Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. Jake Peloski of TPW Advisory thinks the Raley can extend right in this We are optimistic not only about twenty four, but the out years as well, twenty five, twenty six. Our analog remains the US nineteen ninety five to nineteen ninety nine period. The differences this time it's global. Jay joins us right now, Jacob, morning to you.
Good morning, John.
Just the economy data in China back some of that up this morning.
It sure does, John, I mean, I think it's clear to us at least that, and it's not only the data, right. We wrote a piece on Friday, our Friday musing is called listen to stocks, not vox, and we want to pay attention to what the markets are telling us. And it's not just stocks, it's also credit outperforming the AG in its commodities, and commodities I think right now are the big tell commodities. And it's not just energy, it's not just gold, it's not just copper, it's all of it.
It's ag it's all.
Breaking out, and that is telling us that there is an opportunity in that the global economy, as we've been saying since the fall, is early cycle.
Soft commodities as well in cocob. But a lot of people might say that's a supply side story, not demand. How would you frame it.
I would frame it as both, and that's perfect. It's bull supply side as well as demand side. And the fact is that most people have not been investing in commodities and the demand has been weak. They've been okay, and now we're coming into a point where that lack of investment, which can't be made.
Up quickly, is going to bite.
At the same time as a global economy, we think is setting up for a considerable period of good economic news, and that combination in the fact that very few people are invested there. Very few people understand that commodities are the best performing acid class in the world year to date.
Everyone wants to.
Talk to Mag seven, Mag seven, Mag six, Mag five commodities people. It's really basic. It's supply and demand. You don't have to figure out AI. It's just simply buying the stuff that people still use.
How much this hinge on China.
Though obviously not very much, because China has been been a weak story and commodities have done well. Markets move first, That's the thing that we have to remember. They're forward looking. Discounting mechanisms say no more than you me even you John, and therefore they move first. And so commodities are, you know, your world's best performing acid class when now people are just starting to think about China. Okay, PMI is better than expected. JP Morgan last week raised their Q one
GDP estimate to six point six percent. Okay, so you're talking about the second biggest economy in the world looking like it's starting to pick up, and that is obviously bullish for lots of things, including commodities.
A phrase we heard repeatedly I think over the last year regarding that region that part of the world was uninvestable, and I guess the cafe around that is it depends what you're investing in to get exposure to it. There's a great quote in your recent note and I'm going to share it with our road against some one of your thoughts on it. We note the discrepancy between the China tech stack one that will increasingly have all of
China to dominate. That's a really important line. Can you just build that out a little bit more?
Yeah, first off, on that uninvestable line, I also wrote a couple months ago, pro tip when you hear uninvestable, invest So that's point A because it can't get any worse. Can't get any worse th investable. But yeah, I think this point about the tech stack is really really interesting. There are a lot of things setting up to create
a big opportunity. And what's remembered that markets have already moved in the US in tech, etc. So we want to be looking for the new areas of opportunity and that's why that multi year positive framework allows us to go from point A to point B to point C, et cetera. And that's what we've been doing in our model portfolios the tech stack story. Look, we've been trying to freeze China out of the advanced technology. We're doing a pretty good job. They've got the message they have
to build their own. They're now turning around saying, okay, fine, you can't play in our tech space. And therefore the question is, right now, do you want to be invested in a market of one point four billion people growing at six percent per annum, with an e commerce market that's double the size of the US, ten times the size of Japan, and trades at a seventy percent discount. Allibaba trades at eight times earnings, Tencent trades at fourteen
times earnings, China overall trades at nine times earnings. Okay, no one owns it. It's like, I think it's a really interesting story. In the segue, you know, flip your mag seven into k Web, which is the China tech etf k Web can double and double again and still not get to the level it was in in twenty twenty one, John twenty five to fifty. The twenty twenty one high was one hundred and one dollars. I mean that to me is a no brainer, and we you know, full disclosure we own it.
Pet chiev Academy is going to join us later in the program. In the next hour. He's put the emphsis on made by China. How important is that phrase going to be in years to come?
