Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Bloomberg Daybreak Asia podcast. I'm Doug Krisner.
Speaker 2: An escalation of tensions in the Midis triggered more anxiety
Speaker 2: and markets. In the last session, Oil prices jumped to
Speaker 2: a five month high in New York trading on speculation
Speaker 2: the US may join Israel's attack on Iran. WTI settled
Speaker 2: just under seventy five dollars after rising by more than
Speaker 2: four percent.
Speaker 3: Earlier in the day.
Speaker 2: President Trump met with his national security team, and before
Speaker 2: the meeting, Trump posted a demand for Iran's unconditional surrender.
Speaker 2: On top of that, the President warned of a possible
Speaker 2: strike against Iran's leader, Ayatola Ali Kameni. We heard from
Speaker 2: Australia's former ambassador to Israel, Dave Sharma. He said, it's
Speaker 2: in Australia's interest to make sure that any tensions arising
Speaker 2: from this conflict do not manifest themselves in Australia.
Speaker 4: We should be looking to support diplomatic efforts, but bearing
Speaker 4: in mind, what is it is the outcome that we
Speaker 4: see and we want a Middle East that is at
Speaker 4: peace with itself, that can grow and prosper and the
Speaker 4: truth is that Iran has been a massively destabilizing force
Speaker 4: in the Middle East now for decades, not only through
Speaker 4: its pursuit of nuclear weapons, not only through its imperialistic
Speaker 4: designs on its neighbors, but through its support to armed
Speaker 4: terrorist groups such as Hasbola and Lebanon. But who tis
Speaker 4: in Yemen. It's propping up of the Asad regime in
Speaker 4: Syria for many years, it's fermenting of sheer militias in Iraq.
Speaker 4: What we would like to see is a situation where
Speaker 4: that sort of destabilization does no longer occur.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: Whether Iran is prepared to countenance that or not, or
Speaker 4: at least whether this particular leadership in Iran is prepared
Speaker 4: to countenance that or not, that is a question for them.
Speaker 2: That's Dave Sharma. He is Australia's former ambassador to Israel.
Speaker 2: By the way, the New York Times is reporting Iran
Speaker 2: has prepared missiles and other military erry equipment four strikes
Speaker 2: on US basis in the Middle East should the US
Speaker 2: join Israel's war against Iran. So let's stay with geopolitics
Speaker 2: for the moment. The Auchus Pact is a security arrangement
Speaker 2: between the US, the UK and Australia. It was first
Speaker 2: announced in twenty twenty one by then President Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: But now the Trump administration is reviewing this agreement and
Speaker 2: this is rattling. One of Washington's closest alliances. Joining me
Speaker 2: now is Bloomberg opinion columnist Korishma Vaswani. She has been
Speaker 2: writing about the review and its ramifications. Korrishma joins me
Speaker 2: now from Singapore. It's always a pleasure to chat with you, Korshma.
Speaker 2: Can we begin by having you remind me the structure
Speaker 2: of the Auchus Pact.
Speaker 1: Well, at the heart of this arrangement was an agreement
Speaker 1: between the US, the UK and Australia that would, again,
Speaker 1: as you pointed out, signed by President Biden in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, that would help Australia develop a fleet of
Speaker 1: nuclear powered submarines over a thirty year period, and it
Speaker 1: would involve both the US and the UK. America would
Speaker 1: provide superior technology, the UK would help Australia build these
Speaker 1: nuclear submarines. But ostensibly it was also a way to
Speaker 1: counter China's growing influence in the Indo Pacific, and at
Speaker 1: the time when it was announced, China was very upset.
Speaker 1: It saw it as another example of the American supremacy,
Speaker 1: the desire to maintain that in the Indo Pacific, and
Speaker 1: as an attempt by the United States to contain China's
Speaker 1: influence and military and naval power, which has been, as
Speaker 1: we've talked about on your program before, growing rapidly over
Speaker 1: the last few years. But now given that the White
Speaker 1: House has come out and said that they're putting this
Speaker 1: agreement under review, they're going to look at whether OCUS
Speaker 1: is aligned with the President's America First Agenda. I'm quoting
Speaker 1: from the Defense Department there, And you know that's really
Speaker 1: sort of making a lot of allies and partners in
Speaker 1: the Indo Pacific nervous, not least the Australians themselves, who
Speaker 1: are really counting on this commitment from the United States.
