Fed Hawks Emerge as Inflation Remains Sticky

capital universe and later. Many lawmakers are focused on this and trying to figure out different ways to help parents with these costs. There are all different ways, Um that it's clear that there's like this patchwork system you know in a in a city like Washington, see that it is the most expensive city in the US for childcare. The average annual costs for infant care is twenty four thousand, two hundred forty three dollars, and that is just for

one child. As childcare colls increase, associated relief in the tax code stay stagnant, exces Leando's explains first though, to the capital markets directly. This week, we saw a massive repricing in the treasury curve. We also heard FED officials begin to voice considering a fifty basis point interest rate increase. Again,

here's St. Louis FED President Jim Bullard. I think we can lock in this disinflationary trend by continuing to have policy rate increases during even though the real economies looks like it's going to continue to grow and the labor market broadly across the country looks like it remains strong. And here's Cleveland FED President Lurettemester. But this juncture, the incoming data have not changed my view that we will need to bring the FED funds rate above five and

hold it there for some time. Indeed, at our meeting two weeks ago, setting aside what financial market participation participants expected us to do, I saw a compelling economic case for a fifty basis point increase, which should have brought the top of the target range to five. I spoke with Bloomberg CHEF rates correspondent Garfield Reynolds to gauge bond market reaction to the daily drip of new data and

Fed speak. So Garfield, since the last FED meeting, the two year bond yields up about sixty basis points, and Marko Kolanovitch pointed out that it's the bond market moving towards the FED, but the prevailing sentiment is of exuberance and greed. Do you think that's fair, Well, I think

it's it's a little bit. I mean, as so as the bond market goes, it's definitely received a big shock, both from from the data itself, you know, they've been upside surprises, and also from the feds willingness to actually deliver on higher rates and the idea that they would hold them there for longer. Now, that's something that was flagged by the Fed last year, even as it was

starting to slow the pace of rate hikes. But the bond market was looking past that and assuming that the impact of last years it stream rate hikes would be such that the FED would be able to soon stop hiking rates and in fact would have to turn towards

considering rate cuts, I mean on the greed side. If that's talking about what's going on in the equities market, where we're seeing some perhaps surprising resilience, especially the NASDAK is shrugging off like a sixty basis point jump in the two year yield has not done much damage to the NASDAK at all, despite texts famously supposedly being yield sensitive. Now, perhaps part of the reason for that is that the economic data have been so resilient in the face of

last year's rate hikes. So we're kind of in a scenario where perhaps equity markets are judging that good news for the economy is good news for equities, even as bonds are deciding more traditional set up, good news for the economy is bad news for bonds. Yeah, the whole thing is a little bit harder, feels like there's something

that we're missing out on. Anyway, Marco says the market not just fighting the FED, but it's taunting the FED with crypto and meme stocks and on profit companies responding best to FED communications. So I guess he sees it slightly differently, that this is some kind of fake out or something on the part of those that are putting

money into these particular stocks. Well, I think there is here ultimately a disconnecting the way the bond market is positioning very deeply inverted yield curve and persistently inverted yield curve, signaling a lot of concerns about the potential for a major economic slowdown. You've also got even that the bond market has pushed back it's expectations for when the FED will peak and pushed up the expectations for where it

will call a whole to rate hikes. It still sees next year now rather than this year, But next year it sees one and a half percentage points of rate cuts. You know, that says the bond market. The recession stocks seemingly don't see what yeah, I mean. I guess it's the Eisman call of we don't like to change our market narratives, or people get very attached to their market narratives. And perhaps the bond market maybe has a little bit better of an ability to not be in denial about

certain things. But that seems a little bit too deep. Why should the bond market be so much more nuanced and so much more sovestigated than the stock market in some ways? Well, I think it's more they look at different calculations, and especially now you know, one of the things that's feeding this is bonds again have yields. So because they have yields, you can buy a bond and still do okay, even if those yields thin rise e.

The price of bonds go down. That's a reverse or the situation for much of the past decade when yields went down so low that bonds are almost like stocks. You have to buy them on the basis of price appreciation, not on the basis of carrie. But now they've got yields again. So the calculation for quite a few bond investors is hey, three percent, four and a half percent, depending on the instrument. I can buy that, hang onto it, and I'll do it okay. Whereas equity investors mostly don't

look so much at dividends. They're looking for capital appreciation. So they're looking for the idea that earnings are going to improve. And we're seem to be having mostly a fairly decent earning season, and although there are plenty of dire warnings that are slow down is coming and that

will cause and earnings recession. For now, to some extent, they're almost drawing confidence from the FEDS willness to keep raising rates at a slower pace, because that says to them, well, the Fed doesn't think the economy is about the collapse, because at the FEDS thought the economy was about the collapse,

they'll be saying we're going to stop hiking rates. Yes, exactly, moved the whole portion of their agenda, assuming that's still on fat expectations up to five point four percent now for the terminal rates, and they're even places where you see the market looking at the propular we have a high Q two six point one, and the chances of a hike to six percent now is so that's a one in two or something. Yeah exactly. Yeah, so not huge,

but nevertheless it's starting to be there. And when anything kind of appears in the market, you really have to take notice. I mean, how quickly can this change again if we get more communication, which is really just constant at this point, Yeah, I mean, obviously it can change rapidly.

Less than a month ago, the market was mostly expecting that the FED was going to pick under five percent, and that was despite plenty of commentary from the FED that five percent was about the minimum where they thought they would go to. And you know, it would only

take a couple of data points here. If inflation had come in weaker than expected just this week, then you would have had a fairly rapid cooling down in great expectations at least in two until unless you then had Fair officials pushing back saying, yeah, this is not we don't really believe this, so it's all it's all on the table. And like I said, that that constant expectation that next year will bring very steep rate cuts that underscores the idea that the bond market is worried about

what's going to go on with the economy. They're worried that the Fed, or they're pricing for the possibility that the FED has to go high enough with its rate in order to cool inflation that it will cause very strong damage to the economy, and that then it will have to rapidly reverse those moves, if not this year, the next year. Now, Garfield, I know you give a lovely explanation just a moment ago about why bonds are repricing at a different paste to equities and how the

repricing differently. But is there anything special about this market that we can see such large moves in the bond market and really relatively not so large moves in the equity market. Is there something awaiting us, let's put it that way. Well, I think it's more that we're in a situation where the outlook of FED policy is very fluid, and bonds are your bonds are very focused on how high does the FED going? When does the FED stop? And on the idea that you've had the steepest rate

hikes in a generation. What's that going to do to the economy. For equity markets there, they're looking at it as okay, so we had all these big, great hikes. The economy seems to be okay with that, and most importantly, okay, even if there's not stopping, it's slowed down. It's very unlikely it's going to do more than twenty five basis points of time. So the disruptive phase is done and dusted.

And for equities who who price you know sort of second third order impacts from FED moves, whereas bonds of pricing of first order or zero order impact that that means they can be a bit more relaxed about you know, how are we going to get to basis point hikes or three basis point hikes? Whereas for bonds that that's a more disruptive scenario. Chief Rate's correspondent Garfield reynalds there he stays with us, So stay tuned for more of that.

Conversation and later. The thing is he's kind of exhausted most of the pretty much invested all of the money that he has in time, and so all investors and Massa himself and there is just sider out to wait for somebody to come to fruition. And right now a lot of these companies are not going to IPR. It's not a very good market right maybe a year now will be. So everyone's kind of still sitting around twiddling their homes going now. And that's the next big question.

Tim Colpen on Massa Song's dilemma. This is Bloomberg Opinion. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Vonnie Quinn. Let's return to Garfield Reynolds now Bloomberg Chief Free correspondent, and some of the prevailing questions raised by market moves and FED speakers this week. Monetary hawks, Laretta Mester, Cleveland FED President see is common appreciational way in bringing policy from a varier committive stance to a restrictive one. But I do

believe we have more work to do. Indeed, at our meeting two weeks ago, setting aside which financial market participation participants expected us to do I saw a compelling economic case for a fifty basis point increase, which should have brought the top of the target range to five. And Jim Bullard St. Louis Fed President, we're out towards the end of the week with words of caution for markets, assuming the FED won't return to larger rate ekes if necessary.

