Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amerie Hordert. 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. We begin the sound with investors searching for direction in a pivotal year potentially for the Federal Reserve. FED Governor Stephen Myron doubling down on his dubvish starts calling for the Central Bank to cut interest rates by more than a percentage point in twenty twenty six. Governor Myron joins us. Now four more. Governor, good morning and happy new year.
Happy to here, Thanks for having me back.
It's good to see you've been very very transparent about where you were on the dot plot and what your forecast is. So let's start there. Where are you for this year? Wes you don't what are you looking fun.
Yeah, so I'm on surprisingly the lowest dot. I'm looking for about a point and a half of cuts. A lot of that is driven by my view of inflation. I gave a speech about this and you know, about a month ago in December Columbia University. My view is that almost all of the excess inflation over target is due to quirks of how we calculate inflation. So, as you have talked about with many of your guests many
times before, shelter inflation really really lags a lot. And because average tenant rents have caught up to new tenant rents, because market rents have been running at at one percent rate for a couple of years now, I think it's appropriate to sort of think about underlying inflation as abstracting from that a little bit. You know, the shelter inflation is indicative of a supply demand in balance from twenty twenty two to twenty twenty three, not twenty twenty seven.
We need to be making policy for twenty twenty seven because of policy lags. And there side of it is the portfolio management fees that I'm sure you've talked about again with many of your guests. Many times stock market went up mechanically inflation was higher despite many of your other guests, I'm sure no doubt telling you about fee compression and these asset management industry for decades, so you
was tracked from those two things. Underlying inflation is running a two point three percent that's with the noise of our target.
That sounds like an argument for neutral. You're making an argument though, for this year, for a combination. Where does that come from? Why are you looking for a combinative monetary policy? Stats coming out to Washington. Yeah, so a couple things.
First of all, as I just said, underlying inflation's running within noise of our target, and that's a good indication of where overall inflation is going to be going in the medium term. But then the unemployment rate is four point six percent, right, So that means that there's about a million Americans who don't have jobs, who could have jobs without causing unwanted inflation, without causing unwanted up, we're
pressure on inflation. I don't think it's right to tell those people that they shouldn't have jobs because we're just mechanically calculating inflation in some silly way. I just don't think that makes a lot of sense. The other thing is that because we've kept policy tighter than I think it ought to be, that makes me mark down our growth forecast for the future relative to where it should be.
And so if we didn't need if we hadn't kept been keeping policy in my view too tight over the last year or so, it wouldn't be necessary to provide that type just correctly.
You say marked down in the future, because they fat actually marked up GDP for twenty six What do you mean in the future.
No, So, like when you look at these dots right in the set, they're projections of appropriate policy, and projections of economic fundamentals like growth and inflation conditional upon appropriate policy. So my projections for growth and inflation are conditional upon getting my policy forecast right, my policy projection. If I don't get my policy projection because the rest of the committee is more hawkish than I am, then we wouldn't
meet my growth and inflation projections. We'd underperform them. And so because policy has been in my view too tight for the last year, that means that my expectations of growth will ultimately be will ultimately be unsatisfied because we didn't get the policy that I wanted.
You have GDP two point six percent roughly over the next few years. Are you saying that the appropriate growth rate is something like that two percent and two point six percent and not necessarily three percent.
Are above Well, so that's conditional upon getting upon getting the policy projection that I want, right, I think, and I think, and part of that is due part of the reason why it's a little bit lower than I think two point eight two point nine is probably where more where it would be if we got if we sort of had the great policy the entire time. Part of the reason it's a little bit lower than that is because we got to account for policy having been too tight over the last twelve months.
There's also a question about the reaction function.
You're talking about the data that we're going to be getting tomorrow.
What would you have to see to change your view?
I mean, if we saw, let's say, the unemployment rate go down to four point four percent, would you start to question whether one hundred and fifty basis points of cuts is really necessary this year?
That's a great question. And before I answer it, let me step back a foot and say that my forecast is conditional upon shelter inflation coming down right, And there's people who agree with me, by the way, like you look at the research from Goldman Sachs, you know, it's pretty similar to where I am on shelter. They've got shelter inflation running below the pre COVID rate by the end of the year, similar to where I have it.
Where I differ from a lot of my colleagues again, is thinking that goods inflation is not drive being driven by tariffs. Don'tee tariffs drive being driven by goods inflation. I see goods inflation. I'm not sure what driving I listed a few possibilities in the speech in December. I think the jury is still out on that one. But if I end up being right on inflation and gold
sorry on shelter. If I end up being right in shelter and Goldman ends up being read in shelter, and I end up being wrong on tariffs and everybody else is right on tariffs, then we're going to undershoot our target. Two sided risk is back, And I think that people haven't really internalized that yet. And I think it's important to appreciate that. Now, where would I be wrong? Because so much of my disinflation forecast is based upon shelter. I'm going to be wrong if market rents pick up again.
So you're saying this is all an inflation issue and not anything to do with the labor market.
Now, as I said before, unemployment is unemployment is somewhat above the somewhat above what where I view the natural rate, and so it's sixty basis points a million people you know of unnecessary unemployment that we could reduce by having a more appropriate policy.
Now it's Talisa's point.
Is there a line in the sand and the unemployment rate tomorrow that would maybe have you think about this a little bit differently? What if the unemployment rate drops down four point five percent or even four point four percent?
Yeah, I would absolutely add I would absolutely jus my projection. So if you look at the September step, right, I was fifty business points higher than I was in the December step. Part of the reason why I adjusted my dot down by fifty basis points is because the labor market didn't perform from my expectations that I had in September, and because inflation actually I performed to the downside, right, So it was appropriate to adjust my dot down and then on top of that, we had the two type
policies I described. So if the data come in a little bit better, yeah, of course I'm going to adjust my expectation.
In just the past few weeks, we've heard from a number of your colleagues talking about how actually they feel like we're pretty close to neutral. Have you made any inroads convincing them that they're not right about this the way you see the world.
You know, I can't, I can't speak for them, but you know, I think that every month we come in and the unemployment rate takes up a little bit, and the inflation, you know, the inflation data sort of seemed to be doing a little bit better. I think it's really difficult to argue that policy is neutral, especially when we've been on this course of gradual listening to the
labor market for a couple of years now. It's just really difficult in my mind to sort of argue that that that policy is not is not restricting the economy.
A couple of ways I want to pick, can yeah, and one is neutral and the other is correct. I think it's very difficult to say this is where I think neutral is, and this should be the correct policy rate, because it's such a guessing game as to where neutral is.
And I think you understand that.
Of course, I also want to pick up the difference between being an economist and being a policy maker. When you say two way risk, I think that really makes us all think about speed and the appropriate speed to adjust monetary policy when there risk two sided risk. Why do you think we should be going this fast this year in your mind to cut that aggressively in twenty twenty six.
Sure, so, same thing as I said in the lest few times I've been here. We're still materially above neutral in my mind, And there's not really a reason to be materially above neutral if the labor market isn't a weakening path and inflation is underlying inflation's already running close store target and on trajectory to hit it. To hit the target, there's just not a real reason to be
so restrictive. And we're running unnecessary risks on the labor market by being so restrictive, And so in my mind, it's like we're selling options for nothing, and I don't see why we're selling those options.
This just requires such a strong amount of conviction, though coming down to the pandemic. I think what we all lean was a massive degree of humidity because there were so many things that we thought were obvious that actually things just turned out to be completely the opposite. And I wonder if this year we should have the same
approach to monetary policy. As a monetary policy official, do you have to sit here and say, actually, the prudent way to do things is actually to move slowly and work things out meeting by meeting, because that's what I hear from other members of the committee, And I'm wondering why you see things so differently.
Sure, so, first of all, I'll say that I was right about inflation at coming out of the pandemic. And if you sort of go back to twenty twenty when I was in the Treasury Department, you know, we were arguing for a smaller stimulus package because we didn't see we didn't see COVID as a similar type of recession that we had POSTGFC, post dot com bubble, where you had persistently leveraging, dragging on demand that caused the balance
sheet recession with a persistent, slow, crappy recovery. Right, COVID was like a switch turned off. Right people stayed home and the switch turned on when they started going out again, and so there wasn't going to be a slow recovery. And that's why we were pushing for smaller stimulus packages, because we didn't think that it narrated that type of package. We were concerned about inflation picking up. So I did
get that. I did get that right, and I do understand the value of of being cautions and having humiliating these things. I will say my forecast, as I said before, is predicated upon shelter inflation, and shelter is a weird thing where market rents give us a window into measured into the path of measured inflation that's very different than
other sections of the inflation index. We know that market rents, a weighted average of single family and multi family market rents have been growing at a one percent rate for two years now. We know that average tenant rents have caught up to new tenant rents. Right, there are statistically mechanical relationships that give you a lot of confidence that measured shelter inflation is going to come down a lot. Right. You don't have that type of confidence when you're talking
about goods. I said before, I don't know what's driving goods inflation, right, I don't have this this forecast that goods inflation is going to is going to come down because it's just driven by tariffs that my colleagues seem to have. Right. I don't have that type of confidence on areas the index that I think are much more difficult to understand. Shelter is a mechanic thing from market rents to measured inflation, and therefore it's in my mind
appropriate to have that high degree of confidence. And to Leasa's point, where would I be wrong if the market rents pick up again? If the market rents pick up, then I'm going to say my mechanical pass through from market rents into measured shelter inflation is getting invalided, and we'll see that.
Just to hone in a little bit on the housing aspect, since that has been a really hot topic, how much signal would you take if you did start cutting more aggressively at the fetcher reserve and tenure yield rows and that actually created an issue for mortgage rates and the pass through there. It might actually help with the disinflation, but it might as exactly be the outcome that you're looking for.
Yeah, so this is an area where I where I'd want to have I'd want to not jump to conclusions because I want to sort of try and analyze it very carefully and think about what the market is saying, think about what the economy is doing. And if it's the case that you cut rates and you sort of get a burst of activity in some sector of the economy that's not housing and that ends up crowding out housing, then you know, you wouldn't really mind. You're focused on aggregates,
You're focused on inflation, very inflation, You're focused on er unemployment. Right. If it looks like you cut rates and the bottom market is giving you a very clear signal and I'm not just talking about like you know, trading behavior for a week. I'm talking about a very clear signal over the course of a period of time that it's not the right move, then I think, yeah, you want to you want to take that signal, and you want to think about what's the market telling me that I missed?
Is the market right? Am I wrong? Let me rethink my framework.
You're going to miss this.
When it's all over, it feels like you're enjoying this are you going to miss this when you have to leave the Federal Reserve?
Well, you know, Uh, that's not part of my forecast.
How are you going to hang around?
Oh?
I have no idea. You know, we'll see. I don't I don't make personal decisions.
Okay, you've had nothing at all from anybody.
Uh, you know, I think that you know, we're very clearly now getting into getting into the new year, and the president. You know, the President has said in the past that he would make announcements as we got there, So you know, I imagine we'll be getting some at some point. But you know, I don't know. I don't know anything about my future, so I would I wouldn't mind it.
Stay with us.
More Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this. We'll begin this hour with stocks continuing to pull back from all time high, seemshap of principal asset management seeing upside ahead, writing, widespread fiscal stimulus, monetary normalization, accelerating AI driven capex, and adoption are all factors that should underpin robust growth. SEEMA joint is now for more seeming there they kind of structure all big picture stories for the next twelve twenty four
months or so. Let's talk about the last twelve twenty four hours, Seema. We're pushing back on executive pay, on capital return. These are things you wouldn't typically associate with the United States, certainly wouldn't typically associate them with the Republican Party. As you sit there in London and your investors think about allocating capital to the United States, does it give you pause?
Well, Hi, John, I think it does to some extent. I mean, at any time that you have government into mention, it typically does put off investors, obviously by varying amounts. There are some things that he said there which I think they don't necessarily add up. I mean, in terms of putting off investors from corporate housing, you almost need them there to encourage greater supply, which would be your
best way of resolving afordability issues. And then even on the defense side, you know, trying to put off the investment is hardly going to be conducive to some of the things that he's saying. The other thing about this as well, is that coming into twenty twenty six, there's
obviously been a lot of optimism. One of the thing that's been non people's assumptions is that policy upheaval volatility is going to be a little bit less in what we had last year, And of course, as you said, the last for the eight hours suggests the exact opposite.
So I think that there's some things in here which may not have immediate impact, but cerddenly from an investor's standpoint, this is a moment of pause that maybe twenty twenty six is not going to be as smooth as a lot of people anticipated.
Well, let's just reflect on the last twelve months. So earnings have been great.
Payroll growth it's been absolutely terrible, and investors have been okay with that because earnings have been great and the equity market has been hitting all time highs. At the
same time, consumer sentiment has been rock bottom. Now, if you're a politician, to address the consumer sentiment issues, you might have to introduce policies that aren't going to be favorable for the kind of things that have driven us to all time highs and the equity market, the kind of things that are driven a long term bull market
in the United States. Se I mean, do we have to think about those issues a little bit more going into the midterms and beyond that for a whole generation of individuals that haven't participated in this run up in the equity market. They're voting for this stuff and they're going to keep voting for this stuff, and it's the kind of stuff that's not going to be favorable for risk assets.
It is, I think it's you know, some of those pockets. So it's a question of how much does it impact the aggregate. So you know, as you said to your point, affordability is going to be the buzzword. It has been for the last month or two, it's likely to continue. How could we see that playing out, Well, there's obviously the couple of policies around a dividend. There's also the idea about maybe potentially lowering some of the tariffs that
are impacting some of the lowing hassles the most. Now, those things ideally if we think about think that through if they can get passed, and that would suggest that you could see some upside for consumer discretionary. But ultimately, because of the case show, but mainly because the top ten percent really do it count thro around half of you as consumer spending, it doesn't necessarily move the needle.
What we want to see is a constructive and can back up where Ernie's can continue to do well, and it's important that those policies, and at the moment it doesn't look like it will be, but it doesn't as long as those policies are not going to be impacting the Ernie's growth for a lot of these companies that we're focusing on.
This is the reason why I see that so many people have looked past some of the volatility and at least headlines coming from Washington, DC. There is one aspect though that has remained relatively unnoticed, at least with respect to bond markets, and that is that you can expect an expansion of the fiscal deficit, possibly quite considerably, especially if anything even close to what the President is proposing relating to the government relating to the military comes to pass.
Why do you think that's not shaking up fixed income markets in any material way.
Well, I think at the moment, one of the considerations is a lot of this won't get past your Congress. So there's enough I wouldn't say fiscal discipline or considerable concern, but there's enough of a pushback that a lot of this won't come to pass.
But I think that you're absolutely right.
And saying that this is a key risk. When we're looking at the acuity market, we feel pretty positive about the macro backdrop and earnings. The one caveat to this so or is that bond deals have to stay fairly well behaved. You cannot see a very significant sell off against this backdrop. I mean, ultimately for this year, what we're expecting is that earnings or is it equity returns
won't be driven by multiple expansions. They have to come from earnings, and any significant increase in interest rates bond deals could be a real hurdle for the expectations of I guess low double digit returns that we have.
Well, I guess to build on that.
We've just seen the fastest start to a year for corporate and government bond issue is ever. We have seen two one hundred and sixty billion dollars worth of sales from these entities over just the first few trading days.
And I just wonder at what point you start to get.
Real pushback from debt markets that are saying, what are we funding exactly? Is there sort of a blank check that we're offering to governments and corporations to just build to nowhere?
You know, coming into twenty twenty. See, if I think everyone's you know, concerned about the debtload doesn't have been so many many years, and the assumption has been that twenty twenty six is not the year when this is going to come to a head.
As long as the macro is.
Okay, as long as the economy is doing okay the fairdest cutting rates, then this is something the issues is something that companies can continue to absorb. But of course there is a time limit to that. Now we don't know when that's going to be. But at least just looking at the economics behind everything which is driving the market, we do feel fairly sanguine about that. We're hoping it's a twenty twenty seven story, not a twenty sixth story.
As a global strategy, when you see what the president is doing, the state intervention really in full swing when it comes to the United States right now. Do you expect this to be a theme this year for more industries, not just ones that are critical for national security?
Well, I think that interventionist is as you said, it's not just it potentially isn't about just national security. I think, as I said before, I think affordability is really key, which is why we're hearing so much about housing. Maybe intervention in or at least pushing back from companies ort least stopping them from passing on some of the tap increases.
I think those are all things that we could anticipate for twenty twenty six, and I think as an Internet for investor, one of the things that we do here in Europe and across Asia is these concerns about the US outlook. Is one of the reasons why you are seeing this global diversification trade just gaining more and more momentum. People really starting to look outside of the US and also recognizing the fundamental strengths that exist in other countries.
I don't think that we're looking.
At a kind of a flood of movement away from the US, but I think it does just add to the attractiveness for other markets.
How seriously do you take some of the President's statements, because I'm thinking of just housing itself. He even said I will call on Congress to codify it. This has to be legislation that goes through the House of Representatives and the Senate, not policy by truth.
Yeah, you don't have to take everything with a pinch of sol and I think the reason that we're not seeing the bond market react is because there is this belief that it's not going to get through Congress. So these are very popular words. Some of it, Inepoli, I think will trickle through, but we're not expecting an avalanche of policy moves, but a lot of policy rettroc should be expected ahead of the midterms.
Stay with us more Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this. The polit Global Management president Jim soeuter right in the following twenty six US outlook is consistent with a stagflation re environment, and we expect interest rates to be higher for longer.
Jim joins US now for more. Jim go Mornic, Good morning, John.
How are you happy.
I'm well, it's good to see you.
I want to pick up on this headline from our friends over the ft in the last month, Apollo's cutting risk and still piling cash.
Is that true? What do you guys have to well?
I would say that we've always been known as a discipline investor. We talk about purchase price matter as we talk about alignment with our investors, and I think that what that statement is is really about the gauntlet for approving investments that Apollo has gotten higher and higher over the last year or so. As we see an environment
that down the fairwee I'll use a golf analogy. Down the fairway, you've got a lot of great things going on, you know, massive capex cycle, good economic growth, consumer and solid shape, a variety of great attributes. That being said, the rough where there's lots of challenges between geopolitics, between the concern about inflation, between the concern about the return of invested capital and AI there's a variety of left
hail items that have certain grown in stature. As I listened to some of the macro commentary here, I think there's a great deal of humility about the macro view of how the predictions. As I meant, I've said here many times. We sat here after SVB, we all thought massive capital slow down and spending and credit crisis. The US economy really was massively resilient. You guys talked earlier about what's going on with the deficit. I think it's a little bit it's the economy stupid. The US economy.
People just don't want to shorten the great momentum of what's going on, and we have an administration. It's very politically savvy about populist topics. He's been very responsive. But again this back to us, back to the question you had.
We're putting money to work. This week was a busy week.
We announced six billion of deals of transactions, all great companies. Again, we're leaning into larger companies that are part of the global industrial renaissance. One with that Brad Jacobs of forty to thirty five year winner in the building product space. The second one with Russell Investments really simplifying their capital structure. And then the last transaction was very interesting. Actually it
was for veilor Xai. It was really a sale lease back on a massive amount five billion of Nvidia chips. So all three really interesting transactions, but really well structured downside risk, and I think that's our view right now. We want to be investing capital. But you've got to acknowledge you can wake up on a Saturday morning and see us with activities around the globe that really enhances
the tail risk of geopolitics. You can get a stroke of the pen announcement yesterday with regard to housing, and so I think you have to be very very careful about how you invest long term at scale.
To extend the analogy, though, to your point, the fair way is getting narrower, the rough is getting deeper. In the last few years it has not been that way. Allocate to risk and you'll perform. You'll do well world. It's like a tougher environment. The analogy for golf. For those who play a lot of golf, it's worth the US Open. US Open is known for tight fairways and really punitive rough and if you cape in the faaraway, you're going to be a great victor and you're going
to have great success. I think there's going to be as last year will remind us you can have some bumps in the road during the course of the year. That definitely changed the trajectory on liquidity, on momentum, on risk appetite. So but I think the long term trend is quite positive. But I do think you have to be very measured about how you execute your business model.
So if that's the US Cup, do you go to the Ryder Cup just.
You know, I mean the idea, do you stand your I google that evidently I bombed it on it.
I'm curious if you go overseas, you know, because to differs fy away from the United States.
We've been We've been i would say two account that we've been very vocal and I've been vocaling on this program about Europe. You know, we we when you look at the needs of governments around the globe, especially in Europe, in Germany in particular, and some more so in the UK, the government does demand for capital far aways their ability to participate, and so we want to be part of that renaissance and that part of the globe in places
like Japan and Australia. We want to be part of the retirement solutions and some of the global industrial renaissance with a changing banking system. We're not a broadly speaking, a developing an emerging markets investor. So while we have a view on what's going on in Latin America today, that's a negligible part of our capital. That's just not what we do. We're really a G seven and larger economy investor.
So you were talking about how you're getting more conservative. Corporations and governments are attacking the market at a record pace so far this year, about two hundred and sixty billion dollars of bond issuance from governments and corporations around the world have been issued the fastest pace ever. Is this because there is a lot of optimism out there or is this because they see a small window that could close and they want to get in.
I don't think it's a small when when you look at the numbers that have been put out by the large financial institutions, the big banks about net issuance in the IG market, it's north of like it's anywhere from eight hundred billion to a trillion two net issuance, which is one of the largest numbers in the last ten to fifteen years. Same can be said in the high yield and the leverage loan market, the net issuance is
going to be quite high. So with real rates and real yields fairly high in a historic basis, with a variety of pensioners and investors around the globe looking for long duration yield, it's a pretty powerful mix of supply and demand in terms of taking that overhang, if you will. I think one of the big questions is does the equity New issue IPO calendar actually come to fruition. And the second thing that people aren't talking about is where oil is right now. It's very deflationary if it were
to stay at these levels or even go lower. Again, we're talking about all the things that can go wrong. I'm a credit guy. You know, bonds don't go to two hundred, they go to zero. I'm cautious by definition, but you know, in oil at these levels on WTI at fifty six fifty seven, and that's very deflationary and very positive for economic growth. So you know, again, I think that there's a variety of balancing acts here going on.
But you know, to John's first question, I would say that we think that there's a variety of issues that one needs to deal with, but at the same time, you want to be putting money to work in large scale. Now, if you look at the traditional high yield market, the triple CLBO buyout, that activity is just not happening in scale anymore. It's being funded in private credit, which I'm sure we'll talk about because of our big white paper
in December. But at the end of the day, it's really about credit and the ability for this IPO calendar to come to.
We're shield on some of this gym because I can tell you sort of openly and honestly what I've struggled with I don't know what to look at anymore.
Payrolls has been a bit of a head fake.
In the last twelve months, we've seen a real deceleration in payrolls growth, but it's not been relevant to the performance of risk ansets more broadly, something that you and the team have talked about for a number of years now. When we saw interest rates go to four pushing five percent, Lisa and I were talking about this for the best part of twelve months. How on earth is this economy going to deal with four to five percent interest rates?
And we dealt with that just about Okay, what should we be focused?
I think, you know, I think to answer that question, it's really we talk about the changing backdrop of market structure. The reality is in the US today, it's been an extended credit cycle. It's harder to have a real economic recession because of the diversity of funding across the board. We have the healthiest banks and the globe. We have a securitization market that's alive and well in record size of issuance. That disperses a lot of risk around the economy.
In terms of balance sheets, you have a consumer in pretty good shape. You have a housing market where forty percent of folks don't have a mortgage. I'm not saying we're not going to have an economic cycle. We will have an economic cycle, we will have a credit cycle. But if the post SVB environment is any lesson to us all because of the advances and the evolution of the US economy since the GFC, it's a lot harder to push over this machine than it had been in
the past. The transmission mechanism of the FED that used to be instantaneous is not what it used to be. We saw it in the last two years with housing in the US because of the thirty year mortgage concept or the lack of a mortgage versus countries like the UK where most folks are on a five or seven year floating rate mortgage. That has an immediate impact on the breaks of the consumer and the economy, not the
case in the US. So the strength, the breadth of market structure, how companies finance, the role of banking, the ability for FED, the FED to actually have that transmission mechanism of raising rais and slung the economy down.
It's not what it used to be. It's not your father's economists.
This is the Bloomberg Survendance podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, antient 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 Out