FBI Acting Director McCabe "Has No Chance," Eli Lake Says

President Trump had his Nicksonian moment? To weigh in? I want to bring an Eli Lake, a Bloomberg View columnist who has written extensively about the latest dramas in the President Trump administration. Eli, first take, I know a lot of people have compared what President Trump just did with James Comey, uh but firing him as the FBI director to some of the developments under former President Nixon, who

was imp How is this similar and how is this different? Well, it's similar in that James Tomy was the head of the Bureau and was that was conducting an investigation in the president as Archibald Cox was a special prosecutor looking into Watergate. But that's really where the similarities end. Um. First of all, in Watergate, we always knew what the crime was. It was a third rate break in followed

by a series of cover ups and lying. In the case of Russia Gate, for lack of a better word, we're not even sure what the underlying crime is at this point, uh, And it looks like there's a cover up,

but it's like a cover up without a crime. And the second of all, one of the things that Nixon did and why the Watergate break in was so troubling, was that he was using because he used former CIA officers and people involved with Cuba operations for that break in as part of a kind of dirty tricks group in UH that that did things on behalf of the of the White House. So he was using the power

of the surveillance state against his political opposition. You could argue that with the leak um of Flynn's conversations with Kiss leak and a couple other things like that, the power of the surveillance state was has been used against Trump uh to weaponize the allegation about Russia. UM. So that's another important distinction. UM. But the one thing that's very similar is that you know, in some ways what happened with Nixon and what happened with Trunk is that

these were both sort of violating traditional political norms. I had written a column and said Comey was the most powerful man in Washington because I couldn't imagine after he announced an ongoing counor intelligence probe into the Trump campaign Russia, that the president would fire him. I thought it would

be politically suicidal. Look what I know, um, well, I mean we haven't seen the full fallout, but I think that that this is the question you if it is not political suicide, If if it was inaccurate to say that this is such a dire political move that President

Trump would not embark upon it. What does this mean for the independence of the law enforcement branch, especially at a time when a G. Jeff Sessions turned General Jeff Sessions has said that he would recuse himself, you know, as as Senator Schumer was saying he would recuse himself from the Russia probe. And then to make a move like this and recommend that James Comey be fired as FBI director, I mean, does this concern you? I don't think we're there yet. The acting FBI director is a

guy named Andrew McCabe. His wife received a significant amount of campaign contributions from Terry mccauugh the current Democratic governor of Virginia and longtime Clinton associate and head of the d n C UM that would suggest to me that, um, you know that you're the first of all, the Russia probe isn't going away, and second of all, the FBI

will continue to you know, do its investigations. And finally, I mean, I think another big difference on water game is that you know, you could you could, you could be critical of elements of Archibald Cox, but really there is a substantive case against Jim Comey that Democrats have made and Republicans have made that is it arguable? I think so? Um, in that respect, I mean there was cause in the case of Comy, um most recently that he misled Congress last week when he testified about whom

Abideen and Anthony Meaner's computer. Um, So in that respect, you know, you could say it's a long time coming. It's just you know, he was investigating Trump or not Trump, but I guess he was. Trump said he was assured he was not under investigation, but he was certainly investigating his search, which, which, by the way, I mean, Eli, we would be remiss if we didn't point out how odd it was for President Trump to even flick at the investigation in his letter to a former FBI director,

James Comey. Now, I mean, I don't what's so strange about that is, if that's if, assuming it's true, why didn't Comey say that when he announced the investigation. Yeah, there are a lot of don't understand it. Well, one thing I wanted to get back to with the FBI acting director McCabe being a respected bureau employee. First of all, is he likely to be the successor, the permanent successor

to James Comey? And also not a chance? Okay? Why because I think I've heard that they want to get rid of McCabe as well, and that they are looking to I mean, Trump himself said he's gonna nominate somebody new, So he's not. So McCabe is going to be the acting director. But keep in mind there's an active investigation.

The active investigation continues, McCabe is going to be the acting director, and we can expect I would imagine a long political fight over the nomination of the next FBI director. It's gonna consume Washington. It's got to pass the smell test for Senate Republicans who distanced themselves from the decision she fired Comey, and it's got a past the smell test from Democrats who are really out for blood at this point. And in comparing this to the satura name

asker Richard Nixon. So, in the meantime, couldn't President Trump ostensibly fire acting FBI Director McCabe if he didn't want him to be the one in charge? He could? I don't know if he will. I don't know if it would be politically why you're like, I can't make any more statements about political suicide, right, So going forward, what do you think is the most important thing for us to keep keep track of to sort of get a

real sense of of what's going to happen here. Well, I would look for some sort of statement and reporting. I'm trying to get this myself. Is what is the status at this point of the counterintelligence probe into Trump and Trump campaign in Russia? I would look at, um, what the dynamics will look like for a for for the nomination fights for the new FBI director. And while we just have now new information that miss McConnell sent,

there won't be a special prosecutor. Um. I do think it makes political sense at this point to have some sort of bipartisan special commission or something along those line. Maybe I mean a kind of special select committee, but something that will just allow for our country to have a respected group bipartisan that will just sort of present at a certain point, here are the facts about the election we can all agree on, and let's get it

find it right. Unfortunately, we're gonna have to leave it there. I can speak with you all morning. Eli La is a Bloomberg View columnist talking about Trump's firing FBI Director James Come. Well, a lot of times there, whatever there's a blip in the market, people point their finger at this abyss called risk parody. They say risk parody funds are deleveraging, or risk parody funds are rotating out of something. To sort of clarify what actually is going going on,

I want to bring in Rob Croche. He is the senior portfolio manager at Salient Partners in Houston, Texas. Salient overseas about fourteen billion dollars in assets. So Rob, I want to just start with talking about why risk parody funds are blamed for turmoil in the markets, and whether you have seen any instances of this. Sure, well, we've certainly seen instances of them being blamed. We haven't seen

any instances where they really did exacerbate market drawnouts. Um. Risk parody is something that a lot of people haven't taken the time to try to understand, and therefore it's easy to blame it and and have it be credible. So so help us understand it. What is risk parody? Sure? Risk parody is an asset allocation strategy that tries to take risk in asset classes that are really different from

each other. So rather than having six stocks and bonds, it tries to take risks spread pretty equally across stocks on credits, UH and sovereign debt. So you know, that's sixty forty portfolio, sixty stocks bonds that the average investor holds in their portfolio. That is like equity risk, and so you know the next time stocks drawn on, it's very clear what's going to happen to that portfolio. So the idea is to sort of remove correlation to a particular move up in one direction or or down in

another direction. I do have to wonder, though, what has the track record been like have these has you have your risk parity funds truly been uncorrelated to some of the major markets. Sure, so anytime one market moves a lot, you're gonna be correlated to it. But at the same time, if you look over the long run, our beta two stocks are beta two, bonds are beta to to credit, our beta to two sovereign debt is exactly what it

should be. We're getting exactly a quarter of our risk historically from each of those asset classes, and that's the goal. We don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. So what if it turn has been like returns have been good. I mean, we're up four percent or so year to date in in our mutual fund version of risk parity um They're exactly what you would expect from from a balanced portfolio that allocs to all the classes. What has institutional interests been like for these types of funds.

Institutional interest it continues to uh increase in risk parity strategies. What we're seeing is institutions recognizing that to make that seven percent bogey that they need to make, they need to do something different. They can't afford to double down on stocks. We all know that stocks are are fully priced right now. Bonds are fully priced right now, so you know that what they've been doing is unlikely to get them seven percent on a go forward basis. So

what should they do? Should they double down on stocks or double down on private equity or do should they do something a little bit different from that? And so they've been allocating to what we see called risk miday gaining asset classes or equity risk mitigation, And so that doesn't mean usually when I hear equity risk mitigation, I think lower return. But that's not what this is. This is actually seeking return, but doing it in markets that aren't stocks. So walk me through a meeting that you

would have with an institutional investor. I'm wondering what are the biggest questions? Sure, so, in general, when you go and talk to an institutional investor about a strategy like this, you know that they're already looking at it, and so it's really asked answering questions about what makes our implementation different. In general, the answer is that we try to have a more adaptive portfolio, so we have an overlay. We don't We think spar it's a good starting place, but

we don't think it's where you end. We think that you start from there and then you apply some common sense approach to tilting the portfolio based on market sentiment. And so we explained that approach uh to to potential allocators. So how do you do that through algorithms or do you do that through a human being looking at the market and saying, you know, we should probably do this. Algorithms is a scary word, but it's not nearly as scary as that thing where we go with the human being.