Speaker 2: So I know that AUCAS involves, as I said earlier,
Speaker 2: the UK, Australia, and the US, but when we think
Speaker 2: of other allies in the region, I'm thinking of Japan
Speaker 2: and South Korea, this probably would be a very concerning
Speaker 2: development to those countries as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think it's even wider than that, because
Speaker 1: it speaks to the commitment of the United States to
Speaker 1: the region. And it's really confusing, right, Doug, because you know,
Speaker 1: just a few weeks ago, at the Shangrila Dialogue, which
Speaker 1: is this regional security summit held in Singapore, you had
Speaker 1: the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hetz talking about the
Speaker 1: US commitment to the Indo Pacific. He said that America
Speaker 1: is here to stay. Chinese didn't show up this time
Speaker 1: the way they have in the past, So that was
Speaker 1: a really easy win for the Trump administration to point
Speaker 1: out that Washington is really committed to this region. But
Speaker 1: it comes with a sort of transactional aspect because he
Speaker 1: also talked about the need for allies Asian partners to
Speaker 1: boost defense spending. Very much what you hear from, you know,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration when it talks to Europe as well,
Speaker 1: that it's like, basically, everybody needs to pay more and
Speaker 1: this can't be the United States responsibility. And that's fine,
Speaker 1: there are reasons behind that. That's perfectly reasonable, but it
Speaker 1: does feel sometimes that it's a bit of a carrot
Speaker 1: and stick relationship. You know, you have to pay more
Speaker 1: or we're going to pull out of OCHUS for instance,
Speaker 1: which appears to be the undercurrent behind the rhetoric of
Speaker 1: the Defense Department when it comes to this particular deal,
Speaker 1: and I think what that does is it just you know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't build goodwill, It doesn't create the kind of
Speaker 1: partnership that you need with one of your closest allies
Speaker 1: in this part of the world.
Speaker 2: So, Karishma, we have seen among NATO countries a definite
Speaker 2: willingness to spend more of their GDP on military defense.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of Germany in particular. Obviously this is tied
Speaker 2: to war in Ukraine. Can you give me a sense
Speaker 2: of the willingness of the countries in the APAC has
Speaker 2: spent more if we're using aucas as an example of
Speaker 2: some type of cooperation with the United States that would
Speaker 2: ultimately help these countries defend against some perceived threat that
Speaker 2: China represents.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really good point.
Speaker 1: And we've seen the commitments coming through loud and clear.
Speaker 1: You know, everybody from Japan to Taiwan to Australia itself,
Speaker 1: they've been talking about arming up. And you're seeing a
Speaker 1: trend across Asia for defense budgets. They've been on the rise.
Speaker 1: Everybody's spending more on defense, and I think the statistic
Speaker 1: for Australia. Currently CANBRA has military spending at about two
Speaker 1: point four percent or it's on track rather to achieve
Speaker 1: that by the mid twenty thirties. But the United States
Speaker 1: wants Australia to up that to three and a half
Speaker 1: percent of GDP. So, you know, it's the gap between
Speaker 1: what the US wants and what is currently on offer,
Speaker 1: and each country has its own sort of particular and
Speaker 1: unique circumstances to be able to try and achieve that.
Speaker 1: But on the whole, across the board, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: I think has been quite successful in convincing Asian countries
Speaker 1: that they need to spend more on defense.
Speaker 2: So how do you think this is being viewed in Beijing?
Speaker 1: Oh? I think that this makes China very happy because
Speaker 1: for the you know, on the one hand, there are
Speaker 1: now real concerns over whether ORCUS will go ahead in
Speaker 1: its original form. My views that it will. I think
Speaker 1: that the United States would, even given the Trump administration's
Speaker 1: transactional nature. I do not think that the White House
Speaker 1: would allow this security agreement to fall by the wayside.
Speaker 1: It would be problematic and possibly embarrassing. But I think
Speaker 1: that there will be compromises and concessions made on the
Speaker 1: part of the Australians who will feel compelled to do
Speaker 1: some of the things that the United States may be
Speaker 1: asking for behind closed doors. And what that does is
Speaker 1: play into Beijing's narrative that America first means other countries alone.
