Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and am Marie 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. Let's talk about
the bond market. Lisa's favorite, the tenure government bondyard is lower on this week for a seventh consecutive week, the longest streak in more than five years. Steve Major of HSBC, good friend of this program, good friend of ours, joined us here in New York.
Steve, It's good to see you.
Good morning.
What's behind that rally of almost two months on tenure government bondyards?
I think you touched on some of it in the pre am can't call it a preamble. Yeah, So how do you disseggregate this this bond valley? Because it probably it probably starting with something really simple. It could be the market was just too cheap. So there's a valuation angle, and you can see it in swap spreads. You can see it in US bond yields versus the rest of the world. You can see it in real yields being
above two, all that kind of thing. So maybe point one it was just too cheap, and then you get some trigger events or you get something that that starts to spark it. Maybe and I think maybe there was a bit more confidence in the fiscal position and and so I think you mentioned dog that could that could be key. In between the date of the election back in November and the inauguration, I think markets were also sensing the regulatory shift, which meant there could have been
some pre positioning which was more favorable towards treasuries. Now that was coming in the treasuries versus swap spread, right, So there's a bunch of things that were happening. You've talked about seven weeks of bond rally. I think it's been helped by some of the forward looking data, so Atlanta fed GDP, now some of the survey data think about what's going to happen to confidence when uncertainty goes up,
so uncertainty is not volatility. Uncertainty in the real world, in the real economy means people sit on their hands and they don't do stuff. It means that the investments aren't made, decisions aren't made, and that's not good for growth. Uncertainty in markets normally means there's a big dispersion in opinion about what's going to happen. But I think in the real world it's actually consistent with the surveys softening ahead of the real data.
It's completely against the grain compared to where we were at the end of last year. And that's what's intriguing for us on this program. At the end of last year, when Donald Trump won the presidency, we saw curve steepen and you're to push at the long end of the curve, and people were talking about things like tax cuts, more issuance, heavier supply, its st come.
Have we just parked that story? Can we ignore that story?
Again? Positioning is important. We came into the year with the consensus position and the position being a bearish steepening of the curve, inflation, fiscal blah blah blah. I did in an interview with Manus at the start of the year and I said, I'm not meeting any bomballs. That's because there weren't any, right, So once you get a bit of momentum, then people become a bit more confident. And it's a bit scary the recency bias in these markets and that people do like a bit of momentum.
And so I think the first move was positioning and the consensus and then some trigger points. And now for this ruddy to be continued, for it to be sustained, you're going to have to get something in the data. You mentioned payrolls, but it's really economy data. So the economy is kind of being retrofitted to where the Fed
already took rates. Does that make sense, right, The idea that maybe they cut too much time, Nobody was really saying it, but at the time it seems that they were cutting into a window where there was an opportunity to come. And then of course bond yields went up a lot, even though policy rates had come down one hundred basis points, so something was wrong. So the bond market is moving back into line, but really the economy has to be fitted to where the policy rates are
as well. So there's a lot of this going on that I think explains the bond ready move, and we can get through four percent on the tens in the next few weeks with this momentum continuing. If we're talking about ten weeks of bond really, in three weeks time, we'll be through four solutely.
What I'm hearing from you is that if we get some weaker economic data, we could see this bond rally accelerate. Wee get the ten year below four percent and the idea of real growth concerns bleeding through the entire treasury space. Yeah, how much do you buy the idea that this bond market and this federal reserve is going to be constrained by stiflationary fears, cyclation light, et cetera. How much does policy play into this?
Quite rightly to qualify it with stagflation light, because you know that pure stagflation requires recession and accelerating inflation. We're nowhere near either of those at the moments, so you're quite right to qualify that. It strikes me that inflation between two and the three is not a problem for anyone, and it's probably part of what's really desired because there's too much debt, and the process of dissolving the debt
requires inflation to be a touchover target. I don't think anyone's going to worry about two to three on inflation. The Fed's already pivoted to a growth focus. They did that last year and now we're seeing validation of that pivot. So, as I said, the economy needs to fit to where the to where the path of lower rates needs it to be. That may sound like a reverse, a reverse in the causality, but this sometimes is how it works.
Right.
So I'm not that worried about inflation and your famous last words, but.
