Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller. Every business day, we bring
Speaker 1: you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along
Speaker 1: with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets Podcast
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Taylor, I've been saying,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, during this pandemic, thank goodness for
Speaker 1: the smart and hard working people in the biotechnology industry
Speaker 1: and the pharmaceutical industry that delivered these vaccines so quickly
Speaker 1: to the world. I mean, boy, they really did their job.
Speaker 1: And then of course the global supply train trying trying
Speaker 1: to get those vaccinations out across the globe. The one
Speaker 1: of the questions is, Okay, how about the biotech and
Speaker 1: farming industry post pandemic. How do we think about that? Well,
Speaker 1: Nina Decca, she joins us. She's the senior research channels
Speaker 1: for Robo Global. Ninia, thanks so much for joining us here. Again, Boy,
Speaker 1: the biotech and the farming industry they get a lot
Speaker 1: of heat from some people. Generally spe you can hide
Speaker 1: drug prices, things like that. But boy, they really delivered
Speaker 1: during the pandemic. As an investor, how do you think
Speaker 1: about that space in a post pandemic world. Hi, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and thanks for having me on the show today. Um
Speaker 1: you I mean you bring up some great points with Maderna.
Speaker 1: The fact that they were able to so quickly bring
Speaker 1: a therapy through UM the clinical trial process and into
Speaker 1: human beings within a year is really unprecedented. And one
Speaker 1: thing I will say upfront is that when you look
Speaker 1: at the investment opportunities, uh, it's not what Maderna did
Speaker 1: last year that makes them a strong investment. It's what
Speaker 1: they've been doing for the last decade. They built a
Speaker 1: platform ready to go. They accumulated massive amounts of data
Speaker 1: through their technology and AI capabilities over the last decade
Speaker 1: that really enabled them to put together this therapy so quickly.
Speaker 1: What they did with the COVID vaccine is of that
Speaker 1: their technology platform works. And by by building up front
Speaker 1: this this platform, they're really creating UM something that can
Speaker 1: be used at scale to make many other therapeutics. So
Speaker 1: several really cool things have happened. One, they proved mRNA
Speaker 1: can work in human beings and it's very safe and
Speaker 1: effective and now that the world accepts m RNA is
Speaker 1: a viable course of treatment, there are many other therapies
Speaker 1: at least fixteen other drugs that Maderna alone has in
Speaker 1: the pipeline in clinical trials as we speak. But they've
Speaker 1: been working on for a while. So now that we've
Speaker 1: got one m RNA through, it's only a matter of
Speaker 1: time before a lot of the other ones come, and
Speaker 1: Maderna very well positioned for that trend. I want to
Speaker 1: shift here is a little bit here and think about
Speaker 1: virtual doctor visits in the post pandemic world. Am I
Speaker 1: used to seeing my doctor over zoom? Or do I
Speaker 1: want a physical checkout? I mean, the really up to
Speaker 1: the consumer. I think we're seeing more and more that
Speaker 1: the millennials and younger are open to continuing to stay
Speaker 1: at the office or or stay at home wherever they are,
Speaker 1: and just have that doctor visit online or on the
Speaker 1: phone wherever possible. Um You're still going to have some
Speaker 1: meeds where you're going to need to go in person,
Speaker 1: but by and large, a lot of other um UH
Speaker 1: indications and specialties in the healthcare world have taken place virtually,
Speaker 1: and I think that that's here to stay and it's
Speaker 1: only going to grow, for example, or the pedic um
Speaker 1: physical therapy remote O b d Y and appointments can
Speaker 1: even be remote. So Nina, is there any concern in
Speaker 1: the biotech or farming industry that you know, this big
Speaker 1: focus we've had over the last eighteen months on COVID
Speaker 1: has maybe taken resources away from some other areas that
Speaker 1: maybe now have been under invested or lagging a little bit.