The benefits of getting inflation under control quickly are vast, and uh, we do want to achieve that. But if we don't, we risk this replace. So I think that's the thing to watch out for. Heres that we uh don't do enough on inflation and we get a rep eight. This all after a slew of hard data from retail sales to producer prizes which showed inflation clear and present and raised questions about market expectations for disinflation over the

coming months. Let's get back to our conversation. Cameron Christ brought up something interesting on M Live when it comes to the so called lag that's long and variable. He was asking the question, how long and variable is the delay with which rates work in a world of forward

guidance and literally stream of consciousness communication. Do you have any impressions that this long and variable lag has changed at all in the minds of FED watchers or FED governors or you know, anyone at touched to the FED in the last year or so. Well, it's a very is a very interesting point. I mean, I think in financial markets, uh, the lag is is much less. If you could, you could even argue that they are almost

reverse lag. You know, we had a financial markets moving by getting ahead of themselves, perhaps moving to price in the pivot, before the FED had even seriously started to consider it. Um But the question for the FED, and this of course is one of the things the FED that's there. It's run by economists who are looking at what is this going to do to Main Street? And Wall Street usually only matters much to them from the point of view of what's the impact on Main Street

that Wall Street is transmitting. Now, there's been a very large run up in mortgage rates and in borrowing costs for the rest of the economy, and even if those costs have come down, they're still much much higher than they were six months ago, a year ago, so that takes it's time to feed through. You could even argue there's the potential that the lag is going to be longer than usual. The reason for that being, and this

something central bankers have pointed to. It's a lot of households out there to build up some very strong buffers during the pandemic when there's a lot of money being pumped into the economy. So if you've got those savings buffers, then the impact of monetary policy increasing your costs via the interest rate mechanism. So you know, if you're a business, you're paying you're having to pay more to get funding.

If you're household, depending on you know, if you're not on a variable rate mortgage, it doesn't matter so much other than the indirect impact that people who take out new mortgages face higher costs, and there might be you're less wanting to pay the sort of prices you want for your home. But all of those effects are going

to take longer. Potential to feed through the economy presidesly because the FED and others, looking at globally fat and others and the governments that they were acting a concert with, they pumped an enormous amount of money into the economy during the pandemic. They wanted to make sure the economy kept working. They almost certainly, to a man and woman, over stimulated during the pandemic left too much money out there on the table. Now they're trying to scoop that up,

it might take them longer than in previous cycles. Speaking of which, the layer Brainer departure, will it have an impact on the SEP the dot plot? Well, a lot depends on who I think sort of assumes it's going to have an impact on the dot plot. But we really don't know, do we No, No, we're there. I mean, I suppose the judgment, rightly or wrongly, is that she

was pretty close to the doublish side. So it's it's unlikely to lead to a lower dot plot because she would be unlikely to find somebody who would outdove brainard Um. You know. Then again, I don't see I haven't seen anybody saying that the administration is going to be looking to appoint somebody who's significantly more hawkish, uh, given that they need to do plenty of borrowing, so it might

really not have a huge impact. Garfield weakness in the dollar that we have had a recent bounces back near one oh four again, the d x Y how is it impacting or being impacted by rates these days, which as the House is impacting the other well, yeah, I mean the ramping up in radar expectations and what that's done to treasury yields has definitely revived the US dollars level, return some strength to the dollar at a time when

the general expectation was this year that the dollar would weaken. UM. So far, that's not having too much of an impact on broader markets because it's simply sort of recovered some

of the ground that it had lost. If it does continue to rise and continues to push beyond its previous highs, then you might start to see that have a bit of an impact, especially in emerging markets who are actually starting to look a bit more vulnerable, both because of that factor and also because of some idiosyncratic concerns in places like India and Brazil. UM that that that that they might not be the outperformers this year, that some people at the beginning of this year had said that

they would be relative to more developed markets. Marco Kolanovitch again to bring him up as warning of volmged and two point oh. Thanks to the explosive rise of short data options and Goldman SAX has found that such options actually make up more than of the SMB five total trading volume these days, which is almost double what it was six months ago. Is it something that you have seen much focus on or that you are concerned about when you look at the market moves. No, I haven't

seen a huge amount of focus on it. I mean, you know, there's certainly plenty of concerns at times that you get some very sudden moves at particular times of the day, and that that may well be linked to you two options trades or settlements. But so far, there's not a huge amount of anxiousness that options in and of themselves are going to cause major difficulties. That's mostly

seen as being noise rather than rather than signal. Right, He points out that what would happen is the big move might force options dealers to unwind a large amount of their positions. But I guess in that instance it might be contained. But anyway, if it happens, we have more time to talk about it. Bloomberg Chief Rates correspondent Garfield rentals there. Next up, we'll take a look at one example of what might be becoming a broader trend.

