Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm term Keene
Speaker 1: jay Leye. 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 the film.
Speaker 1: Let's see if you've been one over, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Over the last week, we have had a ton of
Speaker 1: happy talk around the potential for a trade deal. We
Speaker 1: now understand from the President that the March first deadline
Speaker 1: is something that he would be inclined to let slide
Speaker 1: if they are close to a deal. Do you assume
Speaker 1: we have made some progress on the trade front over
Speaker 1: the last month. Undoubtedly, yes. I think the more positive
Speaker 1: noises have some foundation. In reality. Trump wouldn't be saying
Speaker 1: what you're saying if he didn't believe that he he
Speaker 1: could indeed push out the March one deadline, and that
Speaker 1: is has to be good news. The problem isn't solved yet, right.
Speaker 1: There are really quite intractable issues having to do with STECH,
Speaker 1: having to do with the Chinese changing the economic model right,
Speaker 1: which is something that is really not going to clients
Speaker 1: at the moment. Villam Do you just tell them to
Speaker 1: assume that this is going to continue for decades, that
Speaker 1: this isn't going to stop. Yes, this is my view,
Speaker 1: um that the relationship, the trade relationship between the US
Speaker 1: and China is part of a wider strategic global new
Speaker 1: Cold War. Yes, well, you were brilliant enough to bringing
Speaker 1: Catherine Mann, who owns the concept of dysfunction and the
Speaker 1: code dependency of these two trading giants. She has the
Speaker 1: high ground and that concept that what you see or
Speaker 1: do you agree with your colleague Catherine Man is a
Speaker 1: co dependency of international trade very much. So, Yes, the
Speaker 1: two elephants in two and a half elephants if you
Speaker 1: count the your area as to half in international trade,
Speaker 1: and they are China and the US do have opposite
Speaker 1: ambitions for a regional and so then don't the Chinese
Speaker 1: outweigh this president that's there? Isn't that there their greatest
Speaker 1: probabilistic outcome and simply to outweigh outweigh Donald Trump. Yes,
Speaker 1: but that may be another six years, right, So I
Speaker 1: wouldn't think that this is really their strategy. They want
Speaker 1: this issue to be settled. They don't want another two
Speaker 1: years even of open trade warfare, which has really been
Speaker 1: damaging the Chinese business confidence. Matty. As you know, in leadership,
Speaker 1: one of the toughest decisions you have is not who
Speaker 1: to please, but who to disappoint. And I just wonder
Speaker 1: at the end of this week, it was really interesting
Speaker 1: listening to the President at one of the recent rallies
Speaker 1: this week when he mentioned a deal with China, the
Speaker 1: crowd went silent. There was no cheering about cutting a
Speaker 1: deal with China. I imagine Ambassador Leightheiser, if he doesn't
Speaker 1: get the kind of deal that he really wants, he's
Speaker 1: going to be disappointed. If you listen to some of
Speaker 1: the hosts of some particular news shows who in the
Speaker 1: United States, they don't seem impressed at the prospect of
Speaker 1: a deal on board of security either at least not
Speaker 1: the board the deal on the table, Marty, how many
Speaker 1: people are going to be upset in the next couple
Speaker 1: of weeks and who is going to be upset? Well?
Speaker 1: I actually I think the commentary around trump'space on the
Speaker 1: conservative media side is mixed. Russia Limball last night gave
Speaker 1: a kind of uh tacit approval for this strategy of
Speaker 1: declaring an emergency action and signing this bill. So I
Speaker 1: actually think that Donald Trump can do no wrong to
Speaker 1: his right, Marty, I'm glad you bring this up. So
Speaker 1: the basic theme right now for the Conservatives is there
Speaker 1: gonna get one to two billion dollars of funding. He's
Speaker 1: going to do a national emergency and overlay on top
Speaker 1: of that. Does your team in Washington have a working
Speaker 1: number of what that overlay is? No, And in fact
Speaker 1: we're trying to figure it out in terms of what
Speaker 1: exactly what kind of money he's moving around. Their members
Speaker 1: of Congress has have warned him against using military funds. Uh,
Speaker 1: that we're you're marked for other things. But they're they're
Speaker 1: various ideas dick more about where they can get those
Speaker 1: funds and would not represent some sort of dangerous president.
Speaker 1: Did you see the Senate a cruze proposal? Oh I miss,
Speaker 1: this is fantastic. Um when you see the fourteen billion
Speaker 1: dollars from Al Chapo Um, it's convicted. It was also
Speaker 1: you can then use the money for boarding security. It
Speaker 1: was an interesting idea of being floated around that critics
Speaker 1: with still owads of fine. Uh. And so it would
Speaker 1: be the switch the French who would be building the
Speaker 1: wall right, we'll just keep this up. Okay, Well, look
Speaker 1: forward to having your back, Philim about her with us,
Speaker 1: and we got lots to talk about, and certainly this
Speaker 1: new theme in America of some form of socialism coming
Speaker 1: into the debate as well, at least according to the
Speaker 1: critics of the liberals. George Ken Gollus with you. What
Speaker 1: you need to know is Mr gun Colvas writes it
Speaker 1: up at Nomura had a full faith in credit us
Speaker 1: strategy for Numura. And what's really important about gun Colvas
Speaker 1: is his research synthesizes in all of Numura fixed income
Speaker 1: research worldwide. George, I'm gonna give you an open question
Speaker 1: before John jumps on. You give us your observation on
Speaker 1: the new disinflation would you write about this morning? Look,
Speaker 1: we we've been struggling with it for for many years.
Speaker 1: A good morning, guys, and uh, I think there was
Speaker 1: a period of time where you know, there's hope, you know,
Speaker 1: sprung internal all throughout the last really colst fifteen months
Speaker 1: post the the tax deal and all throughout eighteen and
Speaker 1: they're really hopes of inflation coming and it wags. Inflations
Speaker 1: have slightly improved, but you know, really having a hard
Speaker 1: time working its way to the broader economy, and we're
Speaker 1: I think markets are really struggling with We're gonna go
Speaker 1: back to the secular stagnation world that we were desperately
Speaker 1: trying to break free from in the last year year
Speaker 1: and a half. And we look, that's really the multi
Speaker 1: trillion dollar question considering the sort of deficits that we're running,
Speaker 1: because it needs given you know, given a sort of
Speaker 1: you know, uh number of numbers being printed out of
Speaker 1: the DC, at some point you would think inflation would
Speaker 1: would actually kick in. But you know, we're also running
Speaker 1: a huge detload as well, and I think that eventually
Speaker 1: becomes counterproductive growth. So, George, what I'm interested in right
Speaker 1: now is the divergence potentially the could evolve and materialize
Speaker 1: in the coming months between Europe and the United States
Speaker 1: very slowly, that spread between the German and US ten
Speaker 1: years starting to grind out wider two and fifty six
Speaker 1: basis points the US over ten year buns. Are you
Speaker 1: anticipating that to drift tigre in the coming months as
Speaker 1: we start to appreciate a little bit more that Europe
Speaker 1: really isn't looking good and the policy response is incredible.
Speaker 1: Look I think there's scope for us to kind of
Speaker 1: go do wider, maybe even break what we saw, But
Speaker 1: to make something sustainable really requires the US too to
Speaker 1: find a new area of growth. And considering that we
Speaker 1: we we two are also slightly decelerating the feed is
Speaker 1: also trying to desperately achieve a soft landing with the
Speaker 1: US economy at a time where the rest of the
Speaker 1: world's slowly I really think that you know, the highs
Speaker 1: and rates probably took place last year, George. Something that
Speaker 1: keeps coming up again and again on the soft landing
Speaker 1: question is this period of time in the mid nineties.
Speaker 1: How useful is it to take a framework, a period
Speaker 1: of time for history gone by and apply it to
Speaker 1: where we're at right now. It's convenient, and we all
Speaker 1: do it, and let's be honest, and I think what
Speaker 1: we would we'd like to draw parallels to the past
Speaker 1: because it gives us comfort into into what may lie
Speaker 1: in the future. But the future is uncertain, and I
Speaker 1: think it is dangerous to kind of make parallels, especially
Speaker 1: to the got a huge productivity boom. Distinislation are from
Speaker 1: the good side, but it lets a super you know,
Speaker 1: super strong growth And I'm just not sure we're gonna
Speaker 1: get the same thing. You know. Obviously there's the I
Speaker 1: was taking taking a bigger piece of it and they
Speaker 1: don't have a space force. But other than that, I
Speaker 1: really have a hard time scene where it's coming from.
Speaker 1: George Cofas we've walked away from the spread market, two
Speaker 1: is ten spread as a vanilla spread difference in Yale
Speaker 1: between the ten yere and the two year because it's
Speaker 1: been boring, but it's never boring. What part of the
Speaker 1: spread market do you get the most information from right now?
Speaker 1: I think the bigger get to really spread your horizons.
Speaker 1: How about that that voice for radio too. We gotta
Speaker 1: go for two thirties. You get to go as far
Speaker 1: as you can to get the full kind of perspective
Speaker 1: of what's happening with long term rates, because although we
Speaker 1: haven't seen the the natural form of term premium coming
Speaker 1: in the current has stayed deep throughout this period. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the dollar is strengthened it and and it's giving you
Speaker 1: somewhat comflicting messages that the bond market is nervous about
Speaker 1: a downturn, but the thirty year bond market, the thirty
Speaker 1: year rate is not participating but the dollar is and
Speaker 1: we have short term rates higher, and it's creating this
Speaker 1: weird you know, skis them down the middle of what
Speaker 1: really is there? How does that on wine? This is
Speaker 1: really important, folks, is non correlation of longer term ten years,
Speaker 1: thirty year yields into dollar dynamics. What happens? Does the
Speaker 1: bond market catch up with the ascendant dollar? Does it
Speaker 1: go the other way? Well, I mean, look, we're in
Speaker 1: a holding pattern with the set. I mean, the set
Speaker 1: obviously now has opened the door to potentially cutting rates
Speaker 1: as well, if you know, to go back to the
Speaker 1: n Again, we're not supposed to do those sort of
Speaker 1: parallel analysis, but the set has finished the hiking and
Speaker 1: hiking cycle ninety four five and then and the easy
Speaker 1: and then staying at a higher plateau. And so it
Speaker 1: could very well be that you get a few cuts
Speaker 1: which you get in the market is actually actually now
Speaker 1: pricing too and at the short rate actually moves more
Speaker 1: than the thirty year rate. So you're looking for bull
Speaker 1: statement inc Is that essentially what you're saying, George, I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's going to be potential for ball steepening, uh
Speaker 1: and it and it could be something engineered to kind
Speaker 1: of elong and get this business cycle what the done
Speaker 1: is by time, and if we were to CDUs still
Speaker 1: down more than what's projected and kind of linked up
Speaker 1: with what Europe is going through, I think they would
Speaker 1: have to do that. So, George a question that some
Speaker 1: people might ask, and I'll ask it on their behalf.
Speaker 1: To really get some kind of aggressive bull statement, it
Speaker 1: will be difficult because of the issue once that is
Speaker 1: sitting on the front end of the curve, just in
Speaker 1: terms of supply and it comes from the treasury, how
Speaker 1: important is the supply dynamic to get that statements that
Speaker 1: you think we might be able to have. I think
Speaker 1: it's it's it's it's it's easily attainable if the set
Speaker 1: changes its portfolio composition, and this is really the key
Speaker 1: thing they brought up. The portfolios now in play the
Speaker 1: balance sheet, and if they were to redirect their proceeds
Speaker 1: for let's say mortgages at the short term treasuries, they
Speaker 1: can help you really finance a lot of that short
Speaker 1: term paper. So all these things have solutions that they
Speaker 1: really changed their their direction. But isn't the ultimate solution
Speaker 1: what Secretary Geitner mentioned long ago and far away, which
Speaker 1: is just let time march on. Doesn't time heal all
Speaker 1: of this balance sheet dynamic, I mean, and it has
Speaker 1: in the US is in much better shape if you
Speaker 1: if you're if you're referring to the commercial banking system.
Speaker 1: But it's more that there's always so much balance sheet
Speaker 1: to take down, as much paper as being produced in
Speaker 1: the government, bond marketing, meltism, the credit market and deltics, mortgages.
Speaker 1: There's only so much space in the system. And when
Speaker 1: it happens quick, you have dislocations. Are you able to
Speaker 1: make a tenure call right now, I mean, not twelve months?
Speaker 1: Or is it just so noisy out there you can't
Speaker 1: do it? I can? I can? I think we all do.
Speaker 1: And that's part of our job, especial and I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: what the key is what's our confidence level? And um,
Speaker 1: we obviously have a precast. Do you think we're gonna
Speaker 1: be you know, hugging current levels into we have a
Speaker 1: potential scope to grind higher into the summer, because it's
Speaker 1: a lot of this negativity should kind of go away
Speaker 1: in a short run markets markets up right to the
Speaker 1: short run, but in the long run, without inflation, with
Speaker 1: the rest of the world slowing, We're gonna be, you know,
Speaker 1: stuck in the range and heading back down. Fascinating, George,
Speaker 1: thanks for the briefing. George Kann called us at number
Speaker 1: I just greatly appreciate that special topic. In his latest note,
Speaker 1: QT caps Tapers, scenarios, a smart note on a balance
Speaker 1: sheet as well, expert on the most important thing to
Speaker 1: our listeners in the world, not the shutdown, not Brexit. Laura,
Speaker 1: State and local text deduction. This is a huge deal,
Speaker 1: isn't it. This is incredibly huge and pepe As they
Speaker 1: are filling out their tax returns and sending them out
Speaker 1: c I R s this week, this month, are realizing
Speaker 1: just how bad it is. You know, he was hearing
Speaker 1: from real let there, but seeing they're getting a much
Speaker 1: smaller refund or they're they're minding that they're paying a
Speaker 1: lot more in taxes. No, no, no, no, no no, no,
Speaker 1: it's not you're not I'm not getting a refund at
Speaker 1: all and paying for the first time of years. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's what it's because the Biscuits deduction, Laura continue on
Speaker 1: the the upward over this. Are they going to change
Speaker 1: the rule, That's what everybody wants to know. Well, so
Speaker 1: last week President Trump said he was open to changing it.
Speaker 1: And this was really a shock to to most people
Speaker 1: because it was sort of settled back when they did
Speaker 1: the tax overhaul a couple of years ago. Um and
Speaker 1: and and be clear that that right after Trump said that,
Speaker 1: Senate Republicans sent out a statement saying, nope, we're not
Speaker 1: reopening this issue. We're not relitigating it. So the chance
Speaker 1: of there being some congressional change real soon is is
Speaker 1: not not looking likely. However, Uh, New York Governor Andrew
Speaker 1: Cuomo went down met with the President yesterday. He made
Speaker 1: his case. Afterwards, Trump said, you know, I listened to him. Look,
Speaker 1: how you know, this is a nice told of my partnersanship.
Speaker 1: But thanks for coming. Translate this from the Senate majority
Speaker 1: leaders Kentucky over to those evil leftist commies up in
Speaker 1: New York. I mean, that's really all this is about
Speaker 1: his politics and geography, isn't it. It's it's true because
Speaker 1: but whether you're Republican or Democrat, if you are in
Speaker 1: New York, New Jersey, Uh, there's no Republicans in Connecticut
Speaker 1: at least at the national level, or you know, in California,
Speaker 1: you really care about this issue? But you see a
Speaker 1: lot of the Republicans who cared about this lost their
Speaker 1: seats last November, so they're no longer in Congress. So
Speaker 1: there's not as many Republicans whispering in the Trump's you're saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we need to fix this. It's really just Democrats in
Speaker 1: the northeast. You want to jump in on this, I
Speaker 1: would love to please jump in and ask a question. Please,
Speaker 1: thank you. I remember when I moved over here and
Speaker 1: I called the accountant and I thought, well, it's America,
Speaker 1: so this is going to be a low tax situation.
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to leaving Europe. And then I got told, well,
Speaker 1: I gave you yours a city tax tax. Then there's
Speaker 1: another tax, so you don't pay property taxes. Thank goodness,
Speaker 1: Thank goodness. Combine that with the state income No idea,
Speaker 1: how many tax you didn't? Why did you ask miss
Speaker 1: Davison question, Laura? I want to ask about buy backs actually,
Speaker 1: because there are some senators that are talking about how
Speaker 1: they can curb buy backs low to them on the
Speaker 1: Democrats side. Then we heard from Senator Rubio, who essentially
Speaker 1: is looking to end the tax incentives with buy backs.
Speaker 1: What's on the table here, and what's likely to happen.
Speaker 1: So what Rubio has laid out is a very very
Speaker 1: loose proposal that would basically equalize the treatment for companies
Speaker 1: whether they you know, issue dividends or buy back stock.
Speaker 1: We saw after the tax rate drops the precipitously that
Speaker 1: corporations very much preferred buying back their shares versus m
Speaker 1: issuing dividends or um. In particular, what what Rubio was
Speaker 1: hoping to see more of capital investment that has really faltered. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, we have about a year of data since
Speaker 1: since the law passed, and that has not been the
Speaker 1: driver of economic growth that Republicans we're hoping. So Rubyo saying, look,
Speaker 1: let's uh, you know, make it less advantageous for companies
Speaker 1: to to buy back their stock instead put that money
Speaker 1: into growing their business, whether that be research, research, research costs,
Speaker 1: or um some sort of equipment, machinery, buildings that would
Speaker 1: be uh that that driver for for economic growth. And
Speaker 1: they're not that it's likely to come. Is this is
Speaker 1: really a just sort of one idea out there and
Speaker 1: rull be a sort of a loan on his party
Speaker 1: on this. Floord Davidson, thank you for the update. I'm
Speaker 1: sure we'll inflict more pain as we go to April.
Speaker 1: If you have an investment account and with the repair
Speaker 1: that you've had, and you can benchmark it back to
Speaker 1: two thousand nine or August of two thousand seven, or
Speaker 1: maybe you can go back farther than that. This is
Speaker 1: not only the interview of the day, but it's the
Speaker 1: interview of the week, month and forever, Lizzie, and Saunders
Speaker 1: joins us, she needs no introduction with Schwab Lisianne, what
Speaker 1: were you doing December twenty four, twelve noon? What were
Speaker 1: you writing? What were you thinking? For Swab? Well, we
Speaker 1: we did do a daily report during that era. At
Speaker 1: any time that we see the market down uh more
Speaker 1: than about two percent, we we put out a report
Speaker 1: uh that day. There were a lot of aspects to it,
Speaker 1: uh technically, sentiment wise, it suggested we were in some
Speaker 1: sort of panic selling mode, kind of a crescendo um,
Speaker 1: and that we were likely to see at least a
Speaker 1: technical lift. Let think the jury still out as to
Speaker 1: whether that was truly the bottom, And I think the
Speaker 1: answer to that question will be the length of runway
Speaker 1: between now and the next recession. I think of our
Speaker 1: session is pushed out that low probably holds for a while.
Speaker 1: If not, if it's sooner than than I think what
Speaker 1: consensus believes, then it's more likely we read test those
Speaker 1: But in the modern day, can you speak to schwab
Speaker 1: people the same way you did five, eight, ten, or
Speaker 1: x number of years ago in the hyperkinetic media of today,
Speaker 1: how do you handle that versus what you used to do.
Speaker 1: I think it's a tougher environment right now. You know, Tom,
Speaker 1: you and I have known each other for a long time,
Speaker 1: and I think we we generally were on the right
Speaker 1: side of the story in later oh seven, and same
Speaker 1: thing in early two thousand and nine. And I'm not
Speaker 1: and not that either of those environments were easy, but
Speaker 1: I think at those times, certainly with the benefit of hindsight,
Speaker 1: but fortunately for us, at that time, I think the
Speaker 1: so called call, which I don't tend to use that
Speaker 1: word very much, was a little easier than it is
Speaker 1: right now. I think the waters are a little bit murkier. Uh.
Speaker 1: We we sort of at least temporarily solved one of
Speaker 1: the problems that plague markets last year with tighter monetary
Speaker 1: policy and tighter financial conditions. But I even there, I
Speaker 1: think the jury is still out as to whether the
Speaker 1: FED truly is done. I think there's some chance we could,
Speaker 1: at least in the short term, get a little bit
Speaker 1: of an inflation pick up, given things like n f
Speaker 1: I D selling prices, that may put the FED back
Speaker 1: in a position to have to throw another hike at us. UH. Conversely,
Speaker 1: UH FED is sort of a little bit in a box.
Speaker 1: We may look back and say, boy, the December hike
Speaker 1: might have been seen as a mistake, because indeed we
Speaker 1: were slowing sufficiently enough to move into a recession. I
Speaker 1: think the big wrinkled, probably the big needle mover to
Speaker 1: define the length of around way between now and extra
Speaker 1: session will be trade. I don't have any greater ability
Speaker 1: to sort of define what's going to happen there than
Speaker 1: anybody else does. Well. Well, listen, and you said, with
Speaker 1: the FED on this sidelines, investors are focusing more on
Speaker 1: fundamentals and what you know, perhaps the next recession. What
Speaker 1: are you seeing in the earnings here at this quarter?
Speaker 1: And more importantly, you know nineteen we've seen we've heard
Speaker 1: some CEOs fairly conservative in their outlook across the various sectors.
Speaker 1: What's your thoughts about earnings and how earnings can support
Speaker 1: this market in so the fourth quarter, obviously it has
Speaker 1: been a decent earning season. The beat rate is only
Speaker 1: about seventy, which is below what it has been recently,
Speaker 1: but decent numbers about six growth or so. That's obviously
Speaker 1: down from the peak growth to prior quarter. But we
Speaker 1: we never expected to maintain anything resembling that heading into
Speaker 1: ten simply because of the math of comps on a
Speaker 1: on a tax cut basis. Right now, you've got refinitive
Speaker 1: consensus estimates down into slight negative territory for the first quarter,
Speaker 1: and every day they continue to be ratcheted down. So
Speaker 1: I'm not sure the rerating down of twenty nineteen estimates
Speaker 1: encompassing not only trade related risks, but uh the lagged
Speaker 1: effect of tighter monetary policy, the lagged effect of the
Speaker 1: strong dollar last year, and of course the collapse in
Speaker 1: all prices, So I'm not sure we've rerated it. The question,
Speaker 1: and the important one, is do analysts ultimately set the
Speaker 1: bar low enough that when we get into reporting season
Speaker 1: they're sufficiently low to allow companies to hurdle it. I
Speaker 1: do think that there's a even if it's not a
Speaker 1: high risk of an earnings recession. There's a greater risk
Speaker 1: of an earnings recession in the first half of the
Speaker 1: year than there is an economic recession starting well. It's
Speaker 1: weird about this year is unlike last year when the
Speaker 1: E was accelerating dramatically and the PE was coming down
Speaker 1: because we were under multiple compression, the opposite has been
Speaker 1: happening this year. So the E is under pressure, but
Speaker 1: we've seen a lift in multiples because some of those
Speaker 1: easing UH issues from from last year and at least
Speaker 1: being financial conditions. So Lisianna, again, investors are focusing more
Speaker 1: on the fundamentals here. Do you think analysts estimates for
Speaker 1: SMP earnings accurately reflect a lot of the geopolitical issues
Speaker 1: out there, whether it's you know, the China slowing trade talks,
Speaker 1: European Union slowing Brexit, those types of things. Are you
Speaker 1: think they're adequately captured? Probably not yet. And it was
Speaker 1: interesting about the rerating that happened to twenty nineteen estimates.
Speaker 1: So if you go back to April, which is when
Speaker 1: you first started seeing consensus estimates for Q one, and
Speaker 1: then July was when Q two was brought into the mix.
Speaker 1: September was one, Q three and then January Q four,
Speaker 1: so the start point is different, but you've seen a
Speaker 1: dramatic rerating across the board. It kind of happened in
Speaker 1: in a cycle. You you first had the rerating associated
Speaker 1: with China and the trade war companies exposed there. Then
Speaker 1: it was the collapse in oil prices and the rerating
Speaker 1: that was necessary with energy, and then on some of
Speaker 1: the exporters tied to the dollar. Only more recently I
Speaker 1: think has it happened in conjunction with the weakness in
Speaker 1: in Europe. So it was like analysts were almost had
Speaker 1: blinders on and and sort of bringing estimates down in
Speaker 1: chunks based on some of those UH pressures that you
Speaker 1: you mentioned. Again, I think in the near tune we
Speaker 1: probably still have a bit more room to go on
Speaker 1: the downside. Um. But to your point about some of
Speaker 1: these risks, this really has impacted soft data more than
Speaker 1: it has hard data for broad economic standpoint, which means
Speaker 1: it may not quite be the same impact near term
Speaker 1: on earning well. Briefing Lizen Sanders, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: greatly appreciated. She is with Charles Schaub, Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg's vanlast 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