Speaker 1: How how do investors think about that? It's it's not
Speaker 1: necessarily a concern. It's well, all right, if you think
Speaker 1: about healthcare in general, let's a concern. Think about the
Speaker 1: number of people who didn't go in for a cancer
Speaker 1: screen like colonoscopy last year because of the pandemic. So
Speaker 1: there's definitely a backlog of um undetected illnesses if you will,
Speaker 1: that are are sort of waiting to be discovered and
Speaker 1: then treated. So it's it is a medical concern for
Speaker 1: society in the world. But in terms of investors, if
Speaker 1: you think about the number of purchases that didn't take
Speaker 1: place last year because resources were reallocated towards dealing with
Speaker 1: the pandemic, those budgets are back and now a well
Speaker 1: positioned to buy things like the robotics, if you will,
Speaker 1: or the the lab automation instrumentation UM that people were
Speaker 1: waiting to buy before the pandemic. So those budgets are
Speaker 1: coming back and you're seeing that UM A lot of
Speaker 1: these companies and surgical robotics and lab automation UM are
Speaker 1: are are at numbers or above and we're going to
Speaker 1: see now in Q two earnings, we're waiting to see
Speaker 1: how utilization is climbing back up to pre pandemic levels
Speaker 1: and we should expect to see some of those non
Speaker 1: COVID related capital purchases back. Interesting. Interesting, Nina Decca, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us senior research analysts at
Speaker 1: robo Global getting a sense of kind of these healthcare stocks,
Speaker 1: healthcare and biotech stocks investing. Again, the focus has been
Speaker 1: so much on this pandemic over the last eighteen months,
Speaker 1: and uh, it'll be interesting to see with these you know,
Speaker 1: quarters earnings, how these companies, to the extent that they
Speaker 1: were really involved with the COVID vaccines kind of pivot
Speaker 1: a little bit back to perhaps some of the other
Speaker 1: business lines as well. In terms of investment. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about SPACs right now. Tom Keane's favorite topic.
Speaker 1: Hopefully he's listening in. Uh. You know, boy, you think
Speaker 1: about the spack special purpose acquisition companies, just really the
Speaker 1: rage in terms of new issuance late one, they seem
Speaker 1: to have faded a little bit. Some folks are questioning
Speaker 1: was that kind of a mark of the top of
Speaker 1: the mark? It is a little bit passe. Where are
Speaker 1: we in this back cycle? Fortunately, we have our next
Speaker 1: guest who can help us think about that. Mark us Go.
Speaker 1: He's a chief executive officer and chief investment officer from
Speaker 1: Morgan Creek Capital Management. Uh. Mark, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. Give us a sense. Just let's step back feet.
Speaker 1: What is your view of the spack market right now? No,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you having me on. And look, I I
Speaker 1: think we are are really just getting warmed up in
Speaker 1: the sense of you know what SPACs are, And I
Speaker 1: think part of the problem is there's just a lot
Speaker 1: of confusion about SPACs. And basically SPACs are a process
Speaker 1: of going public. Uh. Spack is raised as a blank
Speaker 1: check company. It has an I p O. And then
Speaker 1: it basically sits in cash and treasuries during a period
Speaker 1: until the sponsor finds a company to merge with. The
Speaker 1: company then merges with the spack and then becomes a
Speaker 1: post your combined entity. And yet people conflate the terms.
Speaker 1: They talk about you know, Virgin Galactic or DraftKings as
Speaker 1: a SPAT. No, those are companies. They were SPACs. I
Speaker 1: POE was a spack and and diamond Eque Acquisition Corps
Speaker 1: was a SPAC. But once you merge with the company
Speaker 1: or an operating company going forward and you said somethingsing
Speaker 1: we first started about spects fading, well, they faded for
Speaker 1: about six weeks in the sense of you know, last
Speaker 1: year about fifty per cent of I p O s
Speaker 1: were spects um and if you look in terms of dollars,
Speaker 1: it was actually more than that because the average SPAC
Speaker 1: is a little bit bigger than the average I p
Speaker 1: O and there's some information content in there. The larger
Speaker 1: than is the higher the quality. If you look at
Speaker 1: the first quarter, it was kind of crazy about seventy
Speaker 1: of all I p O s or spects. That was
Speaker 1: too fast, So the SEC kind of tapped the brakes,
Speaker 1: said they were going to threatened to change the accounting
Speaker 1: rules on warrants. Actually didn't do it, but that created
Speaker 1: a six week period where spacks felt about of new
Speaker 1: issuance for I p O s. Now they're right back
Speaker 1: to I think that's where we're gonna equilibrate at about fiftyah.