You're not that worried about inflation, but FED officials.
Are, and they're talking about the potential for having to choose, having to weigh the evils of whether inflation is sticky or even accelerating modestly and some sort of downside to growth. Yeah, as barn investors, how do you grapple with it?
It's fair what you've said. That is part of their job, and there are some in the FED who don't completely worry about inflation so much, right, so that you have a range of views, just like in any essential bank, the fiscal policy I think is dominance. You've heard of fiscal dominance. For the bond deal to be at the right level for the fiscal policy, it needs to be at four percent or below. The CBO. The Budget Office
is budgeting four point one zero on the ten year. Now, back in September we were at three point six almost, so it was nicely inside. So to be able to afford this level of debt with the interest payments that come from it, we need the yields below four. So I think that by having a fiscally responsible treasury set up and the expense cuts coming through and the economy cooling,
you haven't got to worry about inflation so much. I think it is their job to be to be a bit hawkish on inflation, but I don't really think it's a problem.
I'll ask a simple question which requires a very thoughtful answer, and I know you've given it some thought.
Does the supply matter?
No? Next question?
Why not?
Right?
So I have this conversation every day of the week with clients. Right, and you think about from a trader's perspective, it does matter because they've got to take down all this supply and auctions and syndications and so there's a concession around the supply that must that should not be confused. That concession around the supply should not be confused with their strategic view, because the bond yield is a function of today's policy rate and expectations for that policy rate
where it ends up in the future. Right, And it strikes me that it could be a double counting on the yields if we start adding too much additional term premium to what's already in the price. So if the Federal Reserve thinks that the deficits are problem and is causing inflation, then they're not going to cut rates. They
might even be hiking them, right. But if the Federal Reserve things this economy is cooling down and the stock of the debt and the interest payments are weighing on future growth, and in fact, there's a path to lower rates, and the second half of the year they are cutting along that path.
Right.
So it just strikes me that it's very dangerous to say always a lot of supply, the yield goes up, because there is no empirical evidence for that. Look what's going on in China and Japan, and also look at the bond yield which is above four percent, it's around four twenty five. The policy rate is four twenty five, four point fifty. It doesn't strike me that there's a lot wrong with a bond yield that reflects the view that the policy rate is going to stay unchanged for
quite a long time. If you change that view to the fact that the Fed is back on the path of lower rates, the bond yield should come down. But I don't know, there's this intuition that the supply matters. It's informed by the auctions and the syndication and the concessions that the dating rooms have to take in to take into account. Right, but not to be confused for the strategic view and where bonios would be staith.
I knew that would eventually States just face SAE.
State's going to say why why.
More clarity and more tariffs.
That's the message from the White House when it comes to this deadline on Tuesday, that pause for twenty five percent on Canada and Mexico unless they showed they were doing enough to stop the flow of migrants and also really fentanyl. Then those tariffs go into play, and then the President ad really is spat on the works, adding an additional ten percent when it comes to China. So let's break all this down because the calendar is getting very busy.
On the trade front. Kelly and Shaw joins me.
She's now with Hogal Lovers, but she was a former senior White House trade advisor.
And negotiator under Trump. One point zero. Let's just start with the calendar. March fourth, this.
Pause, but the directives already there, so unless they come out with another executive order, those tariffs on Mexico and Canada twenty five percent go into place, and then Donald Trump added an additional ten percent on China March twelfth, twenty five percent on steel and aluminum. April first, we get the whole report of where trade is right now in terms of reciprocity with America partners and April second, auto tariffs, reciprocal tariffs across the board.
What are you focused on?
Can I say all of the above. It has certainly been a busy week from trade, and on top of that, we just got the confirmation of US Trade Representative Jamison Greer, as well as the announcement after the Donald Trump and Starmer bilateral of a US UK FTA which will be negotiated soon so any one of these would be enough to derail a trade lawyer's week. And so we have all of these happening at once. So what I can say is I think the President is just gearing up.
I think the calendar is only going to get even more full, especially as we get closer to that April line for all of those reports that are due, and I fully expect him to continue this trade train for the next several months and next couple of years.
How do you read the tea leaves right now? When it comes to Canada Mexico. Let's start there, because those are coming into place Tuesday. We have the Mexican Economy official Minister here in Washington, d C.
Yesterday I met with Jamison Greer. Today is going to meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik.
We have the Canadian ventinyls are meeting with Tom.
Holman this week.
Do you think these two countries are offering enough concessions for Trump to put out an EO saying the twenty five percent will not go through.
Yeah.
I mean, when I'm picking up are somewhat positive signals from both the Canadians and Mexicans in terms of how those conversations are going. However, it is very clear that what the President wants is a reduction in deaths related defentanyl and cooperation in terms of the border and border security.
And so what I think will likely play out over the next couple of days is a high pressure situation in which the President is asking both Canada and Mexico for more so that they could potentially announce on Tuesday or Monday night some sort of suspension for an additional thirty days or period of time. But you cannot fix these issues overnight. I think it's going to take several months, if not years, to resolve some of these core concerns
of the president. So my expectation is that best case scenario from the perspective of Canada and Mexico, we see another suspension that continues to get renewed periodically as these issues continue to be resolved. But I'm hopeful that there is that opportunity and.
Then Tuesday night, I'll have this joint addressed to Congress, so potentially he can go and say, look at all these concessions I got when it comes to immigration, which I was elected to really clean up. And that's the president's words when it comes to China. Is this additional ten percent real?
I think so.
I think so because I don't see scope for the United States and China to resolve the president's core fentanyl concerns between now and Tuesday. I see Canada and Mexico here, I see active negotiations. They have a representative from almost every agency and every province of their respective governments. Those conversations aren't happening between the United States and China. Rather, I think some of those conversations are going to happen after April.
That's when we've got.
The report on the Phase one compliance. We have the report on the Biden administration's eighteen billion dollars of additional tariffs, and we also have that report on China's IP practices that are all due to the President with recommendations. And that's what I think is going to tee up a broader conversation that also involves s fentanyl on some of these.
Other issues with China.
So China responded overnight, and this is what the Commerce Ministry said. If the US and system having its own way, China will counter with all necessary measures to defend its legitimate rights.
And then previously, though in February.
The response is we would take corresponding steps. So counter versus corresponding, what kind of reciprocal action could we see from Beijing.
Yeah, and I think you're seeing an uptick in the rhetoric in response from MOFCOM this time. I mean ten percent to twenty percent. You're doubling the tariff impact. I do think that both sides have interest in not driving the relationship off an economic cliff before those talks begin after April first. But that said, China's going to have to respond, and we've seen that play out for the
first four years of the Trump administration. I think we'll see that same pattern play out in these second four years, which is that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction on the side of China and the United States. So I do think we'll see retaliation. It could be more tariffs, it could be additional entities added to the Unreliable Entity list, the export controls, there could be a number of things that China does.
But again, I think it's going.
To be fairly moderate in terms of their response because there is an opportunity to resolve some of these things in the short term.
You were in the room.
So Phase one, the trade deal that Trump didn't trump one point zero, What do you think he wants this time?
Well, I think it's not as clear.
So during the first four years, what was clear to us as negotiators is that the President was looking for China to stop stealing US technology, stop engaging in unfair trading practices, and stop subsidizing industries at the impact of US exporters and third country markets. But what was challenging for US is the fact that China has a state directed economy and they're not going to back away from that. They're not going to stop doing some of these things
that are so impactful for the United States. And so it's not really clear what the President is going to
be asking of China this time. Certainly living up to Phase one, certainly help and cooperation on fentanyl, but beyond that, it's not clear what the acts are going to be on the administration side, and by the way, on China side as well, they're interested in the US backing off on export controls, potentially backing off on some of these national security measures, and I'm not sure there's really a runway there for both sides to land the plane.
If you in the administration now and you are at the table negotiating this. Does it help or hurt that there's a barrage of trade headlines every single day?
Well, I think this is just the way it is, right. I mean, President Trump, as you said, ran on immigration, you ran on inflation, you ran on tariffs. And so he's doing what he set out to do, and I think he.
Only has warriors to do it.
And so to the extent he's looking to fundamentally change the global trading system and enact some of these policies he's been talking about for decades, even before he was elected president, All of that has to happen quite quickly, and so that's what I think you're seeing play out. And that's why I think this is going to be a very full plate for the next several months.
When it comes to the April second tariffs, the Wall Street Journal this morning is saying administration officials are privately indicating that the full reciprocal action will take longer than April timeline to implement, up to six months or even more so, even if we get the direction of travel April first or second, When do you actually think the tariffs When it comes to the baseline reciprocal tariffs actually come.
Into play well, I think it depends how they want to structure this. Legally, the President has a number of statutory authorities which he can use to impose tariffs, and he can do a reciprocal tariff, baseline tariffs, products specific tariffs, supply chain tariffs, and he's talked about some of these over the past couple of weeks, and so he can do that through these Section two thirty two investigations like
we saw for copper just this week. He can do Section three oh one investigations, which is the type that he used for tariffing China during his first term, and these take several months, if not a year to complete. I think they can do them much faster than the statutory maximum of a year.
But that said, it's going to be up to the team as.
To how they want to structure some of these tariffs, and some of them will be overlapping because they'll involve not just like the entire economy of a country or a universal baseline style tariff, but also.
Very product specific tarists specific so it's going to be a very long list. All week, we've been talking about Canada Mexico, the United Kingdom, potentially a trade deal he's announced yesterday's going to be there, the European Union. What should be looking at next? Where do you think he's going to target next?
Well, I think he's starting with North America. It's very clear we have the largest trading relationships and trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, and I think China is going to be fast on the heels of North America.
But he's talked a lot about.
Europe and his plans for Europe over the past several weeks as well, and so in addition to the major trading partners that he's mentioned, the US Trade Representative issued a request for comments last week in which they specifically identified a number of countries that the administration is concerned about. Those include the G twenty economies as well as countries
with whom we have a large trade deficit. So I also have Vietnam on my list, I have South Korea, I have Japan, and I have India on my list as major priorities of the Trump administration throughout this first year.
Kelly, and thank you so much for joining us this morning.
You're insight so useful. Jonathan Kelly and Shaw.
There.
Andrew Homeholt of City is with us around a table to break down the economicator. Andrew, good morning to you. We'll get to inflation in just a moment. Let's start with personal income versus personal spending. Income up, spending down, what gifts.
Yeah, this is really interesting because we've had such strong personal spending that has been the engine of growth and resilience for the US economy, and now the month of January we're seeing that week. And we already knew some of that from the retail sales reading. We're seeing a
little bit more of that. And what we're seeing in personal spending this morning, I think you have to take that with all the positive data we've had for the last several months, but this could be the start of a slowing trend.
Soft data has been soft, you, Mitch on the consumer soft the conference board early this week week. I want to understand whether that is going to translate into weaker hard data. It's early to say that. Yes, we're seeing that right now with convention and confidence, but it's not what you forecasting.
We think we're going to see at least some slowing in consumer spending. I think you kind of have to, just because we've had the savings rate at such a low level and you can't just continue to run spending above income forever.
So it was always going to slow down. I think the question now is is it slowing a little bit more sharply?
And it is interesting what you mentioned because you see this across the soft data at the consumer service and then also that services PMI.
That was really the big surprise that that number.
Came below fifty, coming into contraction, and now we're seeing it in some of the hard data. Now, again, we had really strong consumer spending in December, so I don't think you want to make too.
Much of this weakness in January.
Maybe February we're going to go back and just continue expanding again. But if we get a week reading in February, then that is a trend, and that does line up with what you're seeing in the survey data. So a little more of a hint here that we're slowing down.
Yeah, it goes to this whole preemptive inflation anxiety. Is this the evidence of it right here that people are stockpiling more cash to earning more and they're spending that much less. You're saying it's too early to call that this time, but going.
Forward, we'll have to see.
You've been generally calling for a weakening in the economy even before some of this PIA. I'm curious, what are you looking at right now that gives fuel to that, even amid the otherwise pretty benign outlooks that we're hearing from companies.
I mean, if you think about the things that have supported this economy, and again it's been a consumer spending story, and it was the fiscal stimulus. It was equity prices that were up twenty percent year after year, it was house prices that were up much faster.
Than its typical.
And none of those things are happening now right The fiscal is coming off off, you have equity markets that are kind of moving more sideways. House prices are still increasing, but not increasing at those really rapid rates that they were before.
So all of.
Those tailwinds to growth are diminishing. So I'm not surprised that we're seeing some slowing now. To your point, are we seeing maybe somewhat of a sharper pullback because there's some uncertainty out there, but we could be seeing that.
I just think it's premature. To really say that.
We know that you were calling from many more cuts sat other people and talking about the generally weakening economy paired with real disinflation. And this has been something that's come under challenge recently from a policy overlay, that maybe some of the tariffs and the rejiggering of the global trade sphere would end up with a higher level of inflation more permanently in tyflation light like.
Situations.
How much do you lean into that, how much do you think that that is kind of what we may see.
There are no question that there's no question that there are concerns and there should be concerns about longer term structural inflation. If we're going to a more fragmented environment, that's just going to be more inflationary for the global economy. But what I'm really looking at right now is the cyclical story. What's the cyclical story that we're seeing in the US, and what we're seeing in those cyclical categories of inflation, things like shelter inflation we're just talking about
that's cool, then that's probably cool persistently. So I think that's part of what we're seeing in the market. Also, is not that necessarily we've reached where we're trying to get to, or the Fed's trying to get to on inflation. Soide that we're at two percent inflation, clearly we're not. We're a bit above that, but that pathway is there, and if there's less concern about inflation staying elevated, then concerns can shift to some of these growth concerns and it becomes.
A little bit less balanced.
And so I think we're still very early innings of that, but maybe that's what the market's doing a little bit.
Andrew, A lot of people are blaming the trade headlines, no doubt of Runmack. The argument made the case on this promegrame earlier this week that that was an ex post rationalization for a slowdown that's already starts it.
Would you agree with that?
I think so.
I think maybe in some of the consumer sentiment data you're seeing some of those trade related anxiety is reflected, so that can affect the soft data. But spending for the month of January, I really doubt that this is being affected by trade uncertainty.
You say it's a cyclical kind of weakening. At the same time, some people think that maybe the momentum is just moving away from services back to goods, and that you might see some of the weakness and services paired with some of the strength that we're seeing in the physical world.
Why do you reject that, I don't necessarily reject that. You do see that to some extent in some of the survey data and some of the diffusion indicies where you see this sub fifty services diffusion index, So maybe we're actually contracting in the services sector, whereas manufacturing diffusion industries have moved above fifty now, So you do see some of that in the data. But what I would say about manufacturing is number one, it's a smaller share
of the US economy than services. Services is going to be the more important driver. And number two, we still have high interest rates, we still have a strong dollar. Those are things that are going to weigh on manufacturing as well.
First, right, can give us the month May. Why May?
We think in May they'll see enough.
FED officials will have seen enough to conclude that inflation is slowing, that growth is slowing, and resolves some of the uncertainty around tariffs and trade. April second is the day when we're supposed to get some announcements.
It's March nineteenth. To snooze or not.
It is just probably a wait and see meeting.
Yeah, I don't know if I want to say snooze, because it's my job to make these things interesting.
But I'll be tuning in. I'm not sure a lot of others will.
We'll be here, Andrew Honjoso City. I hope others tune in as well. Michael Kushmer more Can Stanley joined just now for more Michael jumping into the city into the studio.
Good morning, sir, Good morning.
I mentioned BMP Parabah who said a few times earlier this month that the Federal Reserve was comfortably numb. How uncomfortable are they going to be in a few weeks time, it's.
Gonna well, they may be uncomfortable, but they'll have more information about exactly how serious the Trump administration is on using these tariffs.
Because we know that the use.
Of tariffs as multiple objectives. One is to extract other concessions on other issues. That one is to raise revenue to achieve their budgetary goals. So how those are balance and the inflationary impact versus the negative economic growth impact Juggling all those things, We're not sure how they're going to weigh those things in the fedest a way to see how they're going to judge.
Those go make some kind of underlying assumptions about how this is going to play out for the year ahead.
What's your base case? What's the baseline for me?
The base case is that in general macroeconomicist was just tariffs are stagflationaries, like a tax on the economy with like a supply shock, and it's not good at least in the short and the short term before longer term production adjustments can occur. So in some sense you would think this puts the FED in an uncomfortable position with stagflation and outcomes are ambiguous as to what you should do.
How big a negative impact will have an economy in the short term for a sound inflationary it will be. And if you think about the Trump administration's policies could
be there's positive things about it. There's negative things about it in terms of supply side, demand side, but the headlines in the short term are quite with the trend in spending and the economy a little weaker than expected in recently is putting this little more downward pressure, which makes I think maybe a little more nervous that maybe the next couple of months that the economy be softer that expected.
It's difficult to have conviction at a time. Whereas gold Min Sachs put it, you end up with headline roulette. How can you basically come up with any kind of conviction if you're dealing with potential threats that emerge that are unclear at different moments.
Do you have any conviction yet?
Well, the conviction has been that the underlying momentum of the US economy has been strong, but narrowly based on the buid administration. Was a lot of government spending. Tax policy driven a growth in the economy. Employment growth was strong, but inflation was high. We kind of knew what to do with that. The Fed would cut rates if inflation was low. And there's some signs of weakening the economy.
But going forward, these much more uncertain as to how the economy is going to play out, so you have to wait and see.
So we've adopted a more weight and see attitude.
We think credit markets are still pretty robust, corporate fundamentals are really strong. Could they deteriorate at the margin. It's possible, So we're a little leery of adding and taking big bets on in credit markets. But by the other hand, there's no these signs yet that the weakness we've seen. Late January and February were really weird months in terms of forest fire, forest fires in California, really cold weather. How this that was disruptive to a tariffs and Trump policy.
How disruptive that was two people's behavior. Headlines are certainly not very conducive to being confident about the future, with layoffs, falling spending, the reductions of government spending.
So what would it take for you to get bullish on long term bonds to actually think that this is going to be a growth impact.
It will have to see the unemployment rate change.
I think that's the FED has employment mandate and it has an inflation mandate, and the inflation situation was not great lately. But this could be better in the next couple months, or it could just go sideways. But the unemployment rate stays where it is, the Fed's going to find it tough to change policy from where we are today.
But we have seen big swings.
In FED attitudes towards policy in the last twelve months July and summer of last year, when inflation was going up for the first half of the year, the FED said maybe.
No rate cuts, rain with the year.
By September lots of rate cuts, and now maybe not so many rate cuts. I think they're very much in the thing. We don't don't trust our models. We're going to wait and see how actual data evolves. Data dependent, but they're seem to be very responsive to short term fluctuations in data, which have been fairly erratic.
We've seen risk markets, risk assets get hit a little bit over the last week or so. Is the FED put constraint given the risk that they face the two way risks that some people have described.
I think it's constrained from the point of of responding immediately to weakness and equities. If spending in the US economy know has been led by high the high income part of the distribution, and as we know, wealth effects have been very powerfully positive for high income people in terms of the equity market, the housing market, crypto markets, whatever you want to call it. It's all been up, up, up, So even if income growth hasn't been great, you feel wealthier.
You spend more money on.
Durable goods and holidays and things, things like that if that is starting to start to worry about that. And there's a story that the FED is indirectly targeting.
You know, the equity market.
The economy can't slow and inflation can slow unless the equity market does worse, because that will slow spending of high income people.
Does that help will hert the tenure?
It helps the ten ure?
I mean there is a story I've seen around that maybe you know, the Trump administration is not targeting you know, the S and P. As a measure of success is the tenure treasury. The lower it goes, the better.
So let's just use some scenario analysis next year. By the way, I'm turning into TK with my throat claim and I apolished this, you know, he said this, Tara is something one thing that leads to another. I am curious next week on March fourth, if their tariffs are put on, what happens to the tenure?
Does it rally or does it sell off?
I think it rallies.
Significantly.
I think that that I think.
The markets are more concerned with downside implications for growth than they were about upside inflation surprises.
What shifted from late last year till now?
I think it's the actual data that's been weakening prior to all this this tariff stuff, when people were not sure that the demonstration was serious about imposing terrors.
Well this is just a negotiating tactics of go away.
But data has actually been weakening into this environment. So it's the economy is more fragile, not for weak growth, but weaker growth. So you think US growth has been targeting artment toggling two and three percent, Well, if we fall below two percent, I think the said put starts becoming more operative again.
Michael Krishmer of Morgan Stanley loves to think about sir.
Thank you.
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