Alpha Generation Is Getting Much Harder, Gross Says

about tax reform. What tact will you take? Well, I have to do the disclaimer. Our individual scholars take that, each their own tack, but they're pretty much gonna all agree, which is a This is much more about cuts than reform of the tax system. Be the in line with what you were saying on TV before, Tom, that the claims of wage improvements and job improvements in the short

term vastly exaggerated. See there are a couple of good things in there, like they moved somewhat towards territoriality, the cutbacks and the mortgage interest deduction, um, the expensive investment. But d as my colleague Jason Furman, among others, has pointed out the question is what are those pay for

us paying for? And if they're just paying for heavily tilted towards the rich on the personal tax side and uh not terribly useful tax cuts on the corporate side, it's not going to go very well for those of us who live in high tax states like New York and New Jersey the state and local tax uh deductions Washington,

you I noticed you did not mention that. Is that one of the things that is bad or is that actually more Again I I'm I'm not going to make that the biggest bad thing, because that is more about redistribution than about the economy as a whole, and it is hitting the people who take deductions rather than the

standard deduction. That said, it's clearly a political move of trying to starve the beast of state governments that hurts people mostly in blue states, and that in particular is going to make it harder for state governments to sustain their tax rates and thus the size of their governments. So I don't feel it as good. Um, But again, this is ull getting away. The big picture thing is that these these pay fors are not going to be

anywhere near enough for an economy basically full employment. And what they're claiming is one point five trillion in deficit increase at that state of affairs, which is already bad. UM is probably going to be closer to two trillion plus. So given the deficit implications of this proposal, you know you've watched watching for a long time, how do you write the chances of actual tax bill of any kind

getting through this Congress. I've been an outlier for some months now because I've said a year ago September in the forecast UM that the big economic policy of the Trump administration, besides deregulation, which people overlook UM, is going to be corporate tax cuts, and everything else will be sort of secondary. And I was wrong about the timing because like everybody else, I couldn't believe they'd fast around

for nine months before submitting a budget UM. But the bottom line is that's what we're gonna end up with.

So I think it's plus chance it it gets approved, and whatever else needs to be shed will be shed, but the core of the tax changes for the corporate statutory rate will remaind You glance at this how much economic growth can Republicans model I understand in the heat of the the moment, the camera lights around, they frame a bigger number, But can you do you have a working number where you can gross up g d P off of the enthusiasm of tax cuts. Well, I tend

to um. There are people, as you mentioned earlier about the Joint Joint Committee and Taxation, the CBO Congressional Budget Office within the government, and then the Tax Center Urban Brookings outside government, as well as the Tax Foundation that do this stuff very carefully. But as a macro economist, and it's it's consistent with their analyzes. You know, you're adding to the deficit three quarters or percentage GDP a year, probably closer to one percent, both on average, but then

maybe a little front loaded um. And some of the investment stuff is particularly front loaded and it's impact. So I could see you having a multiplier on that, given that we're at full employment of you know, around point six UM, you do a little dynamic scoring, you can maybe push it up a little bit from there, I don't think much more. So that gets you close to three percent growth for the next couple of years, and

it's not sustainable. It's adding to the debt um, it's not entirely efficient, and we'll see how much goes into actual investment rather than to dividends. But leaving all that aside, Yeah, I mean, it's better to be lucky than to be smart, tom As, I certainly know, and I think the president was in a sense lucky that he didn't get his budget till now, because now the boom is probably gonna

be perfectly time for the two thousand election. Interesting, Adam posing, thank you so much, very valuable on Bloomberg Television and Bloomberg Radio today, Marty, what is what are you watching for? Within you know, Craig Gordon and the whole team in Washington working on this is what's the twister angle and tax reform that that you're watching for? Well, I'm I'm

watching Paul Ryan. I mean the he is the tax wonky, is the guy who everybody respects in terms of his intellectual capacity on these issues and what he says if he can bring his house along, because there are a lot of divisions within his party as general, that's the key for me. Interesting, And we'll overlay that politics, if you will, with some of the analysis out of Washington particular. Shout out to Urban Brookings and their Tax Policy Center worldwide.

This job's day, This is Bloomberg Helly now welcome. I'm Bloomberg Television Worldwide and here on Bloomberg Radio. William Gross he was very kind to be with us on FED Day and reducts that with Janice Henderson. Right now, Bill, you know, I really want to talk about the broader fabric. We see the U six number coming to seven point nine. Are we at a point where the financial crisis and the labor crisis of that disaster is behind us? Well,

I think so. Um, you know, to the extent that we've got a little room to to to lower if a crisis appears over the horizon, to the extent that quantitative eason might come back. You know, I think we've got some ammunition. And in fact we do tom have a decently as economists would call it, robust economy with growth at three plus at least for the last two quarters,

despite these rather disappointing employment numbers. So I think we're past the crisis certainly in most of the world, most of the developed world, but we have a potential crisis I think in Asia and China going forward. You were more than generous to be with us here on FED Day. I did ask you about your own Powell. I'll be nice built you. Uh, maybe it's because of San Francisco forty Niners are doing so poorly this year. But you weren't polite about it. You didn't mince words. We thank

you for that. About the next chairman of the FED, you heard him speak yesterday, how can economists assist assist Jerome Powell to a better Fed? Well, I think a certain kind of economists can assist Jerome Pile and that that depends, of course, on the appointments going forward. Uh. You know, Trump's got three and certainly four. I think as Janet Yellen probably will resign as as uh FED chairman and chairwomen do in tradition, and so he's got

four appointments going forward. He can pack the court, so to speak, just my FDR. And it depends on his appointments going forward, whether they're doves or hawks. And I presume that there will be doves. And so what can

we learn from that when they're appointed? Uh, you know, potentially you can learn in my view at least, that there are subjective factors longer term structural factors such as demographics at place, such as technology advancement and displacement of labor at play, and ongoing globalization, so we can learn from those things as opposed to the old fashion models such as the tailor rule and others and the Phillips curve that you know have been failing us for the

past ten, fifteen, twenty years. I hope he appoints someone with a more subjective as opposed to a model driven view. Here's the key question, Bill Gross, and we thank you for joining us on radio and television this morning with Janie Henderson. If we have low rate Janet, if we have low rate j and we have yield curves flattening, ten thirties flattening, twos tens flattening, what is that signal to Bill Gross? If you see flatter yield curves in the zeitgeist of a low rate central bank, well, I

flatter curve is not positive. And let's look at it this way, since uh, you know, two thousand and eleven, and that takes us way back. But you know, the two ten curve was four and fifty basis points and now it's a hundred or less, and so it's flattened considerably. Since then, has ad made a difference. Not really, but in my view, at some point it will. Typically, you know, economists and stratagists say it's got to go flat before

a recession appears. I would say, in a highly leveled economy with a lot of debt and that typifies the US, that we don't have to go flat, that perhaps another twenty basis points of tightening would be enough in order to induce certainly a slowdown in the economy. And I think central banks and the FED itself has to be careful in terms of using historical standards to judge monetary policy. I don't think they can raise interest rates too much

further before there's the potential to slow economic growth. This is absolutely critical. Folks that Mr Gross's senor Jason, I want you to come over here. We're doing this on the fly and look, Jason, wheel around here, and I want to show what Bill Gross is talking about. Right now, here's the yield curve and down here are recessions. We're coming in like this, and Bill Gross, where do we get on the yield curve where it becomes a recession indicator?

Where at seventy two basis points, how many basis points are we away where we flip from optimism to a real concern about economic slowdown? Yeah, I think around four year fifty year see your chart, But I know what you're talking about, uh and uh you know that indicates you know, perhaps another uh fifty basis points in terms of FED funds and maybe ten basis points higher intends to produce that type of number. You know. The critical element and all of this is really the cost of

credit and what cost of credit? And we're talking about mortgages, we're talking about corporate loans, we're talking about uh, you know, government bonds. To a certain extent, the cost of credit relative to UM you know, the nominal growth in GDP, we have better nominal growth. We have four plus nominal

growth now. And the cost of credit, uh, you know has been supportive of that's certainly quantitative easing has been supportive of that to the extent that we don't have QUI to the extent that interest rates go up by four year fifty points in your curve flattens by thirty or forty, then all of a sudden, the cost of credit and the absence of credit growth UM as typified by KWI become factors, and so I think I think the Fed has careful. I know, I know they think

they have to be careful. I mean, we're gonna do this. I'm gonna make a chart up here for Bloomberg Radio, also for John Farroh. I'm gonna make up a chart here to show that tip point of forty to fifty basis points bill gross on tax reform. You've got to live with it. Can you live with a one point five trillion deficit add on? Or do you believe is ad im posing believes adam posing that we could go

