ETFs Provided Key Liquidity Amid Turmoil: BlackRock's Cohen

at Bloomberg dot com. You know, as we think about the volatility and we experienced the volatility in the markets, one new area of investing that wasn't as developed back in the financial crisis is E t F to get a sense of how that's sector of the market is performing or really fortunate to have Samura Cohen, head of I Shares Global Markets at black Rock, joining us on the phone. So Sama, give us a sense of how the world of E t F trading is behaving given

these extraordinary market uh moves where we've been seeing. Hi, thanks very much for having me. So let me give you two stats in to your point. E t F trading has grown a lot over the last ten years, and even E t F trade was a significant portion of US equity treating, averaging at about twenty seven percent

of a US equity volume on a daily basis. So what we have seen, and we've seen this in other high velocity markets before, although this one is really extraordinary, is that e t F usage is really positively correlated with volatility. When the VIX spikes, E t F usage spikes, and also when liquidity goes down, E t F usage goes up. So what we've seen over the past two weeks is e t fs. Remember that seven percent average in really hovering at thirty eight of volume of of

US equity volumes on a daily basis. And by the way, the story is being repeated around the world with volumes being set in European e t s as well. A lot of people, including Eric Buns of Bloomberg Intelligence, has been talking about how e t f s have actually provided a host of liquidity at a very volatile time and when people are trying to discover the right levels.

I think that that is born out with a lot of e t f s. There is a question, however, about the bond e t f s and some of the dislocations that we have seen, particularly uh with the shares trading significantly below, where the assets that underlie the t fs are valued at and I'm just wondering if you could speak to some of the dislocations and and sort of, uh, speak to some people who are saying this could just create a spiral, a downward spiral leading

to for selling and further declines. Yeah. Absolutely, But let me get to your first point, to which is you know why our investors looking to e t s in times like this. I think you know, as we've been hearing in every market and listening to every news reports, these are times without a lot of transparency and without

a lot of certainty. And what e t f s offer investors is transparency in terms of what's in the fund and where you can transact it, and certainty of market access, and both of those things are valued highly, and that's what we're seeing in the velocity of e

t F trade. So to get to your answer, to get to your question, let me give you a specific example that I think is instructive and indicative of what we've seen in e t s fixed income e t s across several asset classes, and that's taking our high yield e t S l q D, which, as you noted, traded at an unusually large discount to its n A V on Thursday, March twelve. That discount was about five percent. It's since normalized a bit too, about half of that to two percent. So on that day, l q D

traded over eighty nine thousand times on exchange. If I look at its top holdings, which are bonds like Verizon cvs g S, those bonds traded on average thirty times each, between nine at the lowest and like fifty four at the highest. So what you're seeing is that trading is occurring in and and therefore price discovery is occurring in

l q D much less so the underlying markets. And so therefore that five percent and if you dig a little bit more, what you will see is that five percent um UH lower price, much more closely tracked the more frequently treated um UH bonds that were in l q d's portfolio. So in these types of scenarios, what we say is l q d s price and that gap is transmitting a lot of real time information about bond market conditions which I know you've been reporting on,

which are that bonds aren't trading. It is hard to find the other side of you know, uh, some of these top holdings, let alone the portfolio of bonds and l q D, and therefore for immediate liquidity and price discovery, investors are turning to l q D. So in these scenarios that UM, that information tells you the price of liquidity in this you know, really extraordinary and and at this time dislocated bond market a summer. Just give us

a sense of fund flows in and out of EAT. Yes, you know, are there any notable moves that you're seeing in your various products? So look, I think notably we are seeing outflows in fixed income. But to put that in context, the outflows are a fraction of that on exchange trading, which again underscores the point as to UM

conditions in the underlying bond market. So if we take h y G, which had a record volume week of about forty billion two weeks ago, right after the oil headline news UM in that week, h y G head outflows that were four hundred millions, So that was a ten to one ratio of volume trading in the secondary markets where no bond sword trading m versus actual flows

out of the bond. So again importantly, the risk transfer and the velocity that we're seeing in in UM ETFs is really happening much more on exchange than in the underlying bond market, which is why I would very much take the other side of that statement, um, in terms of e t s um uh causing any sort of spiral. I don't remember exactly what you said. In this market, ETFs are providing a release valve to exchange risks without tapping the underlying bond market. Samara, just I want to

take a step back to wrap this all up. You talk about the incredible volatility and the incredible volumes and the price discovery mechanism that has become really the E t f S hallmark, and I'm wondering if you get a sense of who is behind a lot of this activity, I mean, does this really highlight how e t f s have become an institutional tool or are we seeing mom and pop investors turning to these in order to

withdraw money or perhaps park money in cash. Like ETFs, et s are used broadly by lots of different types of investors. In this environment and this velocity of trade. Et f s are being used by thanks broker dealers as inventory management tools. UM, They're not being used uh in these volatle markets by by individual investors, but they are a really important tool to bond market participants across

the board. Samerica and thank you so much for being with us, who really appreciated Samerica and head of I Shares Global Markets at black Rock, And it's really been important Paul to look at the E t F complex because of exactly what Samara was saying, which is the incredible volumes that we have seen in the incredible UH price action and and some of the questions around bond ETFs.

Samara kind of highlighting the other side of people who are arguing about a death spiral, like Peter Sheer, I know of Accadabase securities, saying, you know, honestly, this is just a tool for price discovery and has served that function, and certainly we haven't necessarily seen, you know, the real sort of dire scenarios come to pass as a lot of people have postulated in the past. Let's bring in a mart van Ark. He's a chief economist at the

Conference board UH, a regular guest with Lisa and mice Off. Bart, thanks so much for joining us. All right, let's try to reset a little bit here. Bart. We we know that this is uncharted territory. Give us your sense of what you think the economic impact will be from this virus for the remainder of Well, it's obviously daunting at a moment to put out any forecast because the situation is almost changing every moment. But you know today that

you released our leading economic index for February. This was before uh, this whole episode started to involve involved in the Western world, um, and that was still up at that time. And actually that gives one little piece of evidence, and that they said, at least at the minimum, we're entering this very difficult period in a relatively good shape. But that's particularly important when it comes to the labor

markets and when it comes to consumption. Simply the fact that unemployment was low, that household balance sheets were pretty strong, and therefore consumption strong helps to cushing the effects possibly. But obviously that index is all news now because we have to look forward. Actually just mentioned unemployment claims are up in a in a very worrying way. That really concerns us a lot. That's the first thing to look at,

whether the labor market is going to move. We had a hope that companies would hold on to the workers for for the time being, it might very well be that these unemployment claims are primarily small and medium enterprises. But if there's one thing necessary, it is for government, federal and state, as well as businesses to think of any tool an instrument to keep people on the payroll,

because that would really turns out. Consumer confidence is the next thing that will fall if the labor market is going to weaken um and that would really put us into a very weak territory for the next quarter, next quarter or two probably part Anecdotally, we are hearing about major airlines for lowing staff without pay. We're hearing about

major restaurant companies also cutting back staff. To your point that you're wondering whether people would hold on the staff, and a lot of people are arguing ahead of this that people would want to hold onto the workers because they would think that it would be so much harder to hire them back afterwards. Are you changing that narrative? Do you think that that narrative is now incorrect, that there is sort of a pressure just to stay in business cut all costs because revenues have gone to zero

in a number of industries. Yeah, we're worried about that. Again, these unemployment claims. You really have to kind of unpack them a little bit to see where is this happening, which states is happening because states have somewhat different policies when it comes to finding these unemployment claims. Sometimes you have to go in person to to to to an employment office to claim them. Sometimes you can do it online. So you've got to look at these kinds of things.

But I think it's absolutely critical to see where is this happening. And there's a real difference between furloughs and pay cuts. First letting people go because you know, we're in the middle of this change towards the new normal. We're not in a new normal yet, we're kind of in a sort of panic mode. And to actually let people go in that situation and then may bee in, you know, a couple of weeks time and things are beginning to normalize. Won't be good, but at least beginning

to normalize. And you suddenly see you let staff go that you may not be able to get easily back. So finding ways to keep people on your pay roll, even if you have to pay a price or as a cost, or even if the workers themselves have to forgo some of the cuts. I think it's a very different way than just letting people go. So holding onto your people, I think is the key thing that we're

looking at. So Bart, I mean, I think the early stages of this crisis, i'mthing in just several weeks ago, Uh, many accountoms were suggesting a V shaped economic cycle here where we're gonna have a sharp downturn in the second quarter. Uh, but then pick right back up in the third and fourth quarter. Um, do you have any sense or any confidence in that or or is it just two fluid

right now? Yeah, that's a really important point. I mean, instead of just looking at the numbers, whether the context is going to be two percent or five percent or ten percent, it's much more important to look at that shape of the curve. So yeah, there quite a few forecasts out there that show very deep contraction happening now, but then expect the quick rebounds uh later on. That's a V shaped curve. I think that one really is

unlikely for for a whole bunch of reasons. One of them very importantly is that the first hit is really on a lot of services sectors. So you know, if you don't take your meal now, you're not going to take two meals next month, if you see what I mean. And that's true for many of these issues. So I think V shape is unlikely. The U shape as we call it, which means that you know, we're spreading this, This is going to be spread out over time, to me,

seems more likely. Let's assumed that the attempt to flatten the curve of new cases to avoid the peak, but flattened the curve of new cases over over two quarters or pass even more. That's a good thing because it really reduces the health challenges that we're having. But from an economic point of view, we're also spreading the pain over time. That's why I think, you know, we might at the minimum see two quarters of contraction. Maybe not, may not be as deep as some people think, but

it will be better for quite a while. My biggest worry is what we call an L shape, and an L shape is that you know, this goes on for a much longer time. You know, maybe it gets a little bit less over the summer, who knows, but then we're back into this by the end of the year, and then it could actually permanently lower the level of economic activity. It's in what was already a fairly slow economy to begin with, and that would of course be a real new normal that could be better for quite

a while. Very hard to say, but I think for US economists to really think that through and how businesses to understand what it means for the long term planning.

We have the word belief that's really important. Now we're speaking with Bart van Are, chief economist at the Conference Board, and at Bart, I want to pick up on what you said, the idea of an L shaped non recovery, that this could just permanently lower the overall growth rate for I mean permanent whatever that means, I guess going forward.

I'm curious what that means in terms of are you forecasting an increasing likelihood of this sort of depression like scenario or is this just you know, grinding ahead at an even slower pace than we already were. Look, it's tempting at this point in time to think about worst case scenarios and and of course companies have to think about this now. You've got you have to be in

this scenario mode now and plan for those. So, yeah, a worst case scenario like that that this could be with us for three years and could permanently depress the economy, whether it's whether it's continuous contraction or really slow growth.

I don't know. I think that it is tempting to do, and I think you have to do some of this, But I think it's much more likely that once after two or three weeks, we're going to set in this sort of new normal, that we have to begin to think how we're going to do business in the in the in the next few months in this kind of environment.

You know, manufacturing firms who are now working A and B ships with fewer people on the shop floor at one point in time, how are you going to do that and how they can you keep your capacity up? Um services firms where everybody is working remote. Those are the real questions that businesses have to work themselves through. How can we do business in this kind of new environment. Yes,

at the background are these worst case scenarios. We're not yet at the point to begin to frame those out, but obviously you know in the medium term that's what we will need to do. Bart van Art, thanks so much for joining us. We really appreciate your perspective. Bart van our chief economist at the conference board. Let's get a sense of what's going on in Washington, d C. In terms of coronavirus fiscal stimulus coming out of the Capitol.

Steven Dennis Bloomberg, Senate reporter, joins us. Steve, thanks so much for joining us. Give us the latest on kind of where we are with the various pieces of legislation within Congress any administration. Yeah, so Senate Republicans this morning are compiling a very large simulus package. You're expecting it to be well over a trillion dollars UM, but we don't yet have the exact details. You know, they had three task forces putting it together over the past day

and a half. They hope to get something to major or leader Men McConnell this morning so he can compile it and then walk across the hallway and start negotiating with Chuck Schumer, who has his own nearly trillion dollar package UM with very different ideas UM. And then you've got House Democrats, you know, various House Democrats are proposing various plans of their own, whether it be Ilhan Omar who wants similar big checks to what Secret Treasury Secretary

Minutition has talked about. Maxine Waters wants even bigger checks UM. A lot of other Democrats want things that are more traditional aid things like food stamps and unemployment insurance. But two ideas that have gotten a traction in both parties is this idea of sending everybody a check, maybe with some means testing, um, trying to figure out what the level is, whether it's one thousand or two thousand dollars

or more. And then the second thing that has pretty widespread support is a lot of support for small businesses planned by Susan Collins and Marco Rubio would send three hundred billion dollars covering all of their expenses, uh until this crisis is over, and that would initially be alone, but if they don't lay people off, it becomes like grant. So that's a huge support for small businesses. Stephen, That's exactly where I wanted to go, because people say that

the helicopter money. Sending a thousand dollars to every American is great and all, but it's going to take a couple of weeks and it's not going to cover the mortgage payment in a lot of places, plus all the food expenses, et cetera. For people who are out of work. People have been pointing very much to the small business kind of grants or loans as a way to just keep people from getting fired. And I'm wondering, how quickly do we have a sense of how quickly that could

be up and running. Yeah, I think that one of the things that they're looking to do is using existing authorities through the Small Business Administration that would then tap in two banks, so you'd end up having, you know, your normal lenders who are already around it would have these federally guaranteed loans that they could make, and then they'd sorted out later as far as, uh, the forgiveness process of that loan, where basically the federal government is

ultimately paying these loans off. As far as how fast they could get up and running, they are hoping to get this up and running in weeks. But you know, in the meantime, as we know, if we've gotten these ancdotal reports from a lot of these states, the unemployment claims are soaring. In just the last few days, a lot of senators saying that they're getting reports from their states that you know, in like the last two or three days, they're getting an entire month's worth of of layoffs.

And if they don't act quickly and assure those businesses that they're going to get paid. It's going to get much worse. So they want to have a bill done potentially out of the Senate this weekend to assure businesses so they don't actually fire people. Um. But you know, this thing still has to go through the House. You still have a lot of negotiations to do. It's going to take a while to get things up and running. So you know, this is warp speed, as as Mitch

McConnell has said for the Senate. But warp speed is still you know, way behind this virus which is getting worse and worse every day. You're seeing the cases in Maryland, for example, are up eighty three in two days, um, and there's now a hundred and seven cases in Maryland. People are worried about shortages at hospitals. Another thing that the Democrats are talking about, and you're seeing some talk about this from the administration as well, is forbearance on

all sorts of loans, whether it be mortgages. Uh, maybe you extend those mortgages. Uh, you don't have to pay them up front. You can you know, sort of skip a month. That kind of thing. Same thing with a lot of loans and other kinds of loans so that people aren't declaring bankruptcy in the next few months. So Steve, there's also been aside from getting money to consumers as quickly as possible, as also a lot of industry groups

are saying we need help from the federal government. Is Comer's going to take up those industry specific bailout issues separately and another later date. What's the feeling there. I think there's there's Uh, this is evolving by the hour, and I think that there's more and more of a sense that they can't go home without dealing with bigger businesses. Um, you've got the airlines in particular and other industries. Uh.

You know, initially we're talking about loans. Now we're talking about maybe having some equity stakes and companies if they need aid. You know, we saw that with TARP, We saw that with the some of the auto bailouts. You know, this is looking more and more like the two thousand and eight financial crisis, and all the stops are being

pulled out. Know, if you're a company and you don't have a big cash cushion, uh, you know, there's going to be a need for some process for keeping them afloat Stevendenz, we are speaking with Bloomberg Senate reporter, and I'd love to get your perspective and exactly that the sort of uncomfortable feeling that certain Republicans probably have considering the fact that there was some high criticism of the bailouts that were enrolled and used to rescue the auto

companies the banks back in two thousand and eight. And I'm wondering we are hearing, uh, we are hearing leaders of the Republican Party telling everyone just hold your nose and vote for it, because otherwise we're going to have a serious problem on our hands with respect to the economy. Can we talk a little bit about the idea of owning equity and some of these companies, What are some

of the other proposals. How close are they to solidifying some sort of parameters for bailouts of the airlines, of the casinos, of the cruise liners, and other industries that might be affected. I think we need to start getting to casinos and cruise lines, etcetera. It's gonna be very hard for industries like that to get biparisons support. There may be some general kinds of supports in here that

give the administration some flexibility. But that that is when it becomes it becomes a very politically dicey for members of both parties. Uh. You know, the the Wall Street ballot was extremely unpopular. A lot of these senators and House members remember remember going through that. But on the other hand, they you know, I think a lot of the senators and House members who voted for that thought

as absolutely essential, even though it was unpopular. So, you know, this is uh, you know, this is a big, big question if you have auto companies and all these other companies out there shuttering their factories because the government is telling them they have to in many cases, or or shops or or shopping mall, etcetera. The government is telling businesses to shut their doors or to send people home. This is a different situation than two thousand and eight

and two thousand nine. I've heard Republican senators say, look, this isn't really a moral hazard question. Um. Back then, one of the big concerns was we're bailing out the people who caused the crisis. Um. This time, we're in a situation where people are being ordered by the governments or their state local governments in many cases to not open their doors and there should be some compensation for that from the government. That meant because you're doing that

to benefit all of society. So this is gonna be really complicated questions, and so they're they're balancing to big issues. One is to move as fast as possible. You know, the senators do not want to be in town. House members don't want to be in town. We already have some House members who are infected. Um. Secondly, they might be able to clean this up lay or you know, everybody's worrying, worrying about means testing and everything else. You

can solve that later. And and and it's not like, you know, this is the only thing that's ever going to be done on this crisis. There's there's going to be more legislation coming after this. So Steve, you know, just as recently as a couple of days ago, Secretary Treasury of the Treasury Minutionum was saying that he intended to get cash into hands of consumers within a couple

of weeks. That is not possible, Is that right? I think it's you know, uh, and in a crisis like this, it's not clear what's possible and what isn't it took many weeks um in two thousand and eight to get the checks in the hands of people. UM In two thousand and eight, people forget it, but they got six d dollar checks. As the fiscal crisis was just getting under way. Pelosi and George Bush at the time cut a deal UM that was about a hundred and fifty billion,

if I remember correctly. It took many weeks for those checks to go out. I think that the intensity of this crisis, of the swiftness of the shock, and the fact that it's so sweeping across the country, UM means all the stops are going to be pulled out to send those checks out as fast as possible. And I think that's one of the things that we're hearing behind the scenes, is you know, a lot of people have various ideas on exactly how you should craft this thing.

How much money should for a child, should we have less for people over a hundred thousand dollars, and income all these things that people have their ideas on. But the the overwhelming sense seems to be get this out fast and and you can solve that problem later. We are awaiting members of the coronavirus Task Force to hold a press briefing in Washington, d C. In the James AS Brady Room, and uh, we have been speaking with Stephen Dennis Bloomberg Center reporter Lisa. Let's talk a little

bit um, you know about the treasury markets. There's been a lot of concern about liquidity in the market. What are you seeing in over the last couple of days. Yeah, well, there's that, and then there's also the question about the dollar. But certainly a lot of pretty wild moves. At Al HUSSAINI I'm sure has been tracking at all, maybe perhaps

getting a little nauseated, but watching it. Nonetheless, senior interest rate and currency analyst for Columbia Threatened Needle Investments and ed I'd love to get your perspective on some of the volatility that we have seen recently in the treasury market. I know that our Jersey chief of US and straight strategist here in at Bloomberg Intelligence is called it dysfunctional or also just the dollar. There is absolutely insurmountable climb

of the dollar. What's going on? Yeah, hi, well thanks for having me on, and you know, very quickly, I think the the root cause of what we're seeing is a rush to cash, and whether that's happening in the treasury market space or in the dollar funding space, that that lack of confidence in what's going on is really precipitated lack uh of liquidity. Now, liquidity problems are most acute in the longer end of the treasury curve and

in credit markets. UH. The FED has started to roll out facilities to address some of this, but so far, I have to say, UM the target of facilities, and there's a whole slew of them that have come online in the course of the past week, they have not had um I think, a full impact and definitely not in the dollar funding space yet. So is there anything left in the FEDS toolbox to kind of aid the liquidity in the market. I think so. And the way I think about the FEDS response is is really there's

been three channels. There's been in the traditional monetary policy where we took set funds down to zero. There's been a replay of the two thousand and eight playbook and the facilities, whether it's quantitative easing with some of the liquidity facilities and credit direct credit facilities that have come online. And the third chapter is perhaps the most interesting and that's the innovation and the new facilities that they're developing

to address the current issues. And on that front, the intervening directly in credit markets, potentially including corporate credit in its quantitative easing program UM could be an interesting step. Using yield curve control to set caps on yields at longer points in the curve could be the next step. So I think the tool kit continues to grow. I think the room to experiment is significant, and I think

the need for them to act is growing daily. I want to pick up at on that point where basically the idea that the Fedsure Reserve could pull an e C B or B o J type move and start buying corporate at This is something that was put out there by a former Federal Reserve chairs Ben Bernanke and Jennet Allen in a recent op ed in the Financial Times where they were saying it is time for the Federal Reserve to use this tool based on what we've seen in Europe in the Bank of Japan, is it

really effective? UM. I want to say in Europe it's been very effective in terms of compressing credit premiums. Now, the structure of the financing system is all the different European corporates disproportionately depend on bank lending, so the corporate bond market is less significant than it is for us

here in the US. But but I think the lesson of the last several years is that that sort of intervention is quite effective, and in the current situation where the core of the issue that we're facing is in liquidity in corporate bond markets, this would get through it very directly. You don't have to rely on sort of portfolio rebalancing when you purchase treasuries. You can go directly to the heart of the problem here the FED and

use your balantry that way. This is an incredibly controversial measure in Europe because people say that it's distorted valuations to such a degree that there has been no price discovery. And that's one reason why we're getting such violent swings now, is because suddenly people have to price in credit risk.

And I'm wondering, is what we are seeing in the corporate depth markets right now the pricing in of true credit risk or is it liquidity risk in terms of people just having to sell and nobody being on the other side. Um, it's a little bit of both, you know. At the moment, I would put more weight on the

liquidity issues. You know, particularly of the course of the last several weeks, there's definitely greater credit risk that's being priced in UM, but the liquidity issues have have been acute, and so from the Fed's perspective, you want to address both. You want to make the market more liquid UM and you want to compress some of the risk premium out

of the market. Uh. Whether that's a distortion UM, I don't know, but it's I think it's part of the FEDS policy mandate to compress risk premiums in a situation where you know, we could potentially be going into a recession.

So I think I think that's the right step. So, and how much as we think about some of the liquidity issues in the market across asset classes, how much is due to the fact that Wall Street just isn't what it used to be in terms of trading desks and capital deployed and number of traders and things like that.

How much of that is contributing to it. Yeah. Look, I mean at a very high level, the balance sheet that Wall Street provides to to intermediate trading is much smaller versus where it was predefinancial crisis, uh in part due to regulatory changes, UM. And so you know, we're you know, we're paying a price for that right now. And that's one of the reasons why the fence balance sheet does is to look attractive. There just aren't a

lot of actors out there. There aren't a lot of marginal buyers out there UM at the moment to intermediate between market players and and the FED could play that role. But but you're right, Wall Street is definitely uh smaller and less capable of handling dislocations like this. And I'm

wondering about the dollar. A lot of people have said it's to sell everything and get to the dollar type market, And I'm wondering what you think could actually stem the strength of the dollar, could actually bring it back down to earth and perhaps support some of the other currencies

around the world. Yeah, well, you know, ultimately it's a it's a crisis of confidence, UM, and so measures, whether they're public health sector issues or the scale and scope of the fiscal responses we're seeing UM have to restore confidence.

I think that's that's essentially the root issue here when it comes to the dollar funding market on the FED took another step in that direction by providing UH core see swap lines to central banks, expanding the number of banks they deal with to include some of the major emerging market central banks UM like Mexico and Brazil. I think that's a significant step in the right direction. We have to remember that the folks who use these swap

lines ultimately are commercial banks. Uh, they are the primary user. And if banks field of their stigma attached to drawing down these lines, or if banks draw down these lines but then don't lend that dollars supply out to corporates, UH, it's not going to work. And that that is fundamentally a confidence issue, which is why you're seeing the daughter bid so aggressively right now. Yeah, thank you so much for joining us. We always appreciate your thoughts and commentary.

Ed Al Husseini, senior interest rates and Currencies analysts for Columbia Threat Needle Investments, giving us his thoughts on the treasury market, Lisa, and on UH currencies. And you know the d X Y index one or one point seven here had hit one or two point four earlier night, just showing that extraordinary strength UH in in the dollar. Just amazing across the board relative to other currencies. Thanks

for listening to the Bloomberg pen L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa abram Woy. It's I'm on Twitter at Lisa abram woits one before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.