Speaker 1: You know, let me ENTERGECT quickly because you mentioned the SEC,
Speaker 1: and I am curious how you respond to critics of
Speaker 1: SPACs who say, even as recently is today we're getting
Speaker 1: headlines about SEC investigations into potential conflicts of interest. Now
Speaker 1: they're looking at bank fee conflicts. How much of that
Speaker 1: is a headwind? I think, look, um, the I p
Speaker 1: O process has been i'll say broken for a long time.
Speaker 1: It's a bad process. It hurts the average investor. It's
Speaker 1: basically a walled garden for the wealthy clients of the underwriters.
Speaker 1: And the fact that you know, one out of every
Speaker 1: two high growth innovative companies now is migrating to a
Speaker 1: SPAC mergers as opposed to an I p O that
Speaker 1: clearly potentially hurts the incumbents. And so those incumbents have
Speaker 1: very strong lobbying groups and perhaps they put some pressure
Speaker 1: on the SEC too, try to tap the brakes. I
Speaker 1: think I think it's a lot of bluster, you know,
Speaker 1: the threat on changing the accounting rules on warrants was
Speaker 1: a distinction without a difference. It had no cash impact.
Speaker 1: And you know, incumbents always fear disruption, and they will
Speaker 1: always use fund fear, uncertainty and doubt to try to
Speaker 1: slow that disruption. But the end of the day, if
Speaker 1: it's a better technology, uh. And Bill Gurley writes about
Speaker 1: this in his blog about why it is a better
Speaker 1: way of going public for a high growth innovative company.
Speaker 1: And I think the data shows that, so mark, you
Speaker 1: know what, when I grew up with spects, it was
Speaker 1: typically backed by a really well known and seasoned investor,
Speaker 1: John mull Own for example, someone like that who has
Speaker 1: a track record. But now SPACs are with you know,
Speaker 1: a rod and celebrities and things like that. Is that
Speaker 1: not the mark of hey, we've gone too far with
Speaker 1: this thing. Such a great point, Such a great point. Now,
Speaker 1: if you go back to the early days of spacks,
Speaker 1: you know, the spack industry was like the n I
Speaker 1: T Tournament of fundraising. Nobody wants to go to the
Speaker 1: n I T Tournament. They all want to be the
Speaker 1: n C Double A. And so for twenty plus years
Speaker 1: it was a horrible place to try to raise money.
Speaker 1: And the returns showed. So up until two thousand and fifteen,
Speaker 1: the returns and SPACs were terrible. About seventy per cent
Speaker 1: of SPACs raised that your had to liquid eight. They
Speaker 1: changed the rules and by we were down to know
Speaker 1: SPACs actually had to liquidate. They actually found real businesses
Speaker 1: to buy. Well, why is that? Well to your point,
Speaker 1: we started to see real operators and real businesses uh
Speaker 1: be be involved in the spack market. Now. I did
Speaker 1: a presentation called What's so Special about Special Purpose Acquisition
Speaker 1: Companies late last year, and in it I had a picture.
Speaker 1: On the left hand side was Chama and Richard Branson,
Speaker 1: and on the right was a former athlete, former UM writer, author,
Speaker 1: and a former Goldman Sacks operating executive. And they said,
Speaker 1: I'll back the guys on the left right exactly right. Hey, Mark,
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to We're gonna have to leave it
Speaker 1: there just because of the time, but we'll have you back.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more spacks. Mark, you chief executive officer of
Speaker 1: Morgan Creek Capital Management. Looking at Goldman Sachs JP Morgan,
Speaker 1: they both both reported some pretty solid results uh this quarter.
Speaker 1: Both stocks are down a little bit today about the
Speaker 1: one and a half to two and a half percent.
Speaker 1: Let's get the skinny on those names, plus what to
Speaker 1: expect later on in the week as these big banks
Speaker 1: report earnings. As it was returned to our in house expert,
Speaker 1: Alison Williams, senior industry analysts covering all things in the
Speaker 1: banks for Bloomberg Intelligence, Bloomberg Intelligence, Bloomberg's in house investment
Speaker 1: research department. Over analysts are stocks, thirty industries, just all
Speaker 1: over the place. UM. Alison, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us here. What are your key takeaways from JP Morgan Goldman?
