Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jay Leye. We bring
Speaker 1: you insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course on the Bloomberg Terminal. Let's
Speaker 1: turn to Giant Wood at Showy Bank for America's court.
Speaker 1: He has had a research investment committee. Chard always grab
Speaker 1: to catch up with you. Muhammadal Arrian, writing in the
Speaker 1: FT this morning, the inherent instability of the goldilocks market consensus.
Speaker 1: Do you think that outlook, that nice goldie looks outlook
Speaker 1: that many people have, Jared, do you think that is unstable? Well,
Speaker 1: thanks Shan. First of all, I think that Bohammad maybe
Speaker 1: hoping for a consensus where I certainly don't see what
Speaker 1: I mean. Thinking about investor uh comments and questions this year,
Speaker 1: they have been entirely dominated by fears about things getting
Speaker 1: too hot, too much, stimulus, too much, you know, central
Speaker 1: bank easing is the is the reopening happening too quickly?
Speaker 1: You know? For for for markets, I mean, these have
Speaker 1: been the questions that have been constantly put to us,
Speaker 1: and I think that the the truth is are joking
Speaker 1: at the beginning of segment. You know, the markets have
Speaker 1: digested all this incredibly well. You know the fixes that
Speaker 1: you know sixteen thirty and and so the big takeaway
Speaker 1: for us is that, in fact, the most contrarian view,
Speaker 1: I think that the most out of consensus thought right
Speaker 1: now is that things might actually continue to go well.
Speaker 1: You may even start to see uh, some deflationary forces
Speaker 1: kind of work their way back into the system in
Speaker 1: second half of this year, in the start of next year, Jared,
Speaker 1: what percentage of long only by side, the more traditional
Speaker 1: investment is off their bogey. If they're tight, are square
Speaker 1: to the market. They want to be like the SB five,
Speaker 1: even if they're removed from it on the edge of
Speaker 1: hedge fund. How many people behind right now? I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people have gotten positioned for for reopening
Speaker 1: from reflation. They've gotten into some of these value trades,
Speaker 1: some of the cyclical sectors, especially financials and and uh
Speaker 1: energy materials a little bit um, but they're not completely offsides.
Speaker 1: And in fact, in most of our measures are internal
Speaker 1: proprietary measures suggest that investors have pulled back in positioning
Speaker 1: over the last several weeks, they're they're you know, somewhere
Speaker 1: closer to neutral from much more aggressive levels earlier this year.
Speaker 1: So I think that the fear of you know, aggressive
Speaker 1: investor positioning, people are overly exuberant about the market um
Speaker 1: and that's going to give us, you know, some kind
Speaker 1: of altility. I think that might be a little bit
Speaker 1: misplaced here a list. So this is incredibly important, and
Speaker 1: that the behavior wrapped around all this blah blah blah
Speaker 1: we do is critical. And as Mr Wardards says, they're
Speaker 1: people aren't born, are aren't on board the bull market enthusiasts.
Speaker 1: And you can see this particularly in the bond market
Speaker 1: right the fact that we can get that bid into
Speaker 1: the long end, we do see a flattening yield curve.
Speaker 1: And Jared, do you think that the bond market and
Speaker 1: the message there that is a lot less bullish than
Speaker 1: the message from equities is translating into the equities. Have
Speaker 1: we seen the full play out of a less inflationary
Speaker 1: reality within the equity spectrum? No? I think I think
Speaker 1: at least it's exactly in the equity market where you see,
Speaker 1: you know, the biggest potential change over the second half
Speaker 1: of this year. You know, if it's true our economists
Speaker 1: have been suggesting, for example, you know, you could see uh,
Speaker 1: some downward pressure on price indexes from goods as people
Speaker 1: shift from goods to services. As September unemployment benefits expire
Speaker 1: and all the kind of consumer behavior changes into this fault,
Speaker 1: you could start to see, um, some of these the
Speaker 1: short term price pressures actually moderate in the way that
Speaker 1: economists and beneficials have been promising for some time. People
Speaker 1: a few months ago were you know, terrified of of
Speaker 1: the cost of lumber. You can't go to the store
Speaker 1: and buy you know, buy some plywood. Well lumbers fallen
Speaker 1: from its peak, um, and so none of the is
Speaker 1: you know, disinflationary or even to just return to normalcy. Um.