Speaker 1: And you know, China has consistently positioned itself as the global, sensible,
Speaker 1: rational leader in the Indo Pacific given what appears to
Speaker 1: be sort of an erratic, you know, behavior, the erratic
Speaker 1: nature of how Donald Trump does business on the global stage.
Speaker 1: And I think that these kinds of agreements and the
Speaker 1: reviews of these agreements just add credits to that narrative.
Speaker 1: And even if they're not saying it publicly, because you know,
Speaker 1: the Australians have been very quick to sort of defend
Speaker 1: the review and dismiss it as just business as usual.
Speaker 1: I've spoken to diplomats who've said to me, well, it's
Speaker 1: not a great look, and it does mean that countries
Speaker 1: like Australia are going to have to think and are
Speaker 1: already thinking about what this means in terms of future alliances.
Speaker 1: So you're going to start to see you know, Japan, Australia,
Speaker 1: South Korea coming together, maybe India as well, to sort
Speaker 1: of find a way through working without the superpowers. They
Speaker 1: can't do it completely, but I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see a lot of middle and smaller countries banding together
Speaker 1: as it as these larger nations sort of you know,
Speaker 1: have this each country for themselves approach to global politics.
Speaker 2: So imagine for a moment that the US does play
Speaker 2: a diminished role in August. Can you imagine a world
Speaker 2: where the Europeans, let's say, step in to fill some
Speaker 2: of that void.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can, and I think that been talked about already.
Speaker 1: You know, the Europeans have been in the past, certainly
Speaker 1: recently talking to the Australians about what kind of military
Speaker 1: engagement or any kind of you know, partnership that they
Speaker 1: could work on. It would be challenging given the number
Speaker 1: of countries in Europe, but not impossible. And again, I
Speaker 1: think these are the kinds of partnerships that we will
Speaker 1: see being formed going forward, and I think they are necessary.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think they are essential because countries cannot
Speaker 1: navigate this next period of what appears to be this
Speaker 1: sort of you know, I hate using this word, but
Speaker 1: multipolar system. That's the nature of politics these days. And
Speaker 1: I think they're going to have to band together in
Speaker 1: that way, no doubt.
Speaker 2: About that, Karishma. It's always a pleasure. Thank you so much,
Speaker 2: Karishma of Vaswani Bloomberg Opinion columnists joining from Singapore here
Speaker 2: on the Daybreak Asia podcast. Welcome back to the Daybreak
Speaker 2: Asia Podcast. I'm Doug Chrisner. So, the Fed's two day
Speaker 2: meeting will wrap on Wednesday afternoon, and the Central Bank
Speaker 2: is expected to hold rate steady this month and in
Speaker 2: July as well. And at the same time on Wednesday,
Speaker 2: the Fed may telegraph its intentions through its revised economic
Speaker 2: and rates forecast. Now, markets right now are continuing to
Speaker 2: bet on the likelihood of two quarter point rate cuts
Speaker 2: this year, the first move perhaps fully priced in for
Speaker 2: the October meeting. Today we had yields down right across
Speaker 2: the treasury curve. And to help us take a look
Speaker 2: at what's happening in the macro and especially in the
Speaker 2: fixed income space, I'm joined by Bill Campbell. He is
Speaker 2: Global bond portfolio manager at Double Line. Bill is on
Speaker 2: the line from Santa Monica, California. Bill, thank you for
Speaker 2: making time to chat with me. Talk to me a
Speaker 2: little bit about the moving parts that you see in
Speaker 2: the macro right now and how they fit with the
Speaker 2: inflation story, particularly as it relates to this spike that
Speaker 2: we have seen over the last couple of days in
Speaker 2: crude oil.
Speaker 5: Doug, thanks for having me back, and you know, what
Speaker 5: a time to come back and discuss macro. There are
Speaker 5: countervailing forces happening, you know, across the macro landscape at
Speaker 5: the moment, and you see them playing out in the
Speaker 5: interest rate market when we look at long term rates.
Speaker 5: You were just mentioning the rally that we've seen today,
Speaker 5: but if you look back, you know, just for the
Speaker 5: past month, we've seen rates rising, you know, moving ever higher.
Speaker 5: It's our view here at double Line that you know,
Speaker 5: the that medium term pressure or the likely trajectory for rates,
Speaker 5: especially in the long end of the curve over the
Speaker 5: next quarter, is higher. But near term we're seeing now
Speaker 5: treasuries exhibit a little bit of that flight to quality
Speaker 5: or flight to safety property that they'd had in the
Speaker 5: past due to the increased geo political concerns around Israel's
Speaker 5: current operation in Iran and the potential for the US
Speaker 5: to potentially strike the four TOOH enrichment facility in Iran.
Speaker 5: Now that being said, the countervailing force to that rally
Speaker 5: that we saw is exactly what you alluded to, is
Speaker 5: higher oil prices. Over the past quarter we'd actually seen
Speaker 5: oil prices falling to a local low, and just over
Speaker 5: the past couple of weeks, with these rising tensions in
Speaker 5: the Middle East, oil prices have again spiked from the
Speaker 5: low sixties up to the mid seventies. And as you know,
Speaker 5: oil prices have wide have kind of a wide reach
Speaker 5: in the way that they impact the economy and prices
Speaker 5: in general. And the concern here is that over the
Speaker 5: next couple of months, higher oil prices could lead to
Speaker 5: higher gas prices, higher shipping prices, and that could put
Speaker 5: upward pressure on inflation, which then would counteract some of
Speaker 5: this flight to safety that we've seen. So the balancing
Speaker 5: act that we are really watching play out in the
Speaker 5: long end of the US treasury curve is this you know,
Speaker 5: back and forth of will increase deficits, the potential for
Speaker 5: higher inflation and h you know, the the pulling back
Speaker 5: of purchases by global central banks of treasuries pushing rates
Speaker 5: higher be offset by the potential you know, flight to
Speaker 5: quality that we had seen in the past.
Speaker 3: Uh, there's one caveat to all of this.
Speaker 5: When the tariffs were initially announced by the Trump administration, Uh,
Speaker 5: something strange happened in the long end of the interest
Speaker 5: rate curve. We actually saw yields rise, and that was
Speaker 5: counterintuitive to the flight to safety trade that we have
Speaker 5: gotten used to over the past three decades. And you know,
Speaker 5: the return on the geopolitical concerns is another nuance that
Speaker 5: we need to separate as fixed income investors of will
Speaker 5: the market view, you know, an upcoming hiccup to growth
Speaker 5: as more of a US specific growth shock with a
Speaker 5: US led slowdown or a global growth shock with a
Speaker 5: global growth slowdown potentially driven by the geopolitical concerns, And
Speaker 5: the answer to that question will answer in the near
Speaker 5: term which way interest rates may trend. But on the
Speaker 5: long term we think that, you know, over the next
Speaker 5: several quarters, you know, to the next year, the pressure
Speaker 5: still should be higher, you know, on interest rates.
Speaker 2: So we had the meeting yesterday from the Bank of
Speaker 2: Japan and not surprisingly, the BOJ held its policy rate
Speaker 2: steady at fifty basis points. The BOJ also announced a
Speaker 2: plan to begin to slow the pace of its bond
Speaker 2: market buying, the JGB purchases that the BOJ has been conducting.
Speaker 2: What is your understanding of how that's going to impact
Speaker 2: the global bond market story.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So the reduction of you know, their quantitative you know,
Speaker 5: their their tapering program is not actually going to you know,
Speaker 5: be implemented until April or the second quarter of twenty
Speaker 5: twenty six. The reason that they did that, though, is
Speaker 5: we had seen you know, a tremendous spike across the
Speaker 5: Japanese government bond curve, Japanese government yields, you know, rising
Speaker 5: ever since the Bank of Japan decided to stop their
Speaker 5: yield curve control policy about a year and a half ago,
Speaker 5: and you know, that's caused a lot of concern about
Speaker 5: the pass through you know, from higher yields to the
Speaker 5: Japanese economy. And you know, obviously this is one step
Speaker 5: in the direction of trying to curb the pace of
Speaker 5: the rise of Japanese interest rates.
Speaker 3: But the rise of Japanese interest rates is.
Speaker 5: Happening alongside the rise in the US interest rates, the
Speaker 5: rise in long term United Kingdom interest rates. And I
Speaker 5: think that this is now a global issue that all
Speaker 5: central banks and all treasuries and ministries of finance are
Speaker 5: going to have to think about and deal with going
Speaker 5: forward that long term interest rates continue to rise, and
Speaker 5: I think are rising on a secular basis. And when
Speaker 5: we look at the outlook for the fiscal trajectories not
Speaker 5: only in the United States, but in the United Kingdom
Speaker 5: and in Japan and to a certain extent in the
Speaker 5: European Union. When you look at countries such as France,
Speaker 5: they have a very difficult trajectory, very difficult outlook that
Speaker 5: is likely to put continued pressure not only on US
Speaker 5: and Japanese interest rates, but I think long term interest
Speaker 5: rates across the global government bond market. And that's why
Speaker 5: at double Line, you know, we're continuing ourselves and to
Speaker 5: you know, talk to our investors about favoring more of
Speaker 5: the belly to the front end of the interest rate curves,
Speaker 5: because we still believe that interest rates between the two
Speaker 5: year and let's say the seven year or the two
Speaker 5: year and the ten year maturities, you know, should exhibit
Speaker 5: that flight to safety quality and you can pick up
Speaker 5: you know, high quality gield. It's once you go to
Speaker 5: those longer tenors past ten years, that you're really starting
Speaker 5: to deal with these long term forces that maybe you know,
Speaker 5: signifying a structural change to what we've seen over the
Speaker 5: past several decades.
Speaker 2: You know, it was only a couple of weeks ago
Speaker 2: when global bond markets were unnerved by the issues around
Speaker 2: fiscal deficits, not just here in the US, but jurisdictions
Speaker 2: like Japan as well. And I'm curious, has the concern
Speaker 2: over fiscal deficits really faded into the background where the
Speaker 2: bond market is concerned.
Speaker 3: The fiscal policy.
Speaker 5: I think it first of all, I think when we
Speaker 5: look at markets, unfortunately, it seems that you know, markets
Speaker 5: have a difficult time trying to hold on to multiple
Speaker 5: themes at once, and you know, we focus on different themes,
Speaker 5: you know, as we move through time. And as an
Speaker 5: example of this, uh, you know, first, you know, around
Speaker 5: April Round Liberation Day, the main theme that we focused
Speaker 5: on was tariffs and what new US foreign policy would
Speaker 5: do to the bond markets, putting upward pressure on interest rates.
Speaker 5: Then we moved over, you know, to focusing on fiscal
Speaker 5: which has been the past month or so, uh, you know,
Speaker 5: focus for long term bond yields. Just recently, the new
Speaker 5: geopolitical concerns that popped out of the Middle East have
Speaker 5: taken the front and center focus, and I think that
Speaker 5: is really what we're trading now. But we need to
Speaker 5: break out as investors what is short term cyclical move
Speaker 5: which maybe move over the course of a couple of
Speaker 5: weeks to a couple of months, versus the long term
Speaker 5: secular move, which is the general trend that tends to
Speaker 5: last quarters or even years.
Speaker 3: And in that respect, you.
Speaker 5: Know, we do think, you know, there may be a
Speaker 5: potential for a little bit more rally if we see
Speaker 5: the US enter into the Israeli I ran conflict with
Speaker 5: the bunker buster bomb to try to you know, address
Speaker 5: the Iranian fourtoh enrichment facility. That may cause a little
Speaker 5: bit more near term flight to safety.
Speaker 3: But over that longer term, the.
Speaker 5: Structural quarterly or yearly trend, we tend to think that
Speaker 5: the forces that we discussed are likely to keep you know,
Speaker 5: upward pressure on interest rates. And that's you know, until
Speaker 5: unless and until we see a break a change in
Speaker 5: fiscal policy. In broad central bank policy, central banks again
Speaker 5: are stepping back from their purchases, which is is removing
Speaker 5: a price insensitive buyer from the market and allowing interest
Speaker 5: rates to rise and we need more clarity around our
Speaker 5: long term inflation forecast as we discuss there's lots of
Speaker 5: questions about tariff pass through and energy price passed through.
Speaker 5: Until those bigger questions are answered, we think that the
Speaker 5: longer term trend of interest rates.
Speaker 3: Is still higher. Bill.
Speaker 2: Before I let you go, let's talk a little bit
Speaker 2: about what's going on the dynamic and the currency market
Speaker 2: right now. You mentioned the have in trade and perhaps
Speaker 2: the idea that the US treasuries would be a beneficiary.
Speaker 2: I'm imagining that the dollar would be a beneficiary as well.
Speaker 2: Certainly that's what today's price actions seem to indicate. And
Speaker 2: frequently the end is a beneficiary of haven buying as well,
Speaker 2: but that didn't really seem to be playing out today.
Speaker 2: How is everything that you're kind of laying out there
Speaker 2: connected to foreign exchange?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think the dollar is probably a front and
Speaker 5: center for most investors right now. Discuss you know that
Speaker 5: piece in just a little bit more detail. After Liberation Day,
Speaker 5: we've seen, you know, well, really after the president, the
Speaker 5: new President Trump came into office, and then especially after
Speaker 5: the Liberation tariff, you know, announcements, we've seen a pretty
Speaker 5: aggressive move lower in the dollar. There have been a
Speaker 5: lot of reports that this has been foreign you know,
Speaker 5: foreigners starting to dump their large investments in the US,
Speaker 5: but I have really not seen significant evidence that that
Speaker 5: is the case. In fact, what I think has been
Speaker 5: happening is, yes, there's been a large amount of foreign
Speaker 5: investment in the US, but a lot of that investment
Speaker 5: was left unhedged up until this year because hedges are expensive.
Speaker 5: So for the first couple of quarters of this year
Speaker 5: where the dollar came down you know, about nine ten percent,
Speaker 5: I think that was more reflective of foreigners increasing the
Speaker 5: hedges that they had on their dollar investment, and I
Speaker 5: think that is now roughly played out. Now the theme,
Speaker 5: the macro theme is now switching from uncertainty about US
Speaker 5: policy to uncertainty about global growth. So with increased geopolitical risk,
Speaker 5: now the uncertainty is shifted.
Speaker 3: From the US to the globe.
Speaker 5: And if that continues, I can see a near term
Speaker 5: upward pressure you know on the dollar.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 5: Again, in this let's call it two week to a
Speaker 5: couple of months cyclical trend, but ultimately we believe a
Speaker 5: double line that the secular trend has started with the dollar.
Speaker 5: Over the next couple of years is likely to trend lower.
Speaker 5: And the idea really underpinning this is that the massive
Speaker 5: amount of foreign savings that's come into the United States
Speaker 5: over the past three decades, which the BEEA now estimates
Speaker 5: as of the end of four q TWEO the latest
Speaker 5: data available at sixty two trillion of foreign savings or
Speaker 5: foreign investment in the United States.
Speaker 3: You know, that is an overweight position, and.
Speaker 5: We think some of that can start to unwind, that
Speaker 5: there will be portfolio diversification of that back towards home countries.
Speaker 5: And then secondly, we think that the idea that the
Speaker 5: dollar is going to you know, continue to be the
Speaker 5: main unit that underpins global trade, we think that that
Speaker 5: is also going to continue to erode, as we've already
Speaker 5: seen it evidenced by central banks now signing memorandums of
Speaker 5: understanding between each other to settle trade between their countries
Speaker 5: and their own currencies. So, for example, why should Australia
Speaker 5: and Singapore need the US dollar to settle trade between
Speaker 5: those two countries. In fact, they should, as developed economies,
Speaker 5: accept each other's current see which they now are, and
Speaker 5: over time, their reserve currency baskets are going to reflect
Speaker 5: that increasing the holdings of each other's currencies while simultaneously
Speaker 5: decreasing the holding of the dollar. So for those two
Speaker 5: structural reasons, we think that over time, the trend of
Speaker 5: the dollar on the long term basis, you know, should
Speaker 5: continue to trend down even but near term we first
Speaker 5: need to get through the you know, near term geopolitical
Speaker 5: risks that may cause a little bit of this flight
Speaker 5: to safety reversal in the dollar higher just over you know,
Speaker 5: the very near term.
Speaker 2: Bill will leave it there. Thank you so very much.
Speaker 2: Bill Campbell there. He is Global bond portfolio manager at
Speaker 2: Double Line, joining from Santa Monica, California. Here on the
Speaker 2: Daybreak Asia Podcast. Thanks for listening to today's episode of
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Daybreak Asia Edition podcast. Each weekday, we look
Speaker 2: at the story shaping markets, finance, and geopolitics in the
Speaker 2: Asia Pacific. You can find us on Apple, Spotify, the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Podcast YouTube channel, or anywhere else you listen. Join
Speaker 2: us again tomorrow for insight on the market moves from
Speaker 2: Hong Kong to Singapore and Australia. I'm Doug Prisoner and
Speaker 2: this is Bloomberg