Speaker 1: To me, it seems like the bankers really came through.
Speaker 1: The bankers did really come through, and especially M and A,
Speaker 1: which is something that we expected to be strong. UM
Speaker 1: exceeded the consensus estimates, and we really think that there's
Speaker 1: legs to that revenue stream in the second half as
Speaker 1: well as UM the adjacent stream of sort of financing
Speaker 1: businesses and the like UM, but that's a smaller part
Speaker 1: of the business, especially for someone like JP Morgan. And
Speaker 1: then I guess the negative is which is which is
Speaker 1: something that's been building for a while, is just sort
Speaker 1: of the disappointing net interest income trends and that's really
Speaker 1: tied to loan growth. I would say that for JP
Speaker 1: Morgan today, the the newer I guess negative is the
Speaker 1: fact that they up there guidance again. So see billion.
Speaker 1: We started off the year about sixty eight billion in January.
Speaker 1: That's been kicking up now. Part of that is due
Speaker 1: to better business related volumes. So it takes money to
Speaker 1: to make money. We view that a little bit more
Speaker 1: favorably than than perhaps what we're seeing a city group. Um,
Speaker 1: but still, you know, everyone would like to say more
Speaker 1: revenue and less cost. You know what's interesting as we
Speaker 1: think about the bankers coming through, it was just Daniel Pinto,
Speaker 1: I believe within the last two weeks, seeing that the
Speaker 1: trading slump is over. Do you buy that or are
Speaker 1: we thinking that a trading slump could be here to stay? Well?
Speaker 1: I think that I think, Um, the key point that
Speaker 1: Pinto is referring to, which we agree with, is the
Speaker 1: fact that, um, we're not necessarily going to go back
Speaker 1: to the lows. So thick revenue is down, you know
Speaker 1: over it was down like forty about the two banks,
Speaker 1: but still higher than it was in So we're off,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of the really robust quarter from a
Speaker 1: year ago but still stronger. So, UM, what what makes
Speaker 1: us sort of agree with the fact that, you know,
Speaker 1: revenue might not go back to some of those lower
Speaker 1: levels that we saw in UM. You know, I guess,
Speaker 1: I guess there's there's a few things. But you know,
Speaker 1: one of the key things that that we're seeing right
Speaker 1: now is obviously the huge monetary support support for the moment,
Speaker 1: policy support for the moment. The longer term trend is
Speaker 1: obviously GDP and capital markets development. And one of the
Speaker 1: things that we've seen at the banks and asset managers
Speaker 1: alike in recent quarters is the build out in China.
Speaker 1: That's something where UM Goldman has been really focusing and
Speaker 1: sort of that revenue stream coming on board helping the banks. Alison,
Speaker 1: and this is just a question based upon my I
Speaker 1: used to spend a long time working at these investment
Speaker 1: banks like you did. Did they say anything about coming
Speaker 1: back to work? What's going on there? Because it's it's
Speaker 1: a big issue. There's definitely a focus on having client
Speaker 1: facing UM bankers and traders back in the office UM.
Speaker 1: And so that's something that we've been seeing UM over
Speaker 1: the last several weeks in terms of getting people back
Speaker 1: in the office, and you know, we hear a lot
Speaker 1: about certain banks using that as a differentiator UM in
Speaker 1: terms of giving more flexibility. UM. Obviously, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, you know that competition is tough in
Speaker 1: the in these businesses, especially if you're going to see
Speaker 1: normalizing revenue. And so I think it's you know, it's
Speaker 1: all fine until you know someone loses out on a
Speaker 1: deal UM. And so I think that UM to the
Speaker 1: extent that people are in the offices and are outseeing clients, UM,
Speaker 1: they want to be doing their their best for market share.
Speaker 1: And by the way, that's that's the other thing that
Speaker 1: will be interesting as the full quarter shakes out. We
Speaker 1: did see equities trading better than expected by both competitors
Speaker 1: today UM Prime brokerage record balances we heard from both companies.
Speaker 1: Now hedge funds we expect as an industry have record balances.