Speaker 1: Sort of economic pressures I think are factor in the
Speaker 1: equity market today. People are still you know, on one
Speaker 1: side in terms of the reflation trade of a much
Speaker 1: more balanced portfolio, which is what we've been recommending for
Speaker 1: for a while. Um. I think it's gonna suit investors
Speaker 1: better as reopening becomes normalcy in the economic market and
Speaker 1: and in financial markets. Jared always shop super Smart's gonna
Speaker 1: hear from your child Wood at their Bank America Securities
Speaker 1: head of Research Investment Committee. When you go off of Bosie,
Speaker 1: you learn that there's a complexity here. John John is
Speaker 1: just not a simple yield down, price up kind of analysis.
Speaker 1: There's some real complexity. Let's talk about that complexity now.
Speaker 1: Vista joins us. Morgan Stanley had a fixed income research
Speaker 1: and Visually, let's start with just a simple one. The
Speaker 1: headline from your research, credit is vulnerable to a negative surprise,
Speaker 1: how su Vis? Basically, the valuations in credit have gotten
Speaker 1: so tight that there is not a lot of room.
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of buffer for for any change
Speaker 1: in the defects response function. If we have a any
Speaker 1: change in the expectations about the liquidity broke backdrop that
Speaker 1: the FED has been providing for for a long time now,
Speaker 1: and any of those kinds of that a hawkish tilt
Speaker 1: from the Fed, we think it's going to be negative
Speaker 1: for credit. Macchially, what do you cite to people that
Speaker 1: think there's a massive put here from the Fed in
Speaker 1: credit at the moment that we can't have what is
Speaker 1: spread because the Fed is there to back things up.
Speaker 1: I think there is you can think of that there
Speaker 1: is a fact put. But it's I would since you
Speaker 1: put it in that language, I would say that put
Speaker 1: is significantly out of the money put. You need to
Speaker 1: see a lot you know, the put is not it's
Speaker 1: not another the money put. So you need a substantial
Speaker 1: dislocation in the create markets to occur before the put
Speaker 1: can come in. UM. So it's not a it's not
Speaker 1: that will we won't see um you know, fifteen twenty
Speaker 1: business point whymening UM under the FED put becomes functional
Speaker 1: if you need to see the order of magnitude of
Speaker 1: what we saw in March of last year, that level
Speaker 1: of dislocation in the market, you know, companies, high quality
Speaker 1: companies losing access to UH, to the CLAID markets. Those
Speaker 1: types of dislocations would you can conceivably imagine FIT stepping in,
Speaker 1: but not for a fifteen twenty you know, sort of
Speaker 1: a more UH you know business point type more investment
Speaker 1: grate spreads. Visually, your projection here has a pretty profound implication.
Speaker 1: That is that perhaps credit spread trades more in tandem
Speaker 1: with FED policy than actual credit worthiness of companies. In
Speaker 1: the past, these were two distinct issues where typically when
Speaker 1: the economy was getting better, credit would do better. The
Speaker 1: spreads would actually come in because these companies had a
Speaker 1: better chance of doing well in Thattic economy and paying
Speaker 1: back their debt. Have we moved to an area where
Speaker 1: credit does not necessarily track the ability for a company
Speaker 1: to pay back it's money. It's it's it's borrowings. I
Speaker 1: would I want to. I think it's good to distinguish
Speaker 1: between what's happening in the high quality investment grade credit
Speaker 1: versus high high yeld credit here. I think what you've
Speaker 1: just said is probably more true for the high heel
Speaker 1: company companies. But investment grade credit is really at pretty
Speaker 1: much historical tights at this point, and the Great market
Speaker 1: has been a substantial beneficiary of the of quantity releasing
Speaker 1: and the low rates, and any change to that, we
Speaker 1: think there is not enough of a buffer in terms
Speaker 1: of spreads for the Great markets to absorb. Not so
Speaker 1: much when you look at the high yeld there is
Speaker 1: some buffer there for that to happen. So as the
Speaker 1: economy gets better, the prospects for there is still some
Speaker 1: prospects for high ye low higher bonds and leverage loans
Speaker 1: to get tighter, but that room for tightening is simply
Speaker 1: on their investment grade Therefore, what we see is this
Speaker 1: um the situation where there's a clear difference between um
Speaker 1: HI yield and investment grade. This is actually a fascinating
Speaker 1: discussion and highlights why so many investment managers prefer high
Speaker 1: yield even though it's known as riskier to investment grade.
Speaker 1: Right now, visually, can you walk us through the pathway
Speaker 1: of transmission the idea here of if the Fed does
Speaker 1: get more hawkish, does that mean higher benchmark yields, higher
Speaker 1: spreads or wider spreads and then all in losses that
Speaker 1: are really substantial? Is that what you're projecting here? Actually,
Speaker 1: I'm not suggesting any all in credit losses. We're not
Speaker 1: suggesting a forceful pick up. We are. What we are
Speaker 1: suggesting is the compensation for investment grade. The spread is
Speaker 1: the compensation for taking all that great risk. It's the
Speaker 1: if you it's if you look at can it get
Speaker 1: tighter as economy gets better? Can the markets actually accept
Speaker 1: lower compensation for taking on investment grade credit? Um? That's
Speaker 1: that that it's really not that much a scope there.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, if the economy debates get higher,
Speaker 1: the amount of liquidity in the market eas somewhat um
Speaker 1: could they get wider um. We think that they very
Speaker 1: much the case that they could get wider without affecting
Speaker 1: the verall default rate visually, in that we think the
Speaker 1: false will go up in the equity market, and I
Speaker 1: want to pick up on that theme in just a moment.
Speaker 1: In the equity market, when you bring up the prospect
Speaker 1: of exuberance and bubbles, people always benchmark it's what happened
Speaker 1: in two thousand and say, well, it's nothing like then,
Speaker 1: so there's nothing to worry about now. In the credit market,
Speaker 1: they'll look at spreads and say things are tight, but
Speaker 1: they're the tightest since two thousand and seven, and this
Speaker 1: is not two thousand and seven. Could you do me
Speaker 1: a favor, Can you adjust where spreads are at the moment,
Speaker 1: for quality, for duration, and give me a better picture
Speaker 1: of the parallel between now and oh seven. Right, we
Speaker 1: do that, and my my colleagues just recently published a
Speaker 1: piece just addressing that. So adjusting for for everything, we
Speaker 1: still think we at pretty close to kicking all of
Speaker 1: those factors into account. Um, you are at all time
Speaker 1: tights in investment grade, not so much in HILD. There
Speaker 1: is a substantial room in HILD, roughly hundred basis points
Speaker 1: in terms of gestured spreads in high yield the hail
Speaker 1: want but investment grade. We are through the Kites of
Speaker 1: two thousand seven all time sites on i G potentially visual, unreal,
Speaker 1: gonna catch out visually through Morgan Stanley had a fixed
Speaker 1: income research on a bit of a clinic TALM and
Speaker 1: was happening in the credit market at the moment. Let's
Speaker 1: save ourselves as Semasha here June thirty, two thousand, twenty
Speaker 1: one SEAS with principle global Semen, What did you change
Speaker 1: in your mid year outlook? Hi, tom Um in terms
Speaker 1: of the changes, you know, I think that how we
Speaker 1: started the year, isn't you different? You know, we we
Speaker 1: came in. I think most people are expecting inflation to
Speaker 1: pick up. UM. We we had a timeline for tapering.
Speaker 1: I don't think anything has changed in UM. If anything,
Speaker 1: that the summer is going to be a little bit
Speaker 1: more difficult with I think you should see a bit
Speaker 1: more volatility. I think there's a lot of vulnerabilities in
Speaker 1: the market, but we're still holding on to our tenure
Speaker 1: target of around one eighty five by the end of
Speaker 1: the year, and I don't be much changed on that.
Speaker 1: This goes to the quote from Pita Cheer of Academy.
Speaker 1: I'll be catching up with him in an hour or so.
Speaker 1: Take some gains, reduced risk, and enjoy a few weeks
Speaker 1: with less stress. Do you agree with that, Sema? Well,
Speaker 1: I think the thing is that for investors, they need
Speaker 1: to look through some of the noise over the coming months.
Speaker 1: You know, there isn't too much be worried about. If
Speaker 1: you're looking at taking a six month to one year
Speaker 1: of you there is still a strong economic recovery underway.
Speaker 1: You may get a few concerns around the fair, the
Speaker 1: concerns about inflation, and given how expensive equities are, you know,
Speaker 1: there's certainly vulnerability for a bit of a bit of
Speaker 1: a kind of a tumble here and there. But the
Speaker 1: long term view is certainly continued to rand an ecture market,
Speaker 1: how many people believe continue strength and cyclicals as well.
Speaker 1: And Seema, it continues to and either or cyclicals, value
Speaker 1: or growth, which basically for many people comes down to
Speaker 1: big tech, energy or financials. Take your pick on a
Speaker 1: sector that's your style, your factor. And I'm trying to understand, Sema,
Speaker 1: can you envision a scenario where the SMP five hundred
Speaker 1: just finishes the year lower from where we are right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's entirely possible, um and this
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons why I think increasingly invested
Speaker 1: me to look under the surface, start thinking about the
Speaker 1: sectors the company that you're looking at. And the reason
Speaker 1: for that is that, look, you know, we still have
Speaker 1: a generally positive long term view for secular growth dogs, right,
Speaker 1: so essentially technology. But if you get to a point
Speaker 1: where cyclical start doing really well and you have the
Speaker 1: yield can of wants again taking or just generally yield rising,
Speaker 1: then tech gets into a bit of difficulty. And given
Speaker 1: its waiting in in the SMP five hundred, that is
Speaker 1: a possibility that you have a lower SMP five hundred,
Speaker 1: even a ruly strong growth environment where cyclicals do well.
Speaker 1: So this is the time that investors need to really
Speaker 1: understand not just look at the index, but look at
Speaker 1: the various sectors that they're investing in SEEMA and a
Speaker 1: broader level. I'm wondering to muhammadalarians point, do you see
Speaker 1: goldilocks being a perilous zone to be in that it
Speaker 1: has an expiration date that one point one thing will
Speaker 1: have to break either inflation will either have to break
Speaker 1: out too high or the credit cycle will have to
Speaker 1: start rolling over. Well, I think with his point it
Speaker 1: was interesting in that, you know, I'm kind of disagree.
Speaker 1: I feel like people have become more and more aware
Speaker 1: of the very various risks. We have a client asking
Speaker 1: how do we have the inflation protection to our portfolio?
Speaker 1: So I think there is recognition that there are many
Speaker 1: different risks out there at the moment. But I think
Speaker 1: the really interesting part of our areas um comments were
Speaker 1: about the very structural changes that are taking place in
Speaker 1: the economy, which may funny end up in slightly higher
Speaker 1: inflation that we've had in the last decade, things like
Speaker 1: the supply change. How are people, however, as companies thinking
Speaker 1: about their inventories, um, just even with regards to central
Speaker 1: banks of the way that they're reviewing inflation. These are
Speaker 1: fundamental changes which you're gonna take some time to play out,
Speaker 1: and I think that's where we need a bit more
Speaker 1: focused from the time. How do they weigh into your
Speaker 1: investment thesis? In other words, how do you price in
Speaker 1: the very specific inflationary pressures of this modern era. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we still think that Look, you know, we do
Speaker 1: have elevating inflation, and even after this, you know, the
Speaker 1: so called transitory effect. Said, now we still think we'll
Speaker 1: have inflation higher than what we've had it for the
Speaker 1: last decade, not a worrying height, but certainly around there
Speaker 1: two to two and a half percent level. And in
Speaker 1: the medium term, when we have elevating inflation, investors need
Speaker 1: to have that inflation protection. You know, we can talk
Speaker 1: about man who we talk about cyclicals and do the
Speaker 1: best area to you have that protection. It was in
Speaker 1: real estate because you don't suffer that volatility, and as
Speaker 1: long as it's accompanied by a strong growth environment, real
Speaker 1: estate tends to do better in these kinds of environments.
Speaker 1: So that's where are our favorite picking for this inflation environment.
Speaker 1: What do you do on a strategy basis with profitable
Speaker 1: technology companies? So we have actually maintained an overweight to tech.
Speaker 1: That's a couple of reasons. One is that you know,
Speaker 1: from a long term basis, these companies they have this
Speaker 1: strong cash flow, they have the balance sheet, and they
Speaker 1: are where most companies if they cann't survive over this
Speaker 1: difficult period last year and this year, probably next year,
Speaker 1: they need to use technology to pivot their business models.
Speaker 1: So tech is not going away. The other thing is
Speaker 1: is that it's a differensive trade. You know, when we
Speaker 1: have concerns about hawk ish fed growth out the tech
Speaker 1: tends to do well. Just as were saying over the
Speaker 1: last few weeks, So as to as it makes sense
Speaker 1: to have that as a defensive portions within your portfolio
Speaker 1: and hold it through the long term. The key rist
Speaker 1: because obviously regulations. But as you were discussing before, um
Speaker 1: text seems to be able to deal with those kind
Speaker 1: of pressures. Can I get everything you just said by
Speaker 1: just owning the index? Really good question? Sorry I misheard that.
Speaker 1: What was up? Can I get everything you've just said
Speaker 1: in the last ten minutes by just owning the index
Speaker 1: on the s No, I think you need to. You
Speaker 1: really need to actively look at what you're investing in.
Speaker 1: You know, there's gonna be some secretical sectors that do well.
Speaker 1: You need to have a little bit of valuance, a
Speaker 1: little bit of growth that you absolutely need to pick well.
Speaker 1: Because over the coming months, as the restation trade becomes
Speaker 1: I remember one of the beautiful saying, it becomes a
Speaker 1: bit more normal, some of those companies are not going
Speaker 1: to do as well. They've been enjoying over the last
Speaker 1: few months. So we need to be a little bit
Speaker 1: more competent, a bit more active in a way that
Speaker 1: invested are looking at the SAMA. Thank you. It's going
Speaker 1: to hear from the Principal Club Investors chief strategist right now.
Speaker 1: He is from the sixth district election to Kentucky. Must
Speaker 1: be a Republican, We know that. Andrew Barr joins, it's
Speaker 1: Andy Barr. And what Andy Barnos is The Fayette County
Speaker 1: Board of Elections is run a little bit better than
Speaker 1: the New York City Board of Elections. They can count
Speaker 1: the votes down there. Andy, to go to the votes
Speaker 1: in your election, you're not a borderline congressman. You won
Speaker 1: fifty seven point three percent to fort for the evil Democrat.
Speaker 1: What do the Republicans need to do right now that
Speaker 1: they are in much tighter districts to make two thousand
Speaker 1: twenty two a good outcome. I think we need to
Speaker 1: address the concerns of the American people. You just we're
Speaker 1: talking about the labor shortage crisis in the country, concerns
Speaker 1: about inflation. These are real. The Fed says and Janet
Speaker 1: Yellen say that it's transitory. I'm not so sure when
Speaker 1: you talk to the homebuilders, when you talk to people
Speaker 1: who have to purchase the lumber and the steel, and
Speaker 1: you you talk to um the restaurateurs who are buying food,
Speaker 1: and the trucking companies that are dealing with higher fuel costs.
Speaker 1: Inflation is real and it's a crisis. So I think
Speaker 1: speaking to those basic pocketbook concerns of the American people
Speaker 1: is what's going to deliver the majority back to us.
Speaker 1: But it's not about the politics. It's about solving these problems.
Speaker 1: And and we do have challenges facing us in the country.
Speaker 1: What should your own Powell do in his policy? Should
Speaker 1: he address Lexington, contut Ucky? Or should he address something
Speaker 1: like New York City. He's got to address us all.
Speaker 1: How does he do that well? I think what the
Speaker 1: FED should be doing is listening to Robert capp On,
Speaker 1: the president of the Dallas FED, who has been the
Speaker 1: most hawkish on this inflation question, and to his credit,
Speaker 1: Chairman Poal has encouraged um UH, these dissenting voices to
Speaker 1: talk about the real issue of inflation. And and we
Speaker 1: do not need to be buying forty billion dollars a
Speaker 1: month and mortgage backed securities with home prices going through
Speaker 1: the roof. Uh, this is fuel to what could be
Speaker 1: another bubble, and we need to watch and guard against that. Look,
Speaker 1: we've had historic levels of monetary and fiscal stimulus pushed
Speaker 1: into this economy. We are in recovery, but this is
Speaker 1: fueling a potential asset bubble that could create major problems
Speaker 1: going forward. And we don't need a situation where the
Speaker 1: Fed is forced to slam on the brakes and push
Speaker 1: us into recession. Congressman, let's talk about the infrastructure spending plan,
Speaker 1: the five billion dollar bipartisan deal that was struck. At
Speaker 1: what point would you be willing to sign off on
Speaker 1: that even if there were a reconciliation bill that was
Speaker 1: sort of attached to it the Democrats were pushing through.
Speaker 1: Do you have a price tag on how high you
Speaker 1: would be willing to accept for that bill. It's not
Speaker 1: as much about a specific price tag, Lisa. It's more
Speaker 1: about are we focused on core, real infrastructure and we're
Speaker 1: not tying it to an unrelated um green New Deal
Speaker 1: or social spending agenda that has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the needs of the country. Look, we need a bipartisan
Speaker 1: deal to rebuild our country's infrastructure. Look no further than
Speaker 1: seventy five miles north of my home district in Lexington, Kentucky.
Speaker 1: You see the Brent Spence Bridge falling into the Ohio River.
Speaker 1: This is a major source of interstate commerce, tying Detroit
Speaker 1: to Tampa, through Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. This is a
Speaker 1: critical infrastructure project. But there's more of these all around
Speaker 1: the country. And we need to rebuild our country's infrastry
Speaker 1: ructure for growth, for safety, for the efficiency of our
Speaker 1: economy and productivity. But the key is are we going
Speaker 1: to do so the right way? Are we going to
Speaker 1: do so so through streamlining, permitting and regulatory reform and
Speaker 1: slashing red tape which would save three point seven trillion dollars?
Speaker 1: Are we going to do it through private capital as
Speaker 1: opposed to imposing huge new taxes on the American people
Speaker 1: that would make us uncompetitive and forced US corporations to
Speaker 1: uh move towards inversions again and move capital and jobs overseas.
Speaker 1: That's the question. What does it look like and is
Speaker 1: it really focused on core infrastructure? Congressman, would you be
Speaker 1: willing to sign off in the five D seventy nine
Speaker 1: billion dollar plan regardless of what happens elsewhere because of
Speaker 1: the need that you're talking about to rebuild some of
Speaker 1: those bridges and rows. Yeah, the bipartisan deal struck in
Speaker 1: the Senate looks good. But what was very discouraging is
Speaker 1: when President Biden, I think forced by his hand, was
Speaker 1: forced by the the extreme far left and the Progressives
Speaker 1: to iy it to this reconciliation bill that would massively
Speaker 1: expand the welfare state. I think him walking that back
Speaker 1: gives us more hope. Um, but look, the Democrats are
Speaker 1: having a really hard time around right now internally deciding
Speaker 1: what it is that they can do. Would you sign
Speaker 1: off on the billion dollar plan regardless of what happens
Speaker 1: on the other side. Yeah. I I've looked at the
Speaker 1: over the kind of the broad parameters and it looks positive,
Speaker 1: much better than what where the administration started. So the
Speaker 1: details have had yet to be put into a bill,
Speaker 1: so I would want to see that before I would
Speaker 1: commit to it. But yes, certainly this is much closer
Speaker 1: to or in the ballpark, if you will, than what
Speaker 1: we were seeing earlier from the administration and untethering it
Speaker 1: from all of the other um far left wing agenda
Speaker 1: is is it gives us hope that there can be
Speaker 1: a bi partisan agreement. I would be surprised if we
Speaker 1: got there until the fall because of the demands of
Speaker 1: of the far left in the House. And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the President can show some real leadership here by a
Speaker 1: pushing Speaker Pelosi to abandon the far left of fringe
Speaker 1: of the party and come to the center and really
Speaker 1: focus on core infrastructure as opposed to the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal or some of these other social spending priorities of
Speaker 1: the of the of the Democratic Party. Congressman, always appreciate
Speaker 1: your time. Let's catch up against Congressman Anti Baa of Kentucky.
Speaker 1: Thank you. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: Join us live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day from
Speaker 1: six to nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course on
Speaker 1: the terminal. I'm Tom Keene and this is Bloomberg