You know, so computer is less scary than humans actually kind of behaviorally, it's for sure, right, and so you know it's it's systematic um, but it's not a it's not some crazy black box. We use momentum. Uh. Momentum gives us an edge over time. Momentum tells us which asset classes are in favor right now and which asset classes are are for sure out of favor right now, and they help us step out of the way of stuff that's not working. So, uh, do you end up

trading quite a bit in these funds? I mean it's a turnover pretty pretty high. Sure, anytime you're training futures, turnovers high relative to a sort of buy and hold equity portfolio. But yeah, turnovers high. How do you get diversity with a model when the implementation can be somewhat challenging when you talk about specific corporate securities, for example, that may not trade as frequently as say, you know,

futures or other contracts. So I just wonder theoretical models do they ever not translate because of sort of the liquidity concerns? For sure, when you're when you're building a portfolio like this, liquidity's paramount um and so the credit that we trade is a derivative contract, it's an index, it's a swap on an index. Uh So it's something that is totally liquid by the billions. Uh So we we put liquidity first when you're building a portfolio like this.

Uh and you want to be adaptive, everything you're trading has to be very liquid. So going back to sort of how we began with the idea that whenever there's a blip in the market, people point their fingers at risk parity funds is having to de leverage or getting withdrawals. Have you seen anything from either from your competitors even that have made you think, well, in the hands of the wrong person, this could be a dangerous strategy. I wish I could throw up my competitors under the bus here,

but I really can't. All Right. The truth is that when when you're a actional portfolio manager and you're trading a lot number one, you have to manage market impact costs, and you have to manage trading costs, and you know, the type of trading that's been sort of assumed of risk parity managers during these these periods is implausible from a trading cost perspective, And so I'm confident that risk parity managers aren't adding insult to injury when when markets

are drawing down right now, Um, what what I think is much scarier is discretionary managers throwing in the towel or getting getting fearful and selling stocks. I think that that's something much more likely to happen in a discretionary context. Was sort of an old school equity manager than it is a systematic risparity manager. What do you think is going to be the biggest challenge for the rest of the year for your risk parity funds? Fortunately, the funds

don't ask me that. You know, uh, we very much. I can't tell the future. So we think that having a plan and sticking to it is the way to generate performance over time. That said, anytime the market environment changes quickly, it can be challenging for a portfolio that's adapting. So our portfolio today is ideally situated for the market we're in today. As it changes, it will take us a little a little bit of time, a couple of

days to reallocate the portfolio for the new environment. And during those periods when when the level of risk changes or correlations change, we can be misallocated for a couple of days. Fortunately, periods where the market is sort of calm and stays in the same state are much more frequent and persistent than the sort of jumpy transitory states. So we think that over time, being adapted to the current environment ends up working much better than being scared

and sitting on your hands. Thank you so much for joining us. Rub Crocha He is managing director of Quantitative Strategies and a senior portfolio manager at Salient Partners in Houston, Texas. Salient Partners overseas about fourteen billion dollars. We want to take a moment to let you know about something new

from Bloomberg. Starting right now, you can use our I O s app or our new Google Chrome extension to scan any news story on any website, instantly revealing relevant news and market data from Bloomberg and other sources related to the companies and people you're reading about. So no matter where you're reading the news, you can bring the power of Bloomberg's news and data with you. It's pretty amazing. Download our i O s app or search for the Bloomberg extension on the Chrome Store to try it out.

Learn more at Bloomberg dot com slash lens. Well. As Jay Clayton takes the helm of the Securities in Exchange Commission of the U s UH, it is important to realize one of his main concerns, as he has outlined on several occasions, is the dearth of i p O of initial public offerings in the US, talking about how this market has been shrinking and yet we are getting some signs that this might pick up. And not only is it US companies I p O in here, but European company is deciding to come to the US in

order to raise equity. Ed Hammond is here with us. He has a deals reporter for Bloomberg News and joins me in the Bloomberg eleven three oh studio in New York, and can you give us a sense of why acca? And also preta do you say? Pretamon are like? What do you say? How do you say? Because it's a French word, we just call it prep alright, fine, Princi pretty bad when it comes to sort of French or foreign pronunciation anyway, because they tend to be lazy when

it comes to foreign languages. Um, so yeah, which is why are they coming here? We just call it PREP, So I'll start with prep. Um. It's obviously huge in the UK. It's this kind of store of the high street, very very popular sandwich shop. I think it may be maxed out in terms of what it can do in the UK with growth. Obviously, cec Us is potentially a huge market for this whole um grab and go as they call concept. I think is is obviously huge here.

You have tons of competition, but actually nothing quite like Prep, both in terms of the menu and also just the style of the place. Unlike a lot of US sandwich shops that you go into, you know, whether it's your your Jersey mix or your Subway. In Prep, you don't actually see them making the sandwiches. It's all pre prepared food. You just literally go in and you kind of grab your baguette or your you know, you roll out of the fridge, go up to the counter, pay for it

and leave. So you don't have that thing of sort of like you do here where you you know, you would order something and they actually build it up for you in the store. But why would you need an I p O in order to expand? I mean, is it just basically to get some more capital in dollars or is it something else? Yeah, I think it's to get some more capital. I mean, like the private ecty owners of this for a while have been have been looking at for an exit. I think there was some

discussion around whether or not they would sell it. Obviously, some of that has been reported in terms of potential buyers. I think an I P over them is it's an obvious way for them to get you know, get it

out there, obviously exit the business over time. I think this is is also a reasonably good time to take like this in particularly sort of consumer rounds public that seems to be deep appetite for it, and they're actually benchmarking against um Starbucks obviously but also against shake Shack, which was one of the biggest sort of success stories of the public markets in recent years. Interesting, so it could be chucked up to a private equity UH exit

strategy as much as anything else. What about acces, It said that it intends to do an initial public offering of its US operations. Why now, again, I think, you know, there is a sense that the public markets are reasonably robust at the moment. We went through a long period where they were not wherever. You know, obviously everyone was very panicked and you saw a lot of ip as

being pulled. But I think the other thing that's driving is, and we're seeing this across all sextes, really is there is a concern that we have some volatility down the road.

And obviously, you know, it's not necessarily that we're at the top of the cycle, but there's certainly a sense that you know, if you are if you are going to do something, now is probably a good moment to do it, because it's unlikely to get better from here on out, both in terms of the kind of valuations people can expect, but also the appetite in the public markets also in the M and A market, So we see a lot of the same trades happening in m

and A, where not people are necessarily rushing to do deals, but certainly people are keen to execute stuff now because there's a sense that, hey, you know what, in a year, maybe the opportunity has gone Yeah, well I'm talking about g LS, T Mobile and Sprint now might be back on. Yeah. So we've we've had this period obviously, this sort of perday period where none of the carriers could speak to each other because it was a spectrum launching going on.

I think that in the last week and so now there is this expectation that, look, these guys are going to be back in dialogue, that there are any number of combinations that could happen in the space. TEAMO Sprint obviously was one that has been attempted before unsuccessfully, and therefore there's a sense of, look, maybe now with the expectation that we have a looser regulatory environment under Trump, certainly a looser enter trust environment, maybe this could come back.

I think that one thing to say on that is this deal was previously kind of was was deboggamed by the government of the day, and it's actually been something that has been a really, really good thing for consumers because you've seen prices come way off by having these two carriers as separate carriers, You've you've actually seen the

consumer benefit hugely. So I think making the argument now putting them together and going from what you have of like four carriers to three is going to be somehow good for the U S. Consumer is gonna be a very very difficult sol right, But I guess that then My question is do the people who would be approving the deal or not in government care about that? I mean, is that part of the discussion, because frankly, the company has cited potential willingness to allow this kind of deal

in the US administration currently. Yeah, and that's you know, that's that's something that I think we are seeing a lot of companies they feel that there is a much more business friendly environment, particularly among the regulators U and I think there's gonna, you know, someone who's going to try a big deal and it will be a test case. Obviously, under Obama that was it was a fairly tough antitrust environment.

We saw lots and lots of deals get blocked, not to be all the kind of big health insurers who tried to merge and were pulled apart Staples Office depot. Similarly, um, I think there is an expectation it will be slightly easier to get these big deals done, but it's also there's a lot of uncertainty. There's also a lot of jobs in d C that are not filled that would

affect these kind of deals. So I think until you see some more of those jobs filled and therefore some more clarity around exactly how the antitrust environment is going to be, it's going to be difficult for someone to pull the trigger on a huge deal like this, especially one that's already been blocked. And just going back to the I p o s real quick, do you get a sense that the volume of I p o is will continue to accelerate through the rest of the year.