Japanese startup investor Masayoshi Son, isting on billions of dollars of losses as market sentiment turns away from initial public offerings and from gross companies not currently profitable. Venture capitalists well, it's just not their time right now. But can they sit out the current malaise for their industry now? The global markets going up and down, the private market, the startups and bcs is going up and down, but it's very opaque, so we don't know alway know what the

valuation of an unmisted company is. But with soft Bank, we can look very very closely at how they're doing. And people believe in soft Bank, they believe in mass If they believe in that, you really have to be ready for a white knucle right if you you want to have to ride these dips and troughs, which are the company has been going for over the last year or so. We'll chat with bloombergs Tim Colburn about what one VC investor is doing to mollify his investor base.

And don't forget We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. Stay tuned. This is Bloomberg Opinion. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Vonnie Quinn, Japanese billionaire Massa Yoshi Son's soft Bank Group said this month It's a vision fund posted an investment loss of five and a half billion dollars and total startup investing

was down nine year over year. The tech investment company has invested in more than four hundred and fifty companies since the launch of its first of two Vision funds in twenty seventeen, companies such as TikTok, Owner by Dance, We Work, FDx, Ali Baba Well. In total, it's spent more than a hundred and forty billion dollars over the five years. These days, Son himself says he's focused on taking UK chip maker ARM public and a stepping back

from SoftBank's day to day operations. I got up with Bloomberg opinion columnist Tim Colpan in Taipei to see what Masso she Son could do to boost flagging returns. So, Tim, before we get into the nitty gritty of Massa's options, first tell us a little bit about soft Bank and why it's fortunes are so captivating. Well, one thing about soft Bank is, about seven years ago added the company ass or software company selling software that is, and then

became my telco. And now he's become essentially the world's largest VC, and he has a couple of funds which all combined to have close to hundreds minnie dollars of capital available. And so the company that is is in Japan Bank Group called essentially rises and falls based on the value of his investments in other companies. And some of those famous examples include uber we Work, or the Weed Company, and even side Dance, which is payments for TikTok.

Massias's son's big early BET's really gone very well off for him is Huddy Barber and they still hold but if a stake in Huddi Barber, so it's a fassionating company because right now we can see the global markets going up and down. The private market, you know, the startups in bcs is going up and down, but it's very opak, so we don't always know what the valuation of an unlisted company is. But with soft Bank, we

can look very very closely at how they're doing. And the last year or so we've not been doing very well. More and more of a private investments have been getting written down by a certain amount and public investments mostly coming down. So if you're an investor in soft Bank, really be kind of investor in massive kind of neutral funds, private equity fund a mix of different investments. And people believe in soft Bank, they believe in must if they

believe in the vision. But you really have to be ready for a white knuckle ride if you if you want to have to ride these dips and troughs which are the company has been going through over the last year or so. Does Japanese monetary policy have much of an impact on the vision funds? Or is it more what the Federal Reserve does? In other words, are we witnessing the same thing as we are in the U s where investors have suddenly remembered that they prefer it

when a company actually turns a profit. Yeah, that's a

really good point. Now, So if you are an investor in soft Bank Group up it is a Japanese traded company, then if you're sitting around with you know, a few hundred thousand in the end to invest or a few hundred millions the end to invest in, thinking that where I'm going to buy money for the next year, you might not be wanting to put it in soft Bank because a lot of what they're invested in is stuff that is going to be impacted from a tighter monetary policy.

They do have, for example, a telecom company called SoftBank Corps, which gets very confusing. So soft Bank Group owned soft Bank Corps and they own for example Yahoo Japan. They own the outline and the install very much consumer focused brands, and these are the kinds of businesses that don't do well in type monetary policy. So instead, if you've got money sitting around, you more likely to put it into say defensive stock, food or MCG those kind of things

that do well in a downturn. You go, well, why would I put my money in a risky stock like soft Bank in a downturn when monetary policy is typed. And that's a bit of the problem that soft Bank stock bass right now is there's probably better places for a lot of people to put their money in this kind of whiskier time. So give us an idea of who actually invests in soft Bank. You did mention some known quantities there and in the Vision funds more specifically,

well the Vision Fund. Very there's actually now two Vision funds. So the first Vision Fund got a lot of Middle Eastern like soft and well fund money. And what's interesting about that is a lot of that money came in as preferred shares, which essentially worked like a bond where they have to pay out every year. They have to pay out a minimum amount of money, so there are not three or four billion dollars of pay ups every

year to those early investors. The rest of it is that it was pods Com, for example, is one of the investors in the Vision Fund, and just kind of a hodge podge of other investors. What's interesting is they then opened up a second Vision and they really couldn't get much interest globally from anybody else. So the second Vision Fund is almost entirely soft Bank owned money and the management team who has seems to have a bit

of a pass aboutable. So you've got in the order of a few dozen billions of dollars from soft Bank itself into its own second Vision and that's a huge bet on itself. And that's really the issue going forward is that I'm all their own money to their own ability to be a BBC, which is a jury manturment very well. As you say, the two Vision funds are

down a combined something like five billion dollars. The first Vision Fund expires in six years, the second does have an extra three years, so Massa does have a little bit of time. How does he deliver for investors? Does he need the I p O market to revive? What happens if the end continues to weaken, Well, this is a fascinating problem. You know, he has limited ability to change the I p O market. The one company they have in the portfolio that's really waiting to be a

British chip maker. They were at one point going to sell it to any Video. That didn't happen for a trust reason. So they're actually really committed to getting it done this year. So they really would hope for the ip OF market to turn around. Beyond that, they're sitting on cash, and my estimate is they're going to use that cash to buy back or shares because the easiest, easiest way to prop up the stock is to just buy the stock, and they've been doing that over the

last year and it's actually worked. It's it's had an effect that's helped looster stock. I think that they will take some of the remaining cash they've got left and if they can go out to borrow more cash, I think they will then go back and buy soft Bank Group shares. To prop it up, two tie investors over until the market happens and they can start to reap the rewards of these big investors have done over the years,

and two private startups. Well, speaking of buying back oceans of stock, could you do something very bold and this has been in the either, but something like what Michael Dell did and takes off bank back private you know what that is to be. There's a lot of rumor

about this would happen to management buy out. You know, Michael Dell's approach all those years ago is the executed of the controversial but you've managed it and it's exactly what Dell the company needed to take it out of kind of public view and do what you need to

do behind the needs. There is thought that one of the reasons why Marcia his son is using banks own cash to buy back shares is you can then counsel them so every remaining shareholder has a higher concentration of shares, and if it keeps doing that, it's kind of like a creeping buyout because Mussa's own holdings in the company then increase without him have to spending money as all of your own money and so there is a feeling that there is a chance that sometime in the next

year or two, Mussa himself might get together it's so private equity or banks or other people and just launch a buy out the company himself. Well, one place it doesn't look like he can call upon as Eliots. Elliott dumped it stake and self Bank, which may not be a good sign. Elliott seems to do pretty well usually the activist investor. Obviously, Yeah, I think it would be a wonderful irony if you jumped into bed with Elliott decided to do a management buyer. I don't think that

would happen. Um, you'd have to pick the partner very well. It is a Japanese company, so you would just start knocking other doors of Japanese finatural Spurst, maybe Japanese private equity, maybe of cool thanks. You know, there's no discounting the fact that they could try and get a big overseas private equities come in and help them out. But I think they would look globally first. Is soft Bank too

big to fail? Would it have some kind of a contagious effect on the Japanese economy or on the market if it were to If it's stockward to plummet. Let's say, which is not happening. We put that out there. It is interesting enough. It is huge, but only a small portion of its holdings our own Japanese company. And even though it's just somewhat large company, it's not it's not the largest Japanese company out there. So you know, I don't think the stock will go to zero. There is value,

There is actually a net asset value. We actually go to stock lanks by out website every day and they track it time. You know, they aren't big chunk of Ali Baba. They own which has evaluation. Even though it's private, you can somewhat valuate. They own a big chunk of listed companies. Because some of their portfolio companies have I p O. They own a tail coat. They definitely have an asset value. The company's stock created a huge discounts and an asset value. But I don't see it going

to zero, and so that's something. There is a floor to how low something could go. But beyond that, it's not so huge that you know, it's collapsed. Would cause the systemic problem in Japan. Therefore, banks the government had to come and bail about on the flip side what they best in model live share that is actually Japaning

startups and so forth. Mostly you don't do a Opean Asian startup, So there's no systemic problem for sotoftmake and I think that's one of the reasons why there is a floor on how low that the stuff could go. Bloomberg Opinions, Tim Colbyn. Anyone with kids or anyone who knows anyone with kids will tell you they're getting more expensive. It's not really their faults. Inflation is hitting everything, including childcare costs. The thing is the associated relief, and the

tax code has stayed stagnant. Bloomerg Opinions. Alexis Leander's explains. So Alexis explained to was what's happened over the last number of the years with childcare credits. Sure, so as almost anyone who has children knows, the cost of childcare feels astronomical right now, and if you look back at the data, it now takes up almost twenty percent of

the median family income per child in major cities. The problem is that there's a tax benefit that some workers used to offset either daycare or nanny expenses, called the

Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account. And the cap on how much you can contribute to that account every year has stayed the same since nineteen since correct, yep, almost forty years that we've seen this five thousand dollar cap, which perhaps back in the nineteen eighties was an appropriate amount of money and could cover the annual cost of childcare,

you know, when it was about stay hundred dollars. But now you know in major cities the annual cost for an infant in daycare is more than seventeen thousand dollars, and for a toddler it's more than twelve thousand, three hundred. So it really feels like they've come atribution has not kept pace with the cost for daycare. Who are the lobby and groups that are trying to change this and

is there any possibility that it might get changed. It's part of this larger problem where you do have various credits and deductions in the tax code that are not adjusted for inflation. Many are, but there's some very very significant ones like this contribution cap for the dependent care f s A that hasn't changed. Likewise with the tax credits that families get for dependent or child care, same

sort of things. So I think what really has to happen is you have to see across the board all these credits, deductions, everything has to take inflation into account, especially when we see environments when inflation is higher but hits taxpayers more absolutely. Now, does it also depend on how much the parents make and whether it's a two salary home or a one salary home, right, that's a

great question. In order to qualify or be eligible for this dependent care f s A, you have to have two working parents, and unlike other credits and deductions, with the Dependent care f s A, there's no income limits. So really anyone can qualify to be able to take advantage and put money into this account. And the way it works basically is an employee elects to have a certain amount withheld a maximum five thousand dollars from their paychecks that gets put into the account, so that pre

tax income that's going in there. The parent will pay the child's care expenses out of pocket, and then we'll get reimbursed by the employer from that account. Now, do you have any data on how many employers offer this or how many people take advantage of it? So it's about six of employers according to you. The most recent

surveys we've seen. The things that a taxpayer has to be careful of is you have dependent care FFAs, But then in addition, you also have what's called the tax credit or child's care as well, but that's a little bit more complicated. There's an income cap on that gets based out completely once parents make more than four d thirty eight thousand dollars, and it helps with expenses up to three thousand per families with one child, or six

thousand for two or more children. But there's no double dipping. So if you're taking advantage of this tax credit, if you're eligible for it, you hands also try to get reimbursed for expenses that you were using the credit for. Now use that it takes more than twelve thousand dollars a year to have an infant in daycare. On the one hand, you can understand how it would cost that to have an infant in your care for that amount

of time for a whole year. On the other hand, how is somebody is supposed to afford that out of pocket, especially knowing that that's just going to go up with inflation, right, I mean, that's the problem, and many lawmakers are focused on this and trying to figure out different ways to help parents with these costs, you know, and whether it's having a longer leave or if it's coming into like having universal preschool for three year olds and four year olds.

There are all different ways, but it's clear that there's this patchwork system. Some stuff is through the federal government, some is through states individually. Some states will give subsidies to help shoulder some of the burden. But at the end of the day, when you have these costs and they're only getting worse because of the recent shortage and staffing at daycares, and then turn the costs are going

up and up. In a city like Washington, we see that it's the most expensive city in the US for childcare. The average annual cost for infant care is twenty four thousand, two d forty three dollars, and that is just for one child. Bloomberg Opinions Alexis lean us. That does it for this week's opinion. Don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform, and as always, do send us your thoughts. Email me at

Quinn at Bloomberg dot net. We're produced by Eric mollow I'm Vonnie Quinn This is Bloomberg Opinion