Yeah, I mean, I think we're big believers. Our name and our firm TPW stands for tripole the world. Our whole thesis, our framework is regional integration in the three main regions of Asia, Europe and the Americas. All of this stuff is happening kind of as one would expect. Supply chain, regionalization, tech stack independent development. Everyone needs AI, everyone needs the climate proof everyone needs a semi, everyone needs electric vehicles and batteries, and these are the things
that are driving that regional integration. And look, I think China is in a much stronger position than people give it credit for because the region that they're in that they're going to dominate is asion Azion is the biggest, fastest growing region and will be for the next ten years.
It's striking that you have such conviction in China when what we continue to hear from Washington is that they're just going to up the ante. Right now, they're wighing whether or not they're going to sanction the chip makers around wallways entire production. How much does that concern you?
Yeah, No, there's a race, right, there's a race going on. China's racing to get itself kind of independent, and we're racing to freeze them out of this stuff. And I think the point that we see is that the US trying to freeze China is already in the price. Everybody who doesn't want to invest in China because they're worried about US sanctions is already gone, long gone, and they're not going to come in. Fine, we don't need them to come in again. K Web can double and double again.
I'll just take the first double from twenty six to fifty and weave the second double to somebody else.
So a sixty percent tariff wall for Chinese imports doesn't matter.
Oh yeah, sure it will matter. Markets will sell off depending on where we go between now and then.
But I mean, if China is going to build within their own achon.
Yeah, I mean I would look at what China's done over the last thirty or forty years, and I don't think we'd want to bet against their ability to kind of construct what they need to construct.
So when everyone else said an investable, you go bullish when you say no brainer. Does that make you uncomfortable? What are the risk factors you would acknowledge exists around this bullish thesis for China?
Yeah, fairly.
What Amory said is one, if we come out if the former president wins, which, as I've said on the show, I believe Biden will win on the landslide. But if the former president were to win and we're to implement the tariff structures that he's talked about, that's clearly going
to set the Chinese market back. But by the same token, as we advance to that point in time, China's own internal dynamics theoretically should get better, right, The property market should be better dealt with the focus on domestic consumption, should be moving further down the road. So it's not a zero sum and how that all plays out, you know. I mean, we have the ability to change our mind and to adjust our positions, and so we'll look at
that when the time comes. But I mean that to me is a big worry because I think everything else is in the price Ali Baba, And no, it doesn't grow as much as it as it did before but as the prior guest said, same is happening in the US tech space. Earnings acceleration is coming down, same as in Ali Baba. The other point is that these companies in China are just like the US companies. They're cash making machines, they are buying backstock, they are paying dividends,
and so you know, eight nine times earnings. I think the risk reward is some of the best in the world because the risk is already in the price and the reward is starting to materialize.
I'm sure this morning you've managed to convert a few non believers for a tactical trade. What's interesting about your call. It's not just tactical. It's not twenty twenty four, it's twenty twenty five, it's twenty twenty six. Why is this being extrapolated out. It doesn't sound like this late cycle story from your standpoint. It feels much much longer term.
Yeah, exactly, John. And you know, we put out a piece our twenty twenty four outlook back in the beginning of November, so five months ago. The title was surprise Surprise. We had four macro surprises, lower inflation sooner than expected, better productivity, growth, return the stability in early cycle. All those are playing out, in particular the return to stability argument. Look at the vics, look at the move, look at
the FED. With all respect to the lineup of FED speakers, I pay virtually no attention to that anymore.
That is not the We've just had an eight minute conversation and that's how long it took to mention the FEDER reserve in your whole fasis.
Ye, that's exactly right. Way is that because it doesn't matter.
The important thing is that the FED and markets are in sync after being out of sync. Right six rate cuts in December now and FED at three. Now we're both at three and guess what that happened without a ripple of market on ease. And that tells me that that's one of the things that tells me that this market is a strong market. And so we have, in our view, were early cycle. We've made a return to stability. The FED is our friend now right can cut as
you were talking about with labor worries. The FED is our friend. The rest of the world is picking up. And so we look at twenty twenty three to twenty twenty seven that that body of time as being very much akin to nineteen ninety five to nineteen ninety nine, where you had productivity inspired growth, you had lower inflation,
you had good earnings growth. The difference, as you quoted, is that this time it's global, and it's global because of this tripole, the world materializing and the fact that everybody has to spend on AI, on climate, on semis, on electric vehicles, and so you're getting, in our view, a much more stable globe because you're not dependent on the Chinese consumer or on the US. You now have three centers that are going to be growing independently of
each other. And so really the question is who balances best private and public sector because you need both because these are huge, huge investments, right, these are game changing investments, and so who manages that best. And that's one of the reasons why we like Europe and you and I've been talking about this for years, but Europe has more experience than any region and getting everybody around the same page. One can argue they do it well, it takes too long.
But you know, look at the US and Congress, right, not really an example of great governance, and look at China stumbling after a really good run. So I look at Azion in China dominates Azion, the fastest growing region of the world. We want to play there. We look at Europe integrating, being and being forced by conflict to integrate, right, multiple countries spending together, raising debt together, so you're going
to see that capital market integration. And then we look here in the Americas and we see Mexico, which again you know, we've been overweight and invested in for two years because it is the flagship for the tripol the World thesis, you know, the biggest beneficiary of what's going on in the Americas. We're invested in Poland you and I talked about that last time for the European thesis
as well. Yeah, and we're invested in China for the Asian thesis and self to us, uh, it's an exciting blue sky period ahead and the fact that most people are not there. People have kind of gotten onto the tactical trade. I mean, you know, twenty one weeks, if you're not on the tactical trade, you're probably not working anymore. But you know, to us, the good news is that we are you know, we we we see the process moving for multiple years and we're still early in that
and others are going to come behind us. We're already double weighted commodities and we have been for six months, and so we're you know, we're just moving from point A to point being onward.
This is some super bolish stuff. Just remind me never to book you for FED. Decision done, okay, He Piloski TVW Pina chiev Academy Security, saying he's ready for a rotation. He writes this, I'm so sick of hearing about the maximum FAB four or whatever it's words, not mine, and that it is time at the time of the twenty second old time high for the S and P five hundred, I'm looking for anything to stand me away from that.
The Russell two thousand Suddody outperforming is interesting. Patreons is around the table for more pink and mornings here.
Good morning.
Is it more than just interesting? Is it a real deal?
You know?
I'm not one hundred percent sure because I've been kind of thinking about this. Marketers as really AI, anything that's kind of been deputized into AI has been driving the market. But for the last week, all of a sudden, the Russell two thousands a little bit better. I've liked the energy sector in particular, and I'm wondering how people are starting to say, maybe banking's okay, commercial real estate, your biotech sad is ups and downs, So we could see
a rotation. Unfortunately, I think this time, unlike November where we saw the rotation with strong gains for both, this time I think we might get tepic gains in the Rustle two thousand and a small pullback in the Nasdaq one hundred.
Yeah, your words, and I think they're interesting, they're important power for words. It's the rotation more about losing less or making more, which one is it.
I think it's going to be about losing less right now. I think where a lot of the froth is, where things are overextended, is really in that Nasdaq one hundred types stocks, and if you look at it, it's really unchanged in about a month month and a half, so it keeps coming up and maybe it's a new hire, but barely unlike maybe the S and P. So I think there's room for that to kind of top a little bit. As people question have we overextended on AI?
Listen?
AI is going to drive the future.
The questions to me are are you getting enough value at today's technology level, at today's pricing, and I'm not sure everyone's getting that. So if you see a pullback there, it's going to be the Russell two thousand plus. People are looking where to put money that's not at all time highs or really high pe ratios.
I'll ask a question too that I asked the Lord Calvacina, who is seeing potentially the signs as well of a rotation. We've had so many rotationary false starts. What makes you have the conviction that you think this could be it?
Well again, I think we go back to the fall. We had a twenty two percent rise in the Russell two thousand versus eleven in Nasdaq one hundred, so that's ten percent out performance. That's the sort of thing I'm looking at. I think people are getting tired with the same story. Okay, I've already fully committed to AI. Where am I going to put my new money? And you start looking for value, you start putting money elsewhere. You've seen energy do very well, mining is doing well, so
I think that starts leading the way. If banks can stabilize. When we get bank earnings next week, the regionals do well, that really pushes nicely there, and that's where I think drives it.
Ja Plowski was also talking about energy, you like mining, He also liked soft commodities like agriculture. So you're just see the entire commodity landscape push higher, you know.
I'm more in the hard commodities. I think me energy has been really the big focus because how I've been looking at it is it feels like we're finally understanding if we want sustainable energy, we have to build up sustainable energy more rapidly. So that's going to require a lot of commodities. But we also, for the first time, I think, understand we need real traditional energy for the next twenty thirty years, so that's going to be built out.
So that's why I think that hard commodity energy is better. I'm not as sure about the egg stuff, though I would not touch Coco for example.
Are you doing this through equity exposure or directly through the commodity market, which we want?
I prefer the equities.
I think again, our story for the last two to three years has really been that the energy companies of the future are the energy.
Companies of today.
People kind of toss them out the window A few years ago and saying, Oh, it's all going to be about wind farms. It's all going to be about this, And people are realizing the traditional energy companies have the resources to provide energy today, but the skills to figure out how to provide energy in the future.
I think that's where the big bet is.
Still starting to see that. In March, start to see energy pitcomp I think by about ten percent, really solid month against for energy stocks on the SMP. Likewise, on the banks as well, You've got an interesting take on a federal reserve. We've heard echoes of this over the last week following Shairman Powe. Well, they haven't officially changed their target. They seem to be willing to ease monetary policy even while inflation remains closer to three percent than two.
What is one hundred banks is points between friends? What does it change in this market?
So I don't think it changes that much. I think again, we saw the market priced out. I think we started the year at six rate cuts, we went down to as low as two and a half, and the market did fine because it's all about growth. So I think we can manage around that. But I think there is a little bit of froth, and maybe it's deserved.
As you see, Powell kind of.
Shift is narrative to things that allow him to cut. Right, No one's talking about the market doing the work for him, remember back in November when yields were high. Now the market's undone all the work for him, and no one wants to talk about that.
So it feels to.
Me they're constantly looking to pivot to some excuse to be easy, which I understand. If you're the person in charge of the FED, you probably don't want to be the one who drives us into recessions, so you're probably slightly biased easy. And now he's figured out a new rationale for that.
Do you think the FED is actually working against the market or other The market's working against the Fed because the FED seems comfortable with stocks at all time highs and credit spreads that are super tight.
You know, I think we're okayish right now. I think there's kind of a decent balance, right. No one's going crazy. We're not talking about four or five cuts this year. I think we are rightly saying it's probably the end of.
The hiking cycle.
Though having said that, right as some of this data comes through and if I'm right on some of the commodities, we might see a bit of a resurgence. And the other topic that's coming up a lot is as we're saying, oh, inflation's coming down, I think people are questioning, did we ever really managed to monitor rout inflation for the last three year? Are we heavily understating because you go into the stores and it doesn't look like things are up
three or four percent parandum. It looks like they're up ten percent perandum. So I think people are questioning some of the actual starting level from this decline.
If the feed is trying to find any excuse, to your point, potentially to cut, what could they use, say in June, say they really want to cut in June, but inflation is still on this path where it's not exactly where they want to be that the end of last year, but it is moderating.
Is that enough?
I think it could be enough, because I think one they'll just say, listen, it's long lag times and we've got to get a little bit ahead of this. And I think behind the scenes, if they can avoid cutting in September and November, right into the meat of the election, they prefer to do that, So I think you're.
Much better off.
If you want to get two cuts done early this year, you do it June July. Let the markets kind of adapt with that, and then the next one maybe comes in December if we're still there.
John asked a question earlier to a lot of our guests, what's more important the payrolls number on Friday or inflation next week.
I think it's ultimately the payrolls.
I think the market's been driven much more by the growth in the economy, and really it's both the spending on AI. Our companies benefiting from AI, are the AI companies growing as a competitive.
And so we've had it FED. I think for the FED, it's probably going to be the job's number. I think they have to look at that. But even then I think they're.
In the mode that they are going to close their eyes and say, you know, it's all good enough.
We can cut once or twice.
It's funny you say that, because that was my sense of things as well, asking the question, that's not the answer, I go the Answerrinke still repeatedly was that CPM is important. At ho Senni of Columbia Thread and a mat or was with it's just moms agum, and he was talking up CPM be more important than paying rolls for the next several months, maybe even the next few courses. What I'm hearing from Chairman Powell is that he could be willing to move earlier if you see something happen with
a labor market and deterioration. What do you make of that, just in terms of the shift in emphasis, if we can indeed called it a shift, you.
Know, one of our theories coming into this year had been that in twenty twenty three he was happy to cause a recession. I don't think it was his first choice. But if you got a recession, that's fine. There is no way he wants to create a recessionary election year because that almost hands the accumbani loss. So I think he is going to be much more cautious about creating a recessionary and that's where I think the balance is
tipped this year or too. It's much more about jobs and far less about inflation.
You introduced politics. You think he's worried about the incumbonent losing.
I think he wants to be as independent of causing an election result as.
He possibly can.
Okay, and so keeping the economy on a steady flow and not turning into recession is probably better.
For him thinking about politics, so he doesn't have to think about politics.
Kind Of okay, Well, your timeline basically says they need to move so they don't look like they care about politics. But the fact that they would be moving so they don't look like they care about politics, they do care about politics.
You know, it's probably pretty.
Hard when one you've got Elizabeth Warren writing letters the president, your boss is the president, and then you've got the former president who is very active on social media and happy to point out any problems. So get this out of the way, bear the pain, and hopefully fingers crossed, have to do nothing September November and let politics take care of itself.
So big part of this conversation where we started it was the big rotation and whether it is about making more or losing less, and you said potentially it's about losing less, which should prompt the next question, what part of the market right now? Which part of the market do you think is most vulnerable? Because the way we're set up right now in commodity markets, we've got things that are multi year highs. Gold this at an all time high. In credit, high yield spreads are at multi
year tights, equities at record highs. What do you think is vulnerable at the moment where the loss is going to be.
So, I think it's going to come really from the oh performers. So I think the NAZAQ one hundred is the most susceptible you're gonna have. Some of the individual stocks we're now on individual stocks, they trade leverage gtfs, which seems insane to me why we would have a single stock leverage GDF. Yet it's there. I think it's over two billion dollars in market caps. So people are trading this.
There because people want it.
Yeah, and it seems a bit like memes stock type stuff. So I think your mem stock, however you pronounce it. But I think those things start pulling back a little bit, the overall market can do well.
I think credit's fine. I think credit's very good.
I do think, separate from everything else, people should be allocating more to whether it's credit in terms of munis agency debt, corporate debt than treasuries. I think if you're running a big bond portfolio, I like the extra spread that you're getting and you have technically better governance at these entities than now you.
Do out of DC.
Interesting, you're gonna stick with us. That raised the question about treasuries will hit a little bit later. From the program, Pitt chair of Academy Securities, former n WIYE FED president Bill Dudley is saying another bank rum could happen. Right in this regulators have been focused primarily on increasing loss absorbing capital at the largest US financial institutions. Much less attention has been paid to the problem that precipitated last
Springs banking crisis, vulnerability to sudden depositor withdrawals. A place to say that Bill is now with us for more. So Bill, let's start there and then we can sort of lean into monitoring policy as the conversation progresses. Let's start with the stress of the Spring of twenty twenty three, twelve months ago. What was behind that and what haven't we done to address it?
Well, the problem was that one bank, Silicon Valley Bank, which was very poorly managed, failed, But the problem was the contagent that's then generated a whole bunch of other banks. And what we saw at the time was that the positive outflows were much faster than anyone had anticipated.
Its most rapid.
Demise of a bank that we've ever seen in terms of money going out the door. The regulators have been focusing on increasing capital on the biggest banks. They have not been focusing on how to deal with that contagent problem. We need to really build up the FED slender of last resort functions so it's credible to unsure depositors so they don't run. And one way to do that is to require banks to pledge claudel to the window, to the disco window of the FED, equal to all their runnable liabilities.
So if undersure the polsers know that's the case, they don't really have a reason to run.
It's a contagion issue that I think which was so striking and powerful that we need to address.
That was evident last March.
Don't you think the keys to answer that question though at the FED or they have sweat. I'm thinking more about depositive insurance. Is that something we need to change and maybe changed quickly.
Well, you could raise deposit insurance, but that's the first of all going to require congressional legislation.
The other problem with deposit.
Insurance raising is is It basically increases what caud is called moral hazard.
People are going to be less careful. You know, we saw during.
This S and L crisis that banks, you know s andls with lots of insured deposits go out and takes lots lots of crazy risks.
So I think the addressing.
Contagens through the window last resort function, I think is a better way to go to guard against that kind of risk taking.
Yeah, my question, I guess would be, well, the FED is somewhat reactionary. My sense is they are much they learned from two thousand and seven two thousand and eight to act more aggressively, much more quickly. Does that kind of fix the problem or should there be more being done preemptively.
I like to fix.
Problems excellent, rather than after the fact that we saw a very awkward result in March twenty twenty three when we had this issue of the systemic risk exception that could only be voked after a bank failed.
To ensure all the depositors.
So the Janney Yellen and Jay Power are basically saying the banks are strong and resilient, but they couldn't actually guarantee that all bank, all deposits would be insured because it only can be invoked after a bank fails, and.
Only on a case by case basis.
This is a way of reassuring people that Solvment Bank is not going to be subject to.
Run that deplete its cash.
You know, basically reads who right people run is it's very inexpensive to run. It doesn't cost very much to run, and you really run if there's some risks that.
You're not going to be paid off.
Banks have enough collateral pledge to the window to cover all their runable deposits and there's no reason to run, and you serve.
Damp and down the risk of containing right at the start.
Has there any risk?
We've pushed a little bit too far in terms of some of the regulations where we're forcing banks to have more and more treasuries, which did cast some of the problems in Silicon Valley Bank, but it's also really turned the private credit into three around where that's where more and more people are turning to as banks are somewhat restricted or uncomfortable with the current regulations.
Well, you're on a very important point.
One way you could respond to what you saw in March of twenty twenty three is dramatically raise the liquidity buffers that banks have to hold. But if you do that, then they have to hold a lot more securities, can make less loans, they become less like banks. They can't perform their intermedion interreachion role. So I think, you know, piling on more and more regulation on banks it's not really the way to go because it makes banks less competitive.
As you noted with the non bank financial sector Bell.
The deregulation of twenty eighteen have a meaningful impact on the failure of the likes of SVB.
Well, if SVB would have been much tightly more tightly regulated, if you had had the rollback in terms of the size, you know, the acid size, where you were subject to tougher prudential regulations.
So that contributed.
But I think the big surprise to people was how fast this all happened. You know, it's taken in several weeks for a bank to go from trouble to actually fail.
To look on Valley Bank, it was a couple of days and they were gone.
Bill, let's do a sprinkill of monetary policy as well. Add that to the recipe. Can I talk to you about everything else, because we're talking about bank crisis, and I'm just seeing equity markets at all time highs and credit spreads and MOTIEA tights. How do you think this FMC is thinking about what's happening with financial conditions beyond just what they look at looking at equity markets, looking at high yield spreads. Because when you hear the chairman
talk about financial conditions, he says they're tight. When you hear market participants talk about them, Bill, they say something else.
I was surprised by his answer at the press conference to the question about financial conditions. He didn't you really didn't really want to talk about financial conditions, where in the past he's talked about financial positions a lot, and he actually implied that the financial divisions were still tight.
I don't see that stock market's up very dramatically. Credit spreads, their narrow bondils are down, mortgan rates are down.
Since the end of October, we've had a dramatic eating and financial conditions.
So right now there's a.
Bit of a battle going on the long legs of monetary policy versus the.
Easing of financial conditions.
And you know, if you're trying to figure out what the impulse of Madre policy right now is you have to figure out.
What the balance is between those two things.
My personal opinion is Madre policy is not really exerting that much restraint on the economy, and that's why the Fed has been on this path of being having to stay higher for longer. And you know, I think another aspect of it is that you know, so called our star and the neutral mandreary policy rates probably higher than what the Fed officials are assuming. It's very interesting to me is the FED thinks that the fund federal fund rates is going to go all the way back to two point six percent.
That's their ready rejection in the long run.
But if you look at the market expectations of where interest rates are going to go, they have them coming down to.
About three point six percent.
So the one hundred basic point gap between the where the market thinks the Fed is heading and where the Fed things that are sitting.
And in this case, the Fed is actually a lot more.
Optimistic about the scope for rate cuts over the next few years.
Yep. Three six in climate, some people talking about four bill. This is wonderful. Thank you to a great pace on Bloomberg Opinion today and on the Bloomberg Terminal. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angio politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern.
Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.