Speaker 1: But we're also curious to see how things are shaking
Speaker 1: out in the wake of Credit Sweezes pullback. Um Arcos
Speaker 1: was the story last quarter. UM Credit Sweeze has had
Speaker 1: sort of a more dramatic pullback in their business, whereas
Speaker 1: you know Morgan Stanley and us UBS, which also took
Speaker 1: hits Um you know, have also made changes, but a
Speaker 1: little bit more at the margin. Just about forty seconds
Speaker 1: to a minute here, Allison, what does this mean for
Speaker 1: any indication of what we can get for tomorrow as
Speaker 1: we get further bank earnings reporting. So two things for tomorrow,
Speaker 1: well three, One is will not interest income guidance come down,
Speaker 1: especially for Bank America and while Spargo UM also City
Speaker 1: Group that they have sort of already taken their expectations
Speaker 1: down a bit um. The second UH is costs. As
Speaker 1: I said, we saw a higher business related costs for UM, JP, Morgan,
Speaker 1: City Groups. Full your guidance is going to be key
Speaker 1: to watch there. And then third, what's happening in equities?
Speaker 1: Are these banks gaining some share in the prime business?
Speaker 1: All right, Allison as always great follow up there and
Speaker 1: we'll be chatting with you, I'm sure later in the
Speaker 1: week as these banks continue to roll out their numbers.
Speaker 1: Alison Williams, she's a senior banks analysts for Bloomberg Intelligence,
Speaker 1: joining us on the phone from the swamps of Jersey.
Speaker 1: I guess um so again Goldman sacks, JP Morgan's some
Speaker 1: solid numbers here today. One of the issues that I
Speaker 1: found interesting from Allison's comments was the lack of loan
Speaker 1: or disappointing or lower than expected loan growth. And that's
Speaker 1: a theme that we've heard from some of the banks,
Speaker 1: and perhaps that's a reflection of there's so much cash
Speaker 1: in the marketplace, fiscal stimulus, easy monetary policy, that the
Speaker 1: overall demand for some of these loan products not quite
Speaker 1: where they'd like to see it. Well, I'm more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Wolfgang Coaster joins us. He's a senior
Speaker 1: strategist for Kyrieba'll get us thoughts on the currency business.
Speaker 1: You know, during the pandemic, the currencies, the US dollar
Speaker 1: has been fairly steady, but not so much with some
Speaker 1: other currencies. Wolfgang, thanks so much for joining us here.
Speaker 1: I know you guys are out with a currency impact report.
Speaker 1: What are the big takeaways from this report as to
Speaker 1: what currency volatility has cost companies? Yeah? Sure, well, thank
Speaker 1: you for having me first of all, um, So, this
Speaker 1: Currency Impact Report looks at twelve companies around the world's
Speaker 1: focused four hundred in Europe and eight hundred in North America.
Speaker 1: And what we accumulate there is the fact, so the
Speaker 1: quantitative facts of who has been hurt or who has
Speaker 1: gained from currency impacts, and then we actually validate that
Speaker 1: against what the standards in the industry are, what is
Speaker 1: acceptable as a currency impact and what is not acceptable.
Speaker 1: And what we've seen this quarter is is that we've
Speaker 1: got just under ten billion dollars of losses that have
Speaker 1: been pointed out by the corporations. If you accumulate them
Speaker 1: all around the world. This really is a significant increase
Speaker 1: even over last quarter, and we expect that to actually
Speaker 1: continue for a couple of reasons. One obviously seeing UH
Speaker 1: the economy not only in the United States but elsewhere
Speaker 1: heating up, and so you're gonna start seeing more flow
Speaker 1: of supply chains of products going across. The other thing
Speaker 1: is with that, you're actually seeing a material increase in
Speaker 1: volatility um impacting corporations that do not manage currency risk
Speaker 1: properly and to the fact have a continue get hurt.
Speaker 1: And those are typically surprises that the UH investor community punishes.
Speaker 1: You know, it's been interesting coming into this year. The
Speaker 1: over welming call was for further dollar weakness, and yet
Speaker 1: since June you've actually seen some dollar strength as of late.
Speaker 1: What does that mean for hedging as it relates to
Speaker 1: the dollar. Yeah, it's great point. And the one never
Speaker 1: knows where the dollar is going. Only one thing is sure.
Speaker 1: When there's no volatility, there will be volatility or whatever
Speaker 1: the direction is. Now, when you're thinking about this, and
Speaker 1: this is a little bit counterintuitive from most, is when
Speaker 1: the dollar goes up, that means that whatever revenues you
Speaker 1: have abroad are actually worthless to you. And unless you've
Speaker 1: manage that risk by hedging it or managing in other ways, um,
Speaker 1: you will have negative impacts with a strong dollar. That's
Speaker 1: typically counterintuitive. Everybody thinks, well, dollars going is strong, therefore
Speaker 1: things are great, things are going well. Well for corporations,
Speaker 1: we don't manage that. That's actually typically not good news.
Speaker 1: And to put that in further uh, in kind of
Speaker 1: further context, the average SMP company has over fifty cent
Speaker 1: of its revenues from outside the United States. So that
Speaker 1: means the average spy, if they do nothing, have fifty
Speaker 1: of their revenues at risk due to currency of volatility.
Speaker 1: All right, well, kind when I see a number like
Speaker 1: nine point five billion dollars lost due to a currency
Speaker 1: of alatility, is my takeaway is that corporations are not
Speaker 1: very good at hedging. Um, some are and some aren't,
Speaker 1: but the ones that have to disclose it are not,
Speaker 1: is the fact of the matter. So the nine a
Speaker 1: half billion that disclosed it are not very good at
Speaker 1: managing their risks. So that takeaway is absolutely correct. Now,
Speaker 1: we at cariber Triped help companies actually look at that
Speaker 1: and manage that properly and really not manage it, but
Speaker 1: understand that exposure. And so we hope that less and
Speaker 1: less corporations get impacted. But when you think about one
Speaker 1: quarter nine and a half billion dollars lost in stock,
Speaker 1: in the in the revenues, etcetera, that's those are you
Speaker 1: could equate that to jobs, right, that's a lot of
Speaker 1: jobs people can't really afford to because they're not managing
Speaker 1: their currency risk to the levels they can. And to
Speaker 1: put a benchmark at this because you're asking which direction
Speaker 1: that goes to. The benchmark is if a company has
Speaker 1: more than one sent earnings per share impacted by foreign exchange,
Speaker 1: that's material and too much. There are lots of companies
Speaker 1: we saw PEPSI coming out earlier today, no impacts. There's
Speaker 1: lots of professional companies of all sizes. By the way,
Speaker 1: it isn't just the larger the company the better they
Speaker 1: are managing it. But you can have small companies like
Speaker 1: a Hubble, for example, that does a great job at
Speaker 1: managing their currency risk and have no impacts. They are
Speaker 1: would referred to as currency agnostics. They manage their financial
Speaker 1: affairs in such a way that the currencies do not
Speaker 1: really impact the results. That's very doable and by the way,
Speaker 1: not very expensive today. Wolfgan, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: A really appreciated Wolfgang Coaster Senior Strategies for Kiribe. They
Speaker 1: have their quarterly Cairibbe's Currency Impact Report that came out
Speaker 1: this morning and in the key takeaway corporations lost nine
Speaker 1: point five billion dollars due to increased currency of alatility
Speaker 1: in the past quarter. It seemed like a big number
Speaker 1: to me. Taylor, Yeah, certainly does. I was taking a
Speaker 1: look at the We have a great chart on the
Speaker 1: terminal with the bond volatility index, the equity so the
Speaker 1: move the VIX, and then the currency the G seven
Speaker 1: and it's actually been bond ball that's been spiking lately.
Speaker 1: You've actually equity and effex vall falling. How much, of course,
Speaker 1: is that due to the federal reserve playing a pretty
Speaker 1: heavy hand in these markets. Yeah. Absolutely, Looking at the
Speaker 1: vix right here at you know, sixteen level, you know,
Speaker 1: you know it had been pre pandemic in that level,
Speaker 1: but as we remember, it's spiked up to eighty during
Speaker 1: the beginning of that pandemic here, right back down to
Speaker 1: more normalized level. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Markets podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts
Speaker 1: or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Matt Miller. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Matt Miller three. Put on false me.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio. M