I think, barring any sort of shocks to the system, and obviously there is under this administration is potential for a large number of shocks to the system, I think we probably will see a decent run of I p o s through the rest of the year. There's certainly a lot that we hear in the pipeline things being talked about. There are also things that people looked at last year got quite close to doing in some cases and pulled, and I think there will be in you know,

there is an expectation that those things come back. There's also a ton of you know, what we call dual track processes out there at the moment, where people like you know, private exity owners are exploring a sort of an I P O simultaneous to an M and a exit, and it will be interesting to see which of those gets favored. Thank you so much for joining me. Ed Hammond is a deals reporter for Bloomberg News, and he joins us in our Bloomberg eleven three oh studio. Pretta

Brett mona, I'm gonna be practicing that. Just prepped, just prep Just stick with Prett right now. However, I want to take a look at the media world with Paul Sweeney, US director of Research and senior Media and Internet analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. He joins us in the Bloomberg eleven three oh studio in New York. Thank you so much. I want to start with time you were telling me offline about a rather interesting moment on the earnings call.

The rather the call with analysts after they reported earnings where Leon Cooperman of Omega got on and had some interesting wants to tell us about them. Yeah, Time I reported earnings this morning and they were below analysts expectations and the stock was very weak. And this is a company that has been under m and a speculation really for the last several months. And uh, they kind of called off the process uh last week, and the stock dropped from near twenty dollars a share down to words

trading today in the thirteen's range. So Leon Cooperman, a large shareholder of Time, Inc. Really challenged management on the call to provide a detailed uh financial uh strategic um kind of forecast or plan for the company, uh, to show shareholders mainly himself includcluding himself, how they would create value going forward that would cause them to you know, kind of turn away from potential deals that might have been in the eighteen to twenty dollar range. Again, the

stocks in the thirteen dollar trading range today. So he really got on the call and challenged and called that management, challenged them to you know, give us some detailed forecast because they walked away from potentially a much higher price where the stock is trading now. And he said, I'm pretty angry, didn't he? Yeah, you know, he's basically saying listen, no,

here's my recommendation to you. Um, you know, I'm sure he's not happy about the company not getting a deal done and what again, could have been eighteen and twenty of share So he's feeling the pain and he's just saying, listen, guys, because you walked away, you really owe it to your shareholders to come back with some detailed plans about how

you intend to uh increase value going forward. Right, And they have been trying to sell some of their print products and some of their assets and sort of focus more on the online business. But they've got a lot of competition and this has sort of been the strategy for others, including ESPN. And we really have to talk about ESPN because they just recently fired a whole host of their uh, their personalities, right, in order to shore

up profitability. Disney reported earnings after the Bell Disney, of course, as a parent company of ESPN. What did we learn about the progress of espns finances and what the path forward is? Well, the company reported, you know, very good earnings beat expectations. Um, you know, in the parks business and the and the film business continue to perform very well. Let's you know, two big businesses for them. The third business, however, is really what's the focus of investors, and that's the

cable network business. Uh, specifically the ESPN. And in fact, I think thirteen out of the fifteen analyst questions on the call, we're about ESPN. So that's that's clearly the focus of the marketplace. And unfortunately, uh, ESPN, like most cable networks, continues to lose subscribers as consumers cut the chord and maybe go for skinny bundles or maybe just get their content from the internet directly. So uh you know, so over the last five or six years, ESPNS lost

almost ten million subscribers. Um. And that's really a challenge for them because they have a very high fixed cost base. And fixed costs are all the rights fees they pay to the NFL and the NBA and uh you know for basketball and football and so on, and uh. Yet, um, you know, if they're losing subscribers, that means they're advertising revenues canna be under pressure. That means they're affiliate few revenues can be under pressure, and that really puts Uh.

When you have a fixed cost like that, that really cramps your margins, and that's what investors are concerned about. Yeah, so what's what are they saying as far as going forward, Well, the real challenge for them going forward is to ensure that ESPN is on most, if not all, of the skinny bundles and virtual cable networks that are being created out in the marketplace, so that they can still get

paid uh, no matter where consumers go. So that's challenge number one, and they seem to be having some success there. The second issue though, is um they really need to articulate to investors that they have a strategy to take ESPN direct to consumers to bypass the pay TV bundle, much like Hbo, for example, goes to consumers with Hbo now you don't need a cable subscription, you can just go online and so it's an over the top service like a Netflix. Uh, and this would be ESPN would

be kind of the Netflix for sports. Now. ESPN has been reluctant to launch such such a product because that would really be a competitive threat to their existing partners, the cable companies and satellite companies that carry ESPN and which pay you know, over six dollars per subscriber per month.

So ESPN is really running a kind of a tight rope because they don't want to cannibalize uh their existing cash flow stream coming from their existing distribution, but they recognize at the same time that they have to go direct a consumer to to reach some of these younger consumers. That's where they're consuming the media, and ESPN needs to

be there. Uh So, talking about sort of the challenge of adapting to the new now, we would also need to really look at Tribune, which also reported earnings this morning that trails that trailed estimates. What's the problem with them? I mean, aren't they selling off Sinclair? The Tribune finances. The Tribune is one of the big television broadcasting companies that they spun off their new newspapers. So the Tribune

company is really the the the the TTV business. Sinclair just announced this week that Sinclair is going to buy Tribune at at a big, big price. So, um the TV stations this is an odd numbered year, which means there's no political advertising revenue, so all the TV station groups have very difficult comparisons. Um So, but I think you know, the Sinclair sees a tremendous amount of value and Tribunes very large market stations um, which demand very

high political advertising every other year. Uh, and which have you know, very valuable TV spectrum. So Sinclair has putting together a group that, with the Tribune stations, will reach seventy of the US population by far the biggest TV station group out there. So they think they can create a lot of value with that. So I think the results were a little disappointing today, but it doesn't change the fact that Tribune owns, you know, some of the

best TV stations in the business. Well, but probably they're the best way to get an insight on the cord cutting phenomenon and whether people really are getting rid of their televisions in favor of just going online. Do we get any better sense of what that is like? Yeah, So it's it seems like an industry the about you know, two to three percent of the paid TV subscribers are leaving every year, um and um. So that's that's that's

a problem. And and so if you're a cable networker or broadcast or to a lesser extent, that is a big issue because you know that directly impact your top line in terms of the affiliate fees that you receive as revenue from the Comcast of the world and the direct TVs of the world. UM. So that's a big issue.

And so what the cable networks are trying to do in particular is trying to make sure that they follow wherever their consumers are going, if they're going to a skinny bundle or if they're going to Netflix, or if they're going anywhere they're going. UM. They need to make sure that that they're programming is on that offering, uh, and that they get paid for it. Um. And secondarily, they need to think about do I have a Netflix

solution in my back pocket? Can I have Do I have programming that's compelling enough to go direct to consumers that they will pay me, you know, five ten dollars a month to get my programming, whether it's VICOM programmers, Time Warner programming, or in a case of sports ESPN. So it's really unclear as to how that's going to shake out. That's what's hurting. UM. That uncertainty is what's what's hurting TV stocks and media stocks in general, which have been week over the past couple of weeks as

we started to see the cord cutting concerns. You know, resurface really with the Comcast earnings and the Charter earnings and the Time Warner kick Cable earning, So a lot of those issues kind of resurfaced a little bit. So that's the challenge facing the media sector. Would ESPN be better off alone? Both for Disney's sake and ESPN um

You know, there's a lot of people. It's funny because as recently as a couple of years ago, by far the most valuable part of the Walt Disney Company and the reason most investors owned it was because of ESPN. Now it's become a little bit of an albatross around the neck of the company, particularly given the other two businesses are performing so so well, the theme parks and

the film to uh and the movie studio. So yeah, I think there's definitely been some calls recently that maybe you spin it out to be a stand alone, standalone entity. There's not a lot of synergy between ESPN and the rest of the Walt Disney Company, which, you know, you may make that kind of reasonable. Paul Sweeney, thank you

so much for joining us. Paul Sweeney as US director of Research and senior Media and Internet Analystic Bloomberg Intelligence Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg p n L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm Pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at Pam Fox. I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio