banking sector is in Europe this moment, Alouigi.
Speaker 1: For a long time, we've referred to Many is the
Speaker 1: powerhouse of Europe. The banking sector is certainly not the
Speaker 1: powerhouse of Europe. Why does the German banking sector have
Speaker 1: these problems still? Actually, I think that that's uh strategic
Speaker 1: to maintain industry. I think that the banking sector in
Speaker 1: Italy in Germany is dominated by the spreadcast and the
Speaker 1: cooperative and both these institutions don't have profits as an objective.
Speaker 1: They have basically the well being of their partners and
Speaker 1: their um of the of the company's they financed. So
Speaker 1: I think that the banking sector in Germany is postponed
Speaker 1: to the industor sector, and that's the reason why the
Speaker 1: industa sector is so strong and the banking sector is
Speaker 1: a weak. I'm struggling to understand how Commerce Bank, how
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank still has about a six steak in Commerce
Speaker 1: Bank and will probably roll over that stake into the
Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank Commerce Bank Merger. I mean, basically, is this
Speaker 1: now ftionalization. I think that Germany, that is very taff
Speaker 1: with the other European countries system of state eight when
Speaker 1: it comes to its own banks, has been extremely generous
Speaker 1: in state aid. I think that most Americans don't know
Speaker 1: that top is nothing by comparison to what Germany did
Speaker 1: for its bank in two thousand and eight. So I
Speaker 1: guess if we can broaden out a little bit, given
Speaker 1: the fact that we do have the FED week coming
Speaker 1: up and we have this persistently weak data in Europe,
Speaker 1: is this joytsche Bank Commerce Bank merger emblematic of the
Speaker 1: persistent weakness in the euroregion that could potentially deepen beyond
Speaker 1: what people are expecting. I think that that's certainly one
Speaker 1: reason I think that Germany does sphere is low down.
Speaker 1: There are two views of the world here. There are
Speaker 1: those who say that there's been a temporary thing due
Speaker 1: to a couple of accident like the low water in
Speaker 1: the Rhine River that made it difficult to export, and
Speaker 1: given some regulation the car industry that has low down
Speaker 1: production and then now we're back to two normal Um
Speaker 1: I am more sort of worried, especially with the softness
Speaker 1: coming out of China. China is a big export market
Speaker 1: for Germany and if this is an issue, German manufacturing
Speaker 1: will suffered. And nobody talks about this. But if we
Speaker 1: were to go into a very hard Brexit, the problem
Speaker 1: would not just be for the United Kingdom. Germany exports
Speaker 1: a lot of car to the UK, and so hot
Speaker 1: Brexit will be a pretty bad news for Europe in general,
Speaker 1: but particularly for Germany. So with with this context, I
Speaker 1: think that there we is a need to do something
Speaker 1: with the banking sector that is too big and too unprofitable.
Speaker 1: And part of this unprofitability is the fact that uh,
Speaker 1: the cost to income ratio is very high. So unfoldedly,
Speaker 1: I think with structuring and job cuts are on the line,
Speaker 1: the question is why do you need to merge to
Speaker 1: do that? And I fear that this is just a
Speaker 1: political play that on the one end, the German politician
Speaker 1: allow for job cuts, on the other hand, they do
Speaker 1: form a national champion that would be easier for the
Speaker 1: German government to control and direct Luigi, can a national
Speaker 1: champion compete on the international stage if it is efficient, Yes,
Speaker 1: but given the record of Deutscher, my answer is not.
Speaker 1: Luigi is in fantastic to catch up with your finance
Speaker 1: professor at university if Chicago Birth School. We are so
Speaker 1: lucky to have Herrin Seagram joining us here in our
Speaker 1: Blueberg Interactive Broker Studios in New York. Ran Stagram is
Speaker 1: a New York University. Stern Up professor of Finance. Heard
Speaker 1: the two point one billion dollar valuation on its face
Speaker 1: four lifts, I p O and I believe that values
Speaker 1: accompanied about eighteen plus billion dollars. How do you even
Speaker 1: value that? Thanks for having me, Lisa. So the way
Speaker 1: to look about LIFT is think about it as a
Speaker 1: platform business. And if you take the EV two sales
Speaker 1: for the market overall is about two to and a half.
Speaker 1: But generally platform business is priced between seven and ten x.
Speaker 1: So if you take the current revenues on face value
Speaker 1: at two billion dollars to point one billion, if you
Speaker 1: grow that at twenty five per year for the next
Speaker 1: five years, that gives a future value of roughly between
Speaker 1: thirty and thirty five billion. And if you discount that
Speaker 1: back at the cost of capital that will give you
Speaker 1: roughly around twenty one billion. So investors are pretty much
Speaker 1: paying for the future rather than the current state of
Speaker 1: affairs for this company. This is important. They're paying for
Speaker 1: the future, and they're paying for the future at a
Speaker 1: very expensive time. It just raises a question, are people
Speaker 1: getting in at the peak? Is lift uh and and
Speaker 1: and and our our lift and Uber kind of trying
Speaker 1: to capitalize here on this potential Peakye, that is absolutely right.
Speaker 1: It is more liquidity event for the private equity investors
Speaker 1: who got into Lift and Uber earlier, so they are
Speaker 1: cashing out, no doubt. UM. But I have a feeling
Speaker 1: this valuation would grow into this UM. So although they
Speaker 1: are catching it at peak, UM, I have a feeling
Speaker 1: this company. I'm optimistic generally about this company, your optimist company,
Speaker 1: and and thinking that people will probably get good value
Speaker 1: or at least fair value if they buy into the
Speaker 1: I p o of fair values better I would say,
Speaker 1: not good value, fair value. But this raises a question
Speaker 1: really on a broader level, because right now the SMP
Speaker 1: is poised for its best quarterly performance since we are
Speaker 1: we are looking at a market that is so uh robust,
Speaker 1: and melting up, And there is a question, you know,
Speaker 1: is this a bad time to get in or is
Speaker 1: it also fair value? UM I abuse tend to come
Speaker 1: towards the peaks of the market because original investors, early
Speaker 1: investors are trying to cash out. But I have a
Speaker 1: feeling SMP has some room to run, especially then federal
Speaker 1: reserves on hold, and US is the best place to
Speaker 1: invest compared to rest of the globe. I have a
Speaker 1: feeling this melt up is going to continue for a while, Okay,
Speaker 1: And then what does that say for the other I
Speaker 1: p o s that are slated like the Ubers and
Speaker 1: all the other high profile unicorns. Um Uber is um
Speaker 1: planning to go to the market between hundred and one
Speaker 1: twenty billion. It is similar again with thinking about that
Speaker 1: as a platform business, and they are also diversified into
Speaker 1: other types of businesses. So market is again attaching a
Speaker 1: seven to between seven and ten multiple to this company,
Speaker 1: but I don't think it is the current current valuation.
Speaker 1: We are being We are valuing these companies on a
Speaker 1: forward multiple. That is my humble opinion. Just what your
Speaker 1: thoughts on on Lift and Uber and how one company
Speaker 1: is very very focused on what it does it's a
Speaker 1: right hailing service that's left. Uber seems to be spread
Speaker 1: out a little bit more doing various different things. What
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on the kind of premium you've attached
Speaker 1: to the focused company versus the one that's trying to
Speaker 1: do a whole lot more. Thanks for having me, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: good to be with you. Um, there are two types
Speaker 1: of businesses. If you think about it's a focused company, Um,
Speaker 1: they have as you said, they're very focused on right
Speaker 1: hailing and they're planning to expand the business. They're currently
Speaker 1: in the North Hamn region right now, so that's the
Speaker 1: target market. But when you take Uber for example, they
Speaker 1: have more levers to pull, so it is more of
Speaker 1: a diversified business. So investors think about these businesses in
Speaker 1: a different way. Um, simple folks, business can be valued
Speaker 1: in a different way and a diversified business would be
Speaker 1: valid in a different way. So for us to compare
Speaker 1: these two companies at this moment, I don't think it
Speaker 1: is advisable, just in terms of how mature some of
Speaker 1: the companies are coming to market as well. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people find that interesting relative to where
Speaker 1: we were, so maybe ten twenty years ago, where relatively
Speaker 1: young companies would come to market, they would become public
Speaker 1: companies for very good reasons. Now it seems they remain
Speaker 1: private for a whole lot longer, Professor, Why do you
Speaker 1: think that is? Because private market funding so available. If
Speaker 1: you take Master's Sun buying into uber so three or
Speaker 1: four billion dollars being pumped into Even last week he
Speaker 1: invested into Grab in Singapore. So the private market funding
Speaker 1: is readily available. Cash is cheap at this lower interest rates.
Speaker 1: That's why these companies are staying long a private. They
Speaker 1: have no need to come to the public markets, but
Speaker 1: they want to cash out rate if they have gotten in.
Speaker 1: For a take for example, what master Son did with
Speaker 1: Ali Baba put in twenty million and the stake is
Speaker 1: sitting at one and twenty billion today, So people are
Speaker 1: comfortable sitting with it in the private market, they don't
Speaker 1: have to really cash out. But then markets that that
Speaker 1: are such a high why don't you take advantage of it?
Speaker 1: It's well great. Some people would say that the availability
Speaker 1: of capital and the private markets to some degree, and
Speaker 1: you can tell me to what degree you think this
Speaker 1: is true, is breeding arrogance of leadership of some of
Speaker 1: these tech companies and when they do come public, the
Speaker 1: ownership structures are different. So we'll let me make this
Speaker 1: really simple. For a typical investor who's looking to participate
Speaker 1: in an I p O, they won't actually own the company,
Speaker 1: won't have the voting rights that maybe they would have
Speaker 1: got ten twenty years ago, because the leadership are able
Speaker 1: to keep hold of the ownership and voting rights the
Speaker 1: management of the company a way that maybe they didn't
Speaker 1: many years ago. Why do you think that is changing
Speaker 1: and you think eventually there will be pushed back from
Speaker 1: the investor community. There will be eventually be a push back,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that is the case right now.
Speaker 1: Investors have come to terms with it. This is the
Speaker 1: norm for technology companies. You take Sergio Brain, Mark Zuckerberg,
Speaker 1: all the top leaders, I don't know, I don't want
Speaker 1: to call them top, but the leaders they tend to
Speaker 1: hold on a majority of the voting rights. Investors are
Speaker 1: not currently punishing the valuations of these companies. I know
Speaker 1: it weakens the corporate governance structure of the company, but
Speaker 1: I don't think that is impacting the valuation. Maybe there
Speaker 1: might be a push back in the future, but I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't see that right now. Do you
Speaker 1: think that these companies being public will impede their growth
Speaker 1: because these an these these leaders have never been accountable
Speaker 1: to shareholders in the same kind of way and having
Speaker 1: to sort of deal with quarter to quarter expectations versus
Speaker 1: longer term plans and just burning through cash. Lisa, You're right,
Speaker 1: it's going to be tough for them. They had their wish.
Speaker 1: When they are private, they can do whatever they want
Speaker 1: to Now they're accountable to the market and the investors.
Speaker 1: But when you come into public markets with valuations of
Speaker 1: twenty billion one and twenty billion, investors would give a
Speaker 1: leeway for those leaders because they have a proven track record.
Speaker 1: If these valuations are holed up for the next year
Speaker 1: or two, they have proven that they can grow this business,
Speaker 1: and I think investors are going to be on the
Speaker 1: sideline letting these companies grow on their own. Paren Segrim,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being with us. Thank you, Lisa,
Speaker 1: thank you Jonathan for having Thank you sir, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. Boeing shares down a little bit lessan two
Speaker 1: and a half percent following news that the f a
Speaker 1: A had been warned that Boeing had too much power
Speaker 1: in the approval process seven years ago and they had
Speaker 1: not paid any attention. This looks terrible for the f A,
Speaker 1: looks terrible for Boeing. Here to talk about the potential
Speaker 1: ramifications for it is Brook Sutherland Bloomberg opinion columnists joining
Speaker 1: us here in our interactive Broker Studios. Broke just give
Speaker 1: us a sense of what the Seattle Times investigation found
Speaker 1: that really showed this should have been on the radar
Speaker 1: of the f A A and frankly Boeing as well. No, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I mean, and I think to your point. So this
Speaker 1: is seven years ago, two thousand twelve. This is actually
Speaker 1: pre the Dreamline or battery problems as well, which did
Speaker 1: of course result in the f A grounding those planes.
Speaker 1: So this has been sort of an ongoing issue that
Speaker 1: everybody should have been rather abundantly aware of and perhaps
Speaker 1: looking at a little bit more aggressively. So a couple
Speaker 1: of things from the Seattle Times investigation. What they have
Speaker 1: found is, you know, it's been well documented that f
Speaker 1: A has been outsourcing certification work to the aircraft manufacturers.
Speaker 1: Now this is something that's actually gotten approval from people
Speaker 1: in government and sort of you know, one over their
Speaker 1: support because the f A does not have very much money,
Speaker 1: and this is also a rather timely process that these
Speaker 1: aircraft certified. Before you continue, is there some sort of
Speaker 1: external check on the in house corporate overseers that are
Speaker 1: overseeing themselves. Well, in theory, the f A has the
Speaker 1: ability to approve the Boeing employees that are you know,
Speaker 1: put in place to act as sort of officials of
Speaker 1: the f A as far as the certification process, and
Speaker 1: if they have issues of conflicts of interests that arrived,
Speaker 1: they can replace them. But what the Seattle Times is
Speaker 1: reporting is that employees did raise concerns about certain Boeing managers,
Speaker 1: and their managers at the f a A basically overruled that,
Speaker 1: and we're pushing them to sort of speed up the
Speaker 1: certification process to try to get this bowing blank out.
Speaker 1: Because remember the reason why Boeing was investing in the
Speaker 1: seven Max is because air Bus came out with a
Speaker 1: three Neo, which had much more fuel efficient engines, was
Speaker 1: very attractive to airlines for a lot of different reasons,
Speaker 1: and Boeing needed a response, and they needed one very quickly.
Speaker 1: They were already behind air Bus in terms of production. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, the other really key things from the Seattle
Speaker 1: Times report for me were the details of this safety
Speaker 1: analysis that Boeing did on the maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation system,
Speaker 1: which is that slight control system that's being sort of
Speaker 1: pinpointed as a possible cause for both of these fatal crashes. Now,
Speaker 1: so in that safety analysis which Boeing did as part
Speaker 1: of the certification process, as part of this outsourcing of
Speaker 1: the work, um, they understate the thrust that can put
Speaker 1: the degree of thrust on the plane's nose down. Um.
Speaker 1: They also failed to acknowledge the fact that this system resets,
Speaker 1: so if the plane's nose is diving and the pilot
Speaker 1: corrects that, the system can go through the process all
Speaker 1: over again, which is what happened that we heard about
Speaker 1: with the Ladish crash. And that really sort of undermines
Speaker 1: Bowing's narrative because with the first crash they said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: pilot should have known about this. They have all this,
Speaker 1: you know, basic training of how to handle a dive. Well,
Speaker 1: pilots are trained for sort of a continuous dive. That's
Speaker 1: not what happened. This was sort of up and down,
Speaker 1: step by step, and you know, with the degree of
Speaker 1: thrust the system is capable of. That was sort of
Speaker 1: what led to this being so disastrous. So I want
Speaker 1: to pick up on this idea that it goes counter
Speaker 1: to Boeing's narrative. I'm wondering how much liability Bowing is
Speaker 1: going to have here given the fact that they were
Speaker 1: aware of potential risks, the fact that they were lobbying
Speaker 1: f A A and the f A was not getting
Speaker 1: them in check, and they are their own overseers. The
Speaker 1: fact that that they have that onus, does that leave
Speaker 1: them with more responsibility? Uh, financially at this point, the
Speaker 1: fact that the risks were understated in this safety analysis
Speaker 1: that was submitted they f A is not a good
Speaker 1: look for Boeing, especially because they're now saying, Okay, we'll
Speaker 1: know this is actually how it worked. Um, I think
Speaker 1: you know, you're already starting to see sort of lawsuits
Speaker 1: from the families of of the people who died in
Speaker 1: these crashes. I am not a lawyer, so I'm not
Speaker 1: going to speculate onto the outcome of that, but just
Speaker 1: looking at it, it does not look good for Boeing.
Speaker 1: I mean just in terms of their culpability here, in
Speaker 1: terms of not really taking ownership of some of these issues.
Speaker 1: I think that just raises a lot of questions and
Speaker 1: and and not to not to diminish the personal tragedy
Speaker 1: aspect of this. I mean a lot of people, hundreds
Speaker 1: of people lost their lives because of what happened. I
Speaker 1: do have to wonder from a business perspective with Boeing,
Speaker 1: is the big risk the liability is the potential lawsuits
Speaker 1: or is it that companies airlines are not going to
Speaker 1: order from Boeing because they have that much less confidence.
Speaker 1: I think the bigger risk as far as, um, you know,
Speaker 1: Boeing's liability is first of all, what happens as a
Speaker 1: result of this grounding, and a lot of it is
Speaker 1: to pendant on how long the grounding is and what
Speaker 1: regulators ultimately decide is the problem here. Um. So after
Speaker 1: the Lion Air crash, I mean Boeing was sort of saying, well,
Speaker 1: this is a software issue. They were supposedly working on
Speaker 1: a fix that was reportedly supposed to be out by
Speaker 1: year end. Obviously that did not happen, and said we
Speaker 1: had the Ethiopian Airlines crash, which in my mind sort
Speaker 1: of ups the stakes as far as how you actually
Speaker 1: fix this I don't think it's as simple anymore. It's
Speaker 1: just a software download. I think you're certainly going to
Speaker 1: have to have retraining of pilots, which is going to
Speaker 1: be expensive. That's probably going to be a bill that
Speaker 1: Boeing has to front, including the cost of, you know,
Speaker 1: replenishing airlines lost revenue for having these planes out of service.
Speaker 1: Um Now, the more dire scenario is that the f
Speaker 1: a A is forced to sort of revisit the whole
Speaker 1: certification of the seven thirties seven Max designed to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we needed to be more rigorous about this, we need
Speaker 1: to go through a more in depth process. There's also
Speaker 1: a question about the f a and what happens here
Speaker 1: with that agency, especially given the fact that any potential
Speaker 1: badness around the organization was just magnified by the fact
Speaker 1: that they were so late to the game in terms
Speaker 1: of halting the use of the seven thirty seven Max
Speaker 1: A jet. I'm wondering is there any potential recourse that
Speaker 1: lawmakers could take with the f a A, uh, possibly
Speaker 1: appropriating a little more money so they could have outside investigators,
Speaker 1: or perhaps making sure that they have the personnel who
Speaker 1: are not going to do this again. I certainly think
Speaker 1: that this idea of outsourcing the certification work to Boeing
Speaker 1: is going to be under a lot of scrutiny. You're
Speaker 1: certainly gonna have a lot of hearings. Now. I will
Speaker 1: say the Trump administration actually expanded that outsourcing program just
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago to include, um, you know,
Speaker 1: other types of products. So it will be interesting to
Speaker 1: see how this plays out because, of course, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is very big on deregulation, and obviously in this
Speaker 1: case and some of the President's tweets would suggest that,
Speaker 1: you know, we we need to have stronger oversight here.
Speaker 1: So it's gonna be really interesting to see how that
Speaker 1: tension plays out. But I will say the f A
Speaker 1: is not the only game in town anymore, like it
Speaker 1: used to be that the FAYS were carried in the
Speaker 1: aviation industry. And what you saw in this case, which
Speaker 1: I just think is remarkable, is that other aviation regulators
Speaker 1: are saying, we don't really trust what you have to say.
Speaker 1: We're going to make our own decisions as far as
Speaker 1: whether or not this plane as air worth. Other other
Speaker 1: regulators are talking about internationally, right, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you saw that with like how quick they were to
Speaker 1: ground the plane regardless of what THEA was, which to
Speaker 1: me raises also a question of how this affects the
Speaker 1: companies in the United States that are regulated by the
Speaker 1: f a A and others that are outsourcing some of
Speaker 1: their their their services. To me, it makes me wonder
Speaker 1: whether that's going to put these companies at a disadvantage
Speaker 1: competitively internationally because people will have less faith that they
Speaker 1: have truly passed all of the tests. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think so any of these aircraft have to be
Speaker 1: sort of certified by all of these aviation regulators anyway,
Speaker 1: and so like all of these companies are going to
Speaker 1: be very intimately familiar with the criteria other regulators. But
Speaker 1: what you could see to your point is that you know,
Speaker 1: the Europeans, the Brazilians, China steps up their scrutiny and
Speaker 1: they have more stringent requirements in the f A because
Speaker 1: they feel like they need to fill that void. Did
Speaker 1: any other agencies sign off on the seven thirty seven
Speaker 1: max yet in the United States internationally? I would have
Speaker 1: to double check that, but I would believe, I mean,
Speaker 1: if they're flying, then they probably are. So it might
Speaker 1: be the f a A that's got egg on its
Speaker 1: face right now. But it seems like perhaps it wasn't
Speaker 1: them alone that signed off on it. No, it wasn't.
Speaker 1: But so Brazil and the Europeans did push back on
Speaker 1: some of the really re certification processes that they ultimately,
Speaker 1: you know, put that plane in the sky. But they
Speaker 1: did have more concerns and there was a little bit
Speaker 1: more of a pushback in those conversations. Brook Sutherland, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with us today. Brook Sutherland
Speaker 1: is a Bloomberg opinion columnist and she is fabulous. Read
Speaker 1: her columns. You can find them online. You can find
Speaker 1: them on the Bloomberg of brook Sutherland. She is really
Speaker 1: one of our top notch columnists here. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.