out to a to two trillion dollar add on? Well, you know, here's here's a funny one, and it's, uh, you know, I'm starting to rethink this time because we've seen um, you know, not necessarily deficits expanding, but central banks buying trillions and trillions of dollars worth of debt and then recycling the interest rate back to the central government. And so, you know, do deficits matter? I think ultimately

do they do. We talked a few days ago about you know the present value of all of our liabilities, including social security and Medicare and Medicaid. It's you know, perhaps instead of eighteen trillion, it's perhaps seventy eight trillion. Of course debt matters, but in the short term, I don't think it matters that much. And uh, you know, we're moving to a fiscally stimulative type of environment as opposed to a monetary stimulative type of environment, and perhaps

that's what we need. But ultimately some a believer in low debt as opposed to high debt. And it's incredible to me you know this too, that the Republican orthodoxy has simply changed from fiscal doves to fiscal hawks, and to deficit deniers to deficit supporters. The entire party is flip flopped, with Marty Schenker uh running all of our economics that govern and now chief content officer for all of Bloomberg News. Marty, what is your observation off the

jobs report? Before we get back to Bill Gross, Well, I'm a little surprised that we hadn't heard from Donald Trump tweeting on the uh numbers of the jobs report, which he has not hesitated to take some credit for. But I think he is on his way to Asia. I think he's boarding a playing almost Hannolulu. Yeah, Bill Gross with us with Janie Henderson has been very kind to be with us, and I want to get back to tax reform and its ramifications on the nation. But Bill,

there's a Bill Gross if people don't know. And I'm not talking about your resurgence of the San Francisco forty Niners and bringing Mr Garoppolo over from the New England Patriots and the fact you can beat the cardinals and the giants here in the coming days. I'm talking about your article for the c FA Institute of a few years ago, consistent alpha generation through structure. This is twelve years ago, and it's a Bill Gross. I think that

a lot of our listeners don't know. We are seeing Bill, a lot of black box theories of hedge funds blow up, and we see it with challenging results. Maybe Ray Dalio of Bridgewater, who I just had the great privileges speaking to where it's really really hard now to make money quantitative black box formulaic whether it's risk parity or this that or the other thing. Is that from another bygone age,

or can those guys create alpha down the road? Well, I I would agree with the premise of your question, Tom that that it is getting much harder to generate alpha, if only because returns certainly interest rates and potential equity returns are lower. I mean, you know, information ratios of the past were in part generated simply by bowl markets, and now um as interest rate spreads are very narrow and opportunities in my view, are limited. You know, alpha

generation becomes much more difficult affirm like PIMCO. I was at PIMCO and we could generate hundred and fifty basis points per year in alpha. You know, it becomes a very challenged and I would say relative to that period of time that an excellent manager that can generate basis and so over the market is probably uh in a

good stead. So yeah, it's very difficult, and I think the age of active management is it's not dead, but it's certainly overpriced, and uh, we're gonna have to see some changes going forward because they can't generate what they used to generate in classy of you at Janice Henderson mentioning your former employee as well as as we mentioned

Ray Delio at Bridgewater. If that's the case, if active is a challenge, what needs to be the response, almost from a portfolio structure basis, did just assume less diversification, less theory and more let's take a chance. Well, no, you know, I wouldn't advise that. I think that's what's occurring. Uh. You know, individuals and pension funds and institutions are taking more risk in order to generate what they hope for, uh in terms of returns relative to their liabilities. Um,

it can only go so far. We know, spreads can only go so tight before defaults tend to take over. In the bond market. We know, I suppose in the stock market that p s can only go so high before you know, it becomes limited in terms of its

future expansion. And so yeah, i'd say, of you know, we have a limited future in terms of expected returns, and the response, as investors are are exhibiting is basically to move into a lower feed product to uh take away some of those returns from the managers as opposed to themselves. Bill Morty Schanker, Here is their risk associated with that search for alpha out in the marketplace? Well, there always is. Anytime you move, anytime you move out

from a treasury build, there's risk. But I would say this, yes, when when interest rates are basically zero and they are or negative in Germany and other places, and that's certainly very low. In the United States and elsewhere, Um, you know, the risk is increased. I mean a thirty years swap.

Most of your listeners may not be uh you know, appraised of this, but a thirty years swamp basically only earns fifty basis points a year in terms of carry whether close to a thirty year duration, it's a it's an impossible situation unless basically interest rates stay the same. So all markets are overpriced. I use the term fake markets because uh you know, they're being generated by artificial stimulation from central banks, which at some point will disappear.

It's not disappearing yet, but in two thousand and eighteen, for instance, central banks stimulation check writing, quantitative easing UM will go flat line as opposed to a trillion dollars a year positive. And so there will be a point where where risk enters the equation simply because monetary stimulation slows down or even goes negative. If you were had the ability to UH counsel Droomee Powell on policy prescriptions

going forward, what would what would those recommendations be? Well, I would advise him to study UH some of his own Fed research from the San Francisco FED, for instance, where they've done historical studies for a long time in terms of the neutral interest rate, and to try and find and seek out and search as he moves higher. Uh,

you know, twenty five basis points for quarter. What that neutral interest rate is that it used to be in nominal terms around four percent and now perhaps with inflation and one a half percent, is probably around two. But

that's a probably nobody knows. I would say, Mr Powell, find that magical neutral interest rate which keeps inflation at two percent or lower and growth at two percent or higher, and uh, and tread carefully because it's uh, it's a it's a changing number, and it's a it's a new world in terms of credit, and keep reducing that balance sheet, I would imagine, right, Well, I think that's okay. I'm not a balance sheet fanatic in terms of reducing it.

I sort of think, Marty, that the balance sheet itself at four trillion plus is really a reflection of the leverage in our economy. We've got about sixty eight trillion in terms of total credit and four and a half trillion in terms of the FED balance sheet, And look at that as a bank. Um, you know, with equity capital maybe a five or six percent. You know, if you reduce that by half, your you've got an equity

capitalization of two or three percent. We know banks don't do well on that, so I'd say, I'd say leave the balance you alone. It's okay, But they're they're gonna go forward. Bill the President yesterday with Chairman Brady of the House Ways and Means Committee, trotted out their card, their tax reform card, which I'm sure Bill Gross will be doing his taxes on, uh this year, the little three by five card, making it simple and all that.

What is your process, what is your prospect for tax reform? What? What do you how do you model it into your business? And frankly, how should our listeners look at tax reform out three four in six months? Well, first of all time, in my view, it's not tax reform. It's tax cut scuts cuts, and the cuts are basically pointed at corporations as opposed to individuals. And we can talk about the details and so on, but um, it's a corporate tax cut.

It's market friendly. I won't deny that it has been market friendly, but most of the benefits go to the corporations and individuals basically are flatline. Despite the claims, I would say, this is the interesting argument that I'm seeing. It's sort of like the Laffer curve uh being back, but this time regarding wages. Their claim the Republicans claimed that, uh, you know, if if you uh can can lower taxes,

you can raise wages. The old trickle down. And it's supported by continuing studies by the Council of Economic Advisors, etcetera, etcetera. Private economists such as Larry Summers and others. Uh. You know, Summers said the other day that he would give an F to F to any student who submitted a paper supporting this logic. Um, so we have an ongoing debate.

I say, one chart and I'll finish with this. And the answer, Uh, the the economist has a chart this week which shows UH lowering corporate taxes in many countries over many years. And basically it's a push in terms of the wage gains for the population. And so, you know, big arguments back and forth, but I suspect it's not gonna help much into was a wage growth. We certainly didn't see it today, did we. No, we did not

Bill thank you so much for coming prepared. Mr Garoffalo is gonna make a difference for the forty Niners from New England out to San Francisco. Yeah, I think so. I think the Niners will win a game this year. They may still get the first draft choice of the Browns do the same. But I think next year it's up better season. How can it be worse? Very good Bill, girls, thank you for your attendance today and particularly joining us a few days ago in five Day as well. We

greatly appreciate his perspective. He is with Janice Henderson over the next half hour. We hope you regroup with us on an extraordinary week of economics, finance investment. David gur Friends, Laqua and I never a chance were humbled by the quality of the guests. We get to speak with Vincent Reinhart yesterday. It was a real high point. I thought

that Alan Blinder added value and fed day. We spoked to Mr Gross twice, any number of other guests, and it is wonderful to try to summarize the week with Yacom Fells with Morgan Stanley for years, where he literally founded with Steve Roach the zeitgeist of Morgan Stanley Economics. He holds court at PIMCO is their global economic advisory Yacom Fells. If you were to write for Monday morning, what would your essay b on this historic week? Well, Tom,

what would my essay be? Well, first of all, I would point out that the US economy, you know, if you look at payrolls and the other economic data, is really what I would call is so so economy. And I say so so because the fat characterizes growth as solid. That was the new language in the f O m C statement. And they also said inflation is soft. So we have a so so economy. And importantly we now have a new fet chair who is very much like the old Fat chair. So the Powell Fed, what would

the Power Fed look like? Well, it's probably going to be like the Yelling Fed, just without Janet Yellen Um. And then the big question that I would pose is you know, how much of a tax cut will we get? And is it a good idea to cut taxes in the ninth year of an economic expansion when the labor market is gradually running out of slack. I'm trying to

figure out which way to go here. Let's go to tax reform, which of course, is the headlines today and what everybody will be thinking about into the into the weekend. If we have tax reform and you question the need for it given the buoyant economy. If every single interview we've talked about and talked to it says it's tax cuts, next, tax reforms, is yakulm Fell is going to be writing

fiscal economics in eighteen or twenty four months. Well, look, I think there is a need for tax reform, so um, but I don't think there's a need for a big tax cut. So tax cut the way I would define it, that's just demand stimulus, and that's not what this economy needs at this stage of the cycle. The tax reform, a real tax reform that reduces marginal tax rates but broadens the tax base and it's good for long term growth. That's something we need. But unfortunately that's not what we're

likely to get. So much of this and this to go to PIMCO and the new normal, the new neutral. I'm I'm coined a phrase today. You can steal it from a Yakom in the Royalty check. Will be great for the new hockey skates the kids need, uh, the new restrictive. Where is when do we get restrictive? How can we have a new restrictive If people are criticizing Governor Kearney for raising rates, and people out past December say what will the US do? Do you know where

we get restrictive? Well, that's the one million dollar question I think. I mean, nobody really knows where this famous neutral rate is. Well, we think that, you know, it's around two two and a half percent in nominal terms, but there's huge uncertainty around that. You know, anybody who has run these models that estimate the neutral rate knows that it could easily be fifty or a hundred basis

points higher than that or lower than that. So, to put it differently, we may already there's a there's a possibility that were already pretty close to neutral and may move into restrictive fairly soon. Because if you look at the current situation, we have inflation core PC inflation running at one point three percent. The Fed funds rate is at one to one twenty five. So if you think that the real neutral rate is around zero, then we're

not far away from that. So this is why I think the FED and the power Fed will have to treat very very cautiously as they raise interest rates, and they will also have to factor in that they're running down the balance sheet, which in itself you know, should have a restrictive impact. So nobody knows where restrictive is. But I think we may be closer than the consensus things on a social basis. And I look at China

real rates as being higher, yahkunfels. Why can't we get back to a nicely positive inflation adjusted rate, whether it's FED funds target or three month or five year or maybe I'll go out as first seven years. It's it seems like the rules are broken, the model is broken, and I can't get back to normal inflation adjusted interest rates. Well, I don't think the rules are broken. I rather and I don't think the model is broken. I rather think

the world has changed. And so I think what's weighing down on his famous equilibrium interest rate and therefore also on market interest rates. Are these secular structural forces demographics right, aging, rising life expectancy which uses people to save more. And we have another major global force technology and the third one globalization, which both lead to higher desired saving and

lower desired investment. So this is weighing down on the equilibrium interest rate, and then whenever central banks try to hike their own rates above that equilibrium rate, then the economy folters. So this is why I think we are stuck in the new neutral right. There's no escape from this saving blood. This is a wonderful and thoughtful conversation

with Pimco. Yakum Fells are Global Economic advisor. I want to continue this discussion and we really center in on the word that's percolating up for analysis for two thousand

and eighteen. It gets a little geeky nerdy, but I really want you to stay with us, with the Yakam Fells on the dynamics of capital, the dynamics of investment, if you will, the dynamics of labor, and as he mentioned this dynamic and this interesting human condition of our new technologies, I guess it doved else where, the Apple trotting out the new toy today Yacom fells with us with Pimco. As I promised, we're gonna go back to

Robert Solo MT seven. I am using the phrase quote technical change unquote is a shorthand expression for any kind of shift in the production function. Yacom Fells, Robert Solo, and we're honored that the Laureate has been with us a few times over the years. Robert Solo's technical change of nineteen fifty seven is that the same as Yakom Fell's technology and technical change and innovation of two thousand seventeen. Well, but definitely seeing a lot of technical change, tom Um.

I think what has changed over the past few decades is that a lot of the innovation and the technological change we are seeing is not showing up in productivity. So we're seeing rapid technological change, but a lot of that actually benefits us in our free time. It adds to consumer surplus. We can do amazing things with those new iPhones that you know, people have been rushing out to buy today, But that really doesn't increase productivity in

the workplace. So we have this, you know, this, this really big discrepancy, the gap that is opening up between the pace of technological change and productivity in the economy where we're not really seeing a pickup. And I think that you know, I think will continue to live with that gap, and it has some far reaching consequences because lower productivity means our living standards are not rising. As

rapidly UM. It also means that we are seeing, to go back to what we discussed earlier, we're seeing less and less investment in real capital by these large superstar firms. So they're not really investing in real capital, they're investing in people and in ideas UM. And that means the corporate sector has now become a net saver. This is really new. So corporates, especially those large superstar firms, they are saving more than they invest, so they add to

the savings glut. And this means that they contribute to the low interest rate environment that we're stuck in. If I look at the core function, labor productivity is something to do with the output as compared to the labor input. I'm holding my iPhone seven in my hand, and yesterday I probably emailed the vicious boss that I work for fourteen times. I'm certain, Yakum fels that's not in the statistics. How does my use of my Apple iPhone affect the

nation's output volume and also it's calculation of labor input. Well, the simple answer that it doesn't. Both both sides critically doesn't show up. And the numerator of the denominator right correct so you know, it may make you more happy Tom to be able to do all these nice things on your iPhone. But this doesn't show up in the in the in the statistics, um, but it adds to

consumer surplus. So you know, our well being, you know, if you want to call this well being, you know, to be able to use all this information on the iPhone, well being is increasing, but we're not capturing it. And nobody's a labor communication. And you misunderstood me. I'm not sending emails or tweets out my iPhone the which from Purdue. She's the boy. She she's sending me. Granted, if she

sends me to Purdue football schedule, that's recreational. But if she's yelling at me, telling me what to do, hate mail and all that, that's labor input that's got to be calculated. Doesn't it into hours worked? Uh no, it doesn't, you know, it doesn't. I think she she can send you more of those hate mails with the iPhone than she could otherwise, But I think I don't think that gets counted because she can just do more in every hour.

And so you know, maybe it's even just maybe it's even substracting from from your productivity because I'm not sure it helps you Tom. You know, folks, John, I gotta get yacum fills as my agent. You are just dig he can be my agent. Yeah, coom to productivity on a on a larger scale. Does it fit into the calculations of a given central bank or is it so esoteric? Is for me and our listeners it is does it really fit into what I'm gonna do decembert Well maybe not.

Maybe it doesn't matter for December thirteenth, but it matters for central banks thinking on where they will end up or where they where they want to end up, when and when they get to neutral because low productivity growth is one reason why the neutral rate of interest has come down. So think for central banks it's a It matters a lot what productivity growth does and what it will what it will do in the future, because that

determines on where that famous neutral interest rate is. How do you respond when a president of the United States or a prime minister, I don't mean to pick up Mr Trump within the politics, as we're going to get to four percent g d P or a run ray to three. How do you respond to that? Well, it's

easier set than done, you know, to get there. So with a labor force, say here in the US, growing at half a percent, you would need a big pick up in productivity, and we just discussed that that's pretty unlikely. So I would not try to get growth up there. I think you could do it in the short term if you if you do a big fiscal stimulus, but the price to pay for that would be overheating and probably a more aggressive FED, and then you end up

in a recession one or two years later. This has been a very generous Yacolm Fells with us with PIMCO, their Global Economic advisor. His writings you can see at their website. I really can't say enough about the combination of Professor Claire to Richard Clarida and Yacolm Fells at PIMCO for trying to help you get your thoughts straightened out here and particularly in the weekend reading. It's been

a seismic week for economics, finance, and investment. We're all going to regroup over the UH the weekend and dive into November. Really dive into November here. I feel in Monday that dashed a year in and then into two thousand eighteen. Of course, a lot of what we're gonna do is on tax reform. Our team is really trying to give you a perspective out of Washington from the think tanks. We will lean on the Urban brook Urban

Brookings Text Policy Center. These are the experts across their their bipartisan there there across all of the different political regimes of Washington. UH Bill Gale and UH Eugene Jury, of course has been on the show many times in Howard Gleckman really providing in the trenches. Leadership for Tax Policy Center. Will try to get their perspective over the

coming days on this incredibly important document. Whether you think it's tax reform or if it's tax cuts, however you want to look at it, whatever the politics is, it's a convoluted and complex set of hopes by the GOP and by the President, and we'll see where that at least I'm sure we'll see a lot of writing on that over the weekend. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene. David Gura is at David Gura before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio