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. We'll begin with our top story, investors positioning for a potential second Trump term, James Athey of Marlbaret Investment Management, writing, this isn't it a bit keen to be positioning for the Trump trade four months before the election, six months before inauguration, and based on the twenty seventeen timeline around eighteen months before
the passing of legislation. James Jones is now for more so, James, do you think maybe this move is a little bit premature?
Yeah?
Either that, John, or really with sort of backward engineering and narrative to describe the move higher and treasury yields, I mean the timing with respect to this move higher in the odds of Trump being elected doesn't seem to tie up perfectly. It almost looked to me like maybe there was a bit of inventory overhang from dealers into and out of month end, and that's just precipitated and move higher and treasury yields led by the long end, and now we're starting to sort of engineer that into
being related to an increased chance of Trump's elections. So either way, for me, now is not the time to push hard on trades investment ideas which rely on Trump passing legislation. I think there's a lot of wood to chop before we get there.
So James, what should we rely on?
You said it's too early to position for a Trump presidency. You say there's nothing clear on the macro front either, So what should I focus on and what should I do?
No, exactly, And that's the difficult thing. I mean, the trade trend in the last six weeks or so has been a reversal of the trend which had preceded it, which is to say, we've had some upside surprises in economic data in Europe and the UK, and some downside surprises in the US, But broadly speaking, the US still feels like it's in a better place. You know, if you look traditionally at economic cycles, they don't turn on the consumer, they turn on business investment, and that then
precipitates through into higher unemployment and the consumer. In Europe and the UK, we are seeing that deterioration in investment data. In the US. Actually, we've seen that picking up of late and so it still looks to us that you should be more comfortable taking duration positions from an economic perspective. In Europe and the UK, we've already had one cut from the ECB. Yes, they got buyers remorse, but I think the data is going to give them cover to
continue cutting. Likewise, the bank when we get to August fed certainly more uncertain, but you're just getting paid that little bit more to take on that duration risk in the US, and so ultimately we still see that as being attractive because the direction of travel is cycle.
This is fascinating to me, this whole idea of market move in search of a narrative, which is something that we've seen consistently and the part of the reason why we've been playing you know, market ping pong or table tennis. With the respect of different narratives. What narrative do you paint end of cycle rate cutting, go into duration, probably more heavily in Europe, less so maybe in the US,
but still in the US, go into dollar assets. Is this basically the game plan that you've just been describing.
Yeah, ultimately, Lisa, it is. I mean, obviously, you know, what we're not trying to do is make some bold prognostication on the macro outlook and then vet the farm. You know, we're trying to think about the world probabilistically. We're trying to understand the various outcomes of the various scenarios, the various themes that are affect in market pricing, deduce what we think the market is assuming, and position ourselves
where it's most attractive, where the most asymmetry is. So the fact that you've got credit spreads as tight as they are and equities at the all time highs and
equity multiples looking very rich. Meanwhile, you've got yields broadly and particularly sort of five to ten year yields looking pretty attractive relative to the dynamics which are being described broadly by the economic data that as a starting proposition as an asset allocator that to us informs the idea that bonds, and particularly high quality, safe defensive government bonds are the more attractive medium term investment proposition.
Here, a lot of people are looking to the data that we get today, John just went through it, and then on Friday we get the non FORIGN payrolls report. A key question here has been how dependent is this market? How data dependent are people like yourself who don't know what macro compass to really use. What's the more important data to really be looking at in the slew of information that we get today and also on Friday.
Yeah, and therein lies the problem, Lisa, because the data that matters the most in our opinion ultimately is unemployment, the labor market in general. That is the spine of the economic cycle. That's exactly how you know, these sort of positive and negative drivers feed through the economy in a cyclical fashion. You know, the same dollar being spent multiple times, that cyclicality that's both good in the upswing
and then very negative in the downswing. And those changes largely happen because of changes to employment or changes to unemployment. But of course that's the most lagging of those major indicators and so it's difficult to make forecast based on that. So you have to use the forward looking data to try and inform a view and where the labor.
Market is heading.
And broadly speaking, this data has been telling us for a while and continues to tell us that things are softening, things are normalizing. And again, the nature of the economy means that that second derivative is incredibly important in trying to understand where a more medium trend is. So unless we see the jobs market picking up again, it still looks to us to be an economy which is losing speed.
James, we started this conversation and you were playing down the importance of politics in the United States. I just wonder how important the politics are, how relevant the elections are in the UK and France over the next several days, James, given that this list trust shark seems to have become a south imposed debt break across the continent, just how relevant is the politics?
Yeah, and I think that's a really important point.
John.
I would note the same that I think there's been a wake up moment for UK politicians in particular, and I think it's good politics from the labor Party to essentially shackle themselves to the kind of fiscal responsibility that the Tories were campaigning on from an electioneering perspective that new to the Tories. Their chances of winning became virtually zero at that point, and ultimately the lessons will live somewhat long in the memory, at least for the next
year or so, I would have thought. In Europe, it's almost constitutional. You have fiscal rules still within the European Union, conveniently ignored during the pandemic, but they're starting to hove interview again. Excessive deficit procedures certainly are going to be
part of the future. What that means for European politics, however, is less easy to say, because you have this right of the extremes who really are ultimately skeptical with respect to Europe and the power of the European Commission, and of course that could set some of these countries on a collision course with Brussels near term. Therefore, there is a lot of event risk. But actually in Europe medium term, I think there are more structural risks to bond market pricing.
So, in other words, by the dear treasuries.
In longer term, treasuries.
And political risk maybe a little bit less so over in euroregion, just because of some of these structural issues.
Is that right?
Well, certainly in the non core you know that Germany is the safe haven, that's the core rates market. We do not favor owning a lot of the spread risk here because we think there are a preponderance of downside risks and the market is not handicapping pricing those effectively at the moment. We'd like to see more spread before we'd be comfortable taking on some of those risks.
Hey, James, going to catch up, sir as always James Act of Marlborough Investment Management, Adam London, Thomas sim As, a Jeffries mart mccomack a tad Bank. With this amount of table, thomast I start with you. Lets talk about that, don't worry about that, okay, talk about jobless claims. What do you think is sort of normal and what's worthy of worry as we start to creep a little bit higher?
So normal is really hard to define, right, I mean, we've had many different states of normal in the last four years, and I think that on an almost daily basis, there's a new sort of remark of where normal is right, last few months, it seems like two hundred and thirty K is more or less normal, two twenty something like that. I think that that's probably a decent enough benchmark for the next few weeks at least, But as you get into the end of the year, we'll probably continue to
creep a little bit higher. Right. If you go from two thirty to two fifty or two sixty over the course of six months, that's actually exactly what the Fed wants, right. Like the whole thing with like the you know, the the some rule and these these inflection points and whatnot, is that this concept that economic data you know, goes down on an elevator up on an escalator, right, Like
there's momentum that becomes self reinforced. Sing If we in fact actually get this very gradual decline in you know, labor market pressure, I think that's actually quite a good outcome.
Okay, let's build on that a little bit more.
Because City were with us earlier and they said two sixties the dangers on for job as claims, they've got a different view on this. They just don't think that you stabilize at this lower level. You don't platt ou here that once this journey starts, it continues, right.
And I mean, you know, you look at eighty five plus years of labor market data and it supports that fact, right that when when things start to go wrong, they get wronger and wronger.
Right.
But the issue is, I think we have a very different set of demographics that you know, is not consistent with any other real, you know, labor market episode we've had in the economy before. Right, we have a shrinking prime age labor force as a percentage of the overall population. We're ten plus years into baby boomers retiring at a rate of about ten thousand people per day. We still have about six more years of that to go. So there,
you know, the labor market shortage. The scarcity became extremely acute after the pendemic was over. But that's not a temporary factor. That's actually a secular trend that's going to continue for years.
Malk Is it different this time?
I think what's important is really kind of considering the supply side of the economy as well along with the growth side. Like everyone is very focused on growth for the FED, but it's like we kind of drop the ball that inflation is still kind of the key metric and it's like what we do is we run strategies and we're trying to figure out what teams are driving the markets. Like everyone's talking about this, but this factor is what makes money, and no one's talking about that
anymore because it's not as interesting. But a key thing is is if you look at currencies, they are trading more on inflation than growth. And if you run back tests on data surprises, consensus revisions, data strength, those things aren't working. So while it's interesting to kind of work through the data and say this is important, this one's driving the FED, at the end of the day, what's going to drive the FED in the next three months
to September is inflation. So if inflation's hot next week, or if it's hot in the next month, or if it's one hot inflation report could kill the entire narrative that they will cut this year. So I think that's one of the important things to think about is what we tend to do from a market strategy point is kind of aggregate all the data, scale it compared to
different countries and which country looks better. Right now, it's still very clear that US is slowing, but it's slowing from a very hot level, but it's still good and it's still better than most of the rest of the world.
So I still think that's a key consideration that while we could move into this inflection point where we go from linear to nonlinear, and that's kind of how complex systems work, but if it is a linear slow down, you're just moving in a direction that markets are already prepared for an absolutely price for this year.
So you don't think that there's a point at which the labor market becomes a check on the ultimate read that you say is inflation.
If it's non linear, Yes, But I think the thing on the inflation side, as the drivers are coming from the supply side, demographics, geopolitics, the changing nature of technology, the pricing around those technologies. I think when you think about war and some of the things that we've had on the energy side, all the things that are happening on the supply side have been accelerating through the pandemic.
But these are things that start in twenty ten. You know, if we kind of look at all the you know, if we look at like what is happening with globalization and what is happening and how that impacts national sovereignty, and politics, those things are all moving in a direction. Even think about immigration trends. All these things are potential drags on the supply side that makes inflation stickier over time,
which has nothing to do with demand or growth. So I think those are things that are happening behind the background. The FED has no control over that they have to be cognitive of. And also in the next couple of months, we're going to see base effects also just push inflation higher just naturally from you know, the math of things
moving around. So those are considerations. I know the market is really focused on the growth story, but we're still like really focused on the inflation side for the dollar, for the market, and for the Fed.
Tom, Do you agree, yeah, more or less.
I mean, you know, I think that our views on the supply side are very similar.
You know.
I've kind of been trying to you know and again sort of assessing new normal, like looking at what consumption patterns are looking at like and kind of understanding this dichotomy of you know, has versus have nuts in the economy. You know, I think that there's probably some dynamic where you know, we focus all this consumption pattern recognition on you know, people traveling entertainment, all these things that are really you know, services that are enjoyed by hire income households.
Right.
A lot of that happens in the second half of the year, right, So like while we've seen growth slow down, we could just have all of that activity kind of concentrate in the second half, and then we'll see the kind of logjam of supply not really being able to meet demand in certain sectors.
Right.
I think that in the service sector that's going to be something that we see consistently over time again for many many years. Certainly you see it in the housing sector. I mean, like that's probably the best example. I think that a lot of folks who've been more sanguine on inflation have been expecting that we're going to get some
delivered disinflation from rent and the or and whatnot. We may get that for a short period of time, but at the end of the day, we're still very undersupplied with shelter, and I don't think that we're you know, you can consistently expect that that's going to be something that's relatively soft over time.
Less complicate things, and I mean really complicate things. The Anhansis of Goldman with this to say in Centro Portugal. I imagine this will get picked up everywhere on Wall Street and political circles.
Maybe much more so. This is what he had to say.
The Trump proposals coming from the Donald Trump campaign could raise the average US tariff rate by sixteen percentage points to nearly twenty percent, which would be the highest in the post war period. So that's sort of what their base case is, and this is what they think the implications are for monetary policy hawkish to the tune of one hundred and thirty basis points, because the large hawkish
inflation effect clearly outweighs the smaller dubbish growth effect. At Goldman, jan Hatzius is sort of modeling out the potential for something like five hikes from the FED based on policy from the Trump admin.
What's your reaction to that?
So my view has been that if the Fed were to have to hike again, they would have to hike something like five or six more times. Like one more hike wouldn't really do too much, right, If we're pricing in one hike, we should price in substantially more. I don't necessarily share the view that tariffs should be you know,
should generate that sort of reaction. Remember even in twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen, when Trump was initially putting on his big tariffs against China, you know, Yellen's reaction was like, hey, look, tariffs increase of price level once, but they don't create like an upward slope of prices, right, so it may be needed to kind of, you know, maybe offset one vector of inflation. But I would be a I would be very surprised that Trump actually did imply it, you know,
put in policy a tariff that was that high. And I would be equally surprised if a chair Pale would react that way.
Well, there's a lot of scenario analysis taking place right now, Mark work with us. Let's cite that is the assumption, and let's cite those policies that delivered.
Do you think that would be the reaction.
Well, yeah, that's a very spicy proposal. I think part of it is that it's again two sided, like you have lots of inflation and the other thing is is you are taking away growth. So we are in goldilocks right now. Our macro vall models are basically at the lowest levels we've seen through the cycle. Carry trade kind of incrementally blowing up here or there. But Carrie does struggle when you start.
To see volatility.
But a big piece of that is if you have like essentially growth being taken away from China and Europe and even parts of the US, and then you have higher inflation, you have the Fed responding to that. The initial move is a much stronger dollar. It is a complete decimation of goldilocks and a move into a higher all environment. So I think the markets are not prepared
for this at all. And I think that's again you come back to like what happened in the debate, and then you kind of look at we had the French elections over the weekend, which are important, but as soon as we got the Supreme Court ruling kind of coming out on Bloomberg dollar rallies. So we are like right back into the kind of silly season here where every headline related to a poll or who's happening? Is Trump leading? All these things are going to drive markets now at least,
if not through the summer September, it's on. So if we move into that direction, just the thought or the uncertainty of the Fed having to reverse course and actually start hiking again will be very bad for risk markets either way.
Tom, And this is something that we keep talking about. What does this mean in terms of what the neutral rate could potentially be, not just rate hikes, but just how far the FED can cut We were talking to Sneldasa, She's talking about four to four and a quarter percent. So even as we talk about the idea of a label market that's normalizing, there is a floor to how far they can go.
Do you agree with that?
I do.
Actually, it's more or less right around where I think the terminal rate is going to end up, probably sometime towards the end of twenty twenty six. I think that it's it's something that FED really needs to be very careful about. You know, we see more research coming out, for instance from John Williams at the New York FED just put out another paper this morning saying that, you know, he still doesn't think that our star has moved very much, you know, I mean, I have to give some difference
to him. He's spent probably more time than I've been alive studying this, so I can't really, you know, say that I know more than him.
But I.
Well, I d age myself like I like focus on me a little bit more so the so fun Yeah, yeah, I don't. I think that it's that easy to dismiss that we're in the old normal that you know, our star is still around two and a half percent. You know, it wasn't that long ago that the Fed still thought
it was, you know, quite a bit higher. So I think that if we do get, for instance, another wave of terariffs, it really lowers potential growth, and then I would be willing to entertain the fact that perhaps we are moving to a lower rate environment overall, because it's functionally like a tax, right, Like as much as it's oh it's you know, tariffs are on the exporting countries.
At the end of the day, it's paid by the consumer, and it's just a dead weight loss for them, right so they'll have to take that consumption out of something else. That just lowers the sort of dynamism of the economy, and I would think probably lowers the potential interest rates.
Mark Given all of this, why would anyone short the dollar? Why wouldn't everybody be as long as the dollars they possibly could?
Right now, that's my view.
I would agree. It's you have like just on the factors that we run. The dollar is ranked number one in our trading baskets on growth, on risk, correlations on inflation and carry, and so in this environment, like the one thing, if you look at correlations of the dollar to like risk models pre COVID, it wobbled, sometimes it was cyclical, sometimes it was a safe haven kind of moved around. Since the pandemic, that correlation has not gone below zero. So essentially, when we're risk off, the dollar
is the only safe haven. The end is no longer safe haven, Swiss ranks no longer safe haven. They are cyclical currencies. So I think in this environment, especially if we are focused on inflation or if we are focused on growth, the fact the other interesting thing is the only other places that offered yield are the places where everyone's been positioned in FX for two years. So you bought the commodity terms of trade story, you bought the emerging markets that were the sellers of those, they were
also the ones that offered the carry. But Latin America is no longer kind of immune from all of this, so I would say, yeah. The other thing is is the dollar represents at least sixty two percent more yield pickup than all the currencies that we track. So to me, this is a I wouldn't say a no brainer, because that's you know, kind of that's the last thing you should say. But I don't see the upside for the euro or G ten currencies in the second half of
the year. But I feel like this is broad dollar. It's not our v markets anymore. You should just be long with the dollar into the second half of the year.
Mar Ma Kilmacatini, Mark, good to see you, a longside Thomas Simon's of Jeffreesy major Biden donor Charles Myers of Signum Global Advisors writing this, I'm all in on Biden. His performance in the debate was weak, but his performance as president for three and a half years has been very strong. Charles and police to say, judge, just now for more. Child's great to catch up with you, sir.
As you know, for many people after Thursday night, it's not about the last three and a half years, it's about the next four and a half years.
And let's run with the Pelosi question.
How do we know that was just a bad episode and not just a condition.
Yeah, Look, I think the president and his team have a lot of work to do to get him out there, to show the American people that he is fit, that he is alert, and that he can not only run the rest of this campaign, but that he can govern the country for another four years. So you know, again, I think that they do have work to do. I think what Nancy said is absolutely accurate, and the things
are moving a little faster than I expected. I thought they'd have at least truth we were telling our clients that have two or three weeks of polling before they would have to make a decision. I thought, this is a personal opinion. I think they've got probably another five to six days. I think that things are moving much faster against the president and we'll see. But they are getting him out this weekend into the swing States, and we'll see how he does. On the ABC interview with Stepanopolis.
What do you think Chelsea needs to accomplish in those five days? What does he need to do?
I think he needs to be unscripted and show people that he is fully there and can make decisions interact with people. I was with him on Friday night in New York one on one at a big event, but then had about a three, three or four minute interaction with him one on one, he was very together, very alert, you know. So he needs to show that to the American people instead of this perception that has been lingering of him host debate of someone that is, you know, really out of it Charles.
Isn't the damage done given the fact that people are really questioning whether they're being told the truth, especially from some of his advisors. And you have a number of Democratic Congressmen, including one from Texas, now verbally saying that they hope he steps down. Does that mean that there already has been too much to shake his re election chances.
Yeah.
So I'd say a couple of things. One, the campaign expected polling, you know, to take a hit, and you know the puck stuff that was leaked. We you know, it was pretty damaging. But again, I think you need to see more than just one poll. You need to see a set of polls over a week or so and see if they can turn it around. But yes, I think a lot of damage was done. I'm fully on board with that, I understand it. So far, only one member of Congress, sitting member of Congress, has called
for him to step down. I do think that could be the next shoe to fall, though, meaning I'm you know, there's reporting this morning that there's potentially forty additional elected Democrats that are going to come out and call for him to step down. That is probably the most serious issue that in addition to further deterioration in polling, because once you've got you know, elected members of your own party asking you to step aside, it's hard to recover from that.
There's also a question of who potentially would take his place, and this has been one of the arguments from some people who are saying that, you know, he's the best shot, sort of to your point, because the other potential candidates, whether it's Kamala Harris, whether it's Gretchen Whitmore, whether it's Gavin Newsom, kind of pulls similarly in a head to
head matchup with Donald Trump. Do you feel like there is sufficient polling to really make that decision, given the fact that some of it isn't that extensive.
Pulling to make a decision on who should replace him or if anyone should replace him both, Okay, so yes, so on on you know, Plan B. Plan B is absolutely the vice president. I'm here to tell everybody that and that she may not be the favorite of every donor, you know most You know, a lot of donors come from financial services, and we tend to be a center
right industry. But you know, any notion that the White House, the DNC, or the Democratic Congressional leadership is just going to overlook the vice president and go to some other candidate or have an open, contested convention, I think is a misread of the situation. The whole point of the vice president is to step in in the case of death, incapacitation, resignation, or in this case, the president stepping aside, And I can tell you they're going to try to do everything
they can to avoid a contested convention. Given what happened in nineteen sixty eight, lbj's VP did ultimately win that nomination. He was so weakened they lost the White House to Richard Nixon. I think that if Biden steps aside, they will try to engineer it so the Kamala the vice president ultimately locks up the nomination.
At ChEls, I think it's worth pointing out to our audience that you're wearing two hats in this conversation, as both a donor and an individual running a global advisory firm, And forgive me for saying this, and I hope you take this to the spirit in which it's intended. When you said you had a five minute exchange with him, when it's behind closed doors and you tell people that his sharp coj and these are things we've heard a
million times. And then we all see him in public and not just Thursday night, for a length of time now and we see something else. And I just wonder how much tension there is between you as a donor and the opinion you offer on a program like this and the kind of advice that you've given too clients right now.
Yeah, so I'm giving you the same advice. You know, we've had a base case that Biden would win. We haven't changed that yet because he's still in the race and you know, Thursday was less than a week ago. So you know, at the firm, we don't whip our calls around. We want to, you know, try to look at data and make a good assessment. The reason we thought he would the reason we believe you would win
is he'd already beaten him once in twenty twenty. He's got powered the incumbency, and we think as a firm, we will see higher than average turnout by both women and the Democratic based women because of abortion rights and Democrats because Trump's on the ballot now. I think the race has changed fundamentally since Thursday night. Absolutely, we want to see if he's going to stay in the race
before we make any additional call from here. So I'm sitting here both as a donor watching this very closely, but also as the head of a firm that advises clients on what to do. I think it's hard to make a decision till we know to we have a little more clarity on what the president intends to do. And I think, as I said, we were telling clients yesterday on a call that we thought there was three weeks for the White House or for the Biden hairs campaign.
I think they got five or six days to make a decision.
Let's lean on the last just a little bit. Your position as an advisor, can we just lean on that a little bit more. I want to understand from your perspective, Traditionally the accumbent would have some advantages. I just wonder if it's actually a disadvantage for Biden. If you think about how twenty twenty played out. He got to make
this a referendum on the former president. This feels like a referendum on him, and not what he's delivered in three and a half years, but whether he can last four whether he can actually keep this job for that long. How do they change that?
Yeah, I think that's going to be the hardest part of the narrative to change, because I think up until Thursday, this in fact, had been still partly a referendum on the former president, on Trump, you know, as opposed to the sitting president. Now I think it's really a referendum on can the sitting president not only you know, campaign for the next four months, but Kenny serve for four more years. And relatedly, you know what if people think of the vice president. So again, I think in politics
everything is fair. The race changed fundamentally on Thursday night, And you know, as I said, I think we're going to find out in the next four to five days whether the president is still in this race. I don't think he's got three weeks.
The dam is breaking, as John said, when it looked when it comes to different Democratic Congress members, when it comes to advisors, when it comes to people who are starting to leak their feelings to a number of different outlets. Is the dam breaking within the inner circle of Joe Biden that we keep hearing about that keep saying keep going run.
So No, I'm not part of the inner circle, but I would from everything I'm seeing and picking up, is that. No, the inner circle, which is his family and his closest advisors and the campaign team who've been with him a very long time, still absolutely believe he should keep fighting. You know, again, this is a man who's dedicated his entire life to public service and reached the pinnacle of world power. To drop out after a really bad debate or a terrible stumble on the campaign trail, it would
be highly unlikely. By the way, I wouldn't advise any politician to drop out after that. You know, there's always a chance to turn things around in a campaign, and
they're trying very hard. It's just that, again, the pressure is building faster on him to drop out of the race, and I think that that's probably been a bit of a surprise of the campaign, and I think we will see more electeds coming out saying he needs to And the biggest risk in a way is his liability down ballot right with elected Democrats in vulnerable seats both in the House and the Senate, in really tough races. That's
where we're hearing. And I'm hearing the most pressure and much much more panic actually than amongst the donors.
I've got thirty seconds left on the clock, Childs, just to fit this in. Do you think people are underestimating Kamala Harris? It's almost becoming jesuit. Do you think she can win them?
Oh? Absolutely, Look, you know, Kamala Harris has three advantages. One, she'll be totally underestimated in politics. Having low expectations is one of the greatest advantages you could have. Secondly, she gets all the Biden Harris money, which is not able to be transferred to any other candidate, so she gets the war chest. She'll be very well funded. Third, look at her approve we're writing with Democrats eighty four percent.
She's much more popular within the president with young voters, She's very popular with black voters, and she'll help drive women turn out. By women, I think people will totally underestimate the Vice president. I put my money on her.
Let's do this against Sir Childs. Thank you, Sir Chiles. Master Signum Global. This is the Bloomberg Sevenants podcast, bring you the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics. 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.