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. Stephen Main, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, joins us now for more. Stephen, welcome back to the program, my friend. Let's talk about the President's message for House Republicans a little bit later this morning. What's top of mind?
Good morning, Thanks for having us.
Well, what's top of mind is the Council of Economic Advisors just published a paper it's available on our website talking about all the good stuff this tax bills are going to do.
It's going to boost GDP relatives.
Not passing the bill by about four point two to five point two percent is going to create seven million jobs and it's going to boost take home pay for a typical family of four by eight to thirteen thousand dollars. So these are really big effects relatives not passing the bill. It's imperative that we get this bill over the line.
Steve, though, when I'm talking to individuals in Congress and then reading your white paper, you have a fifteen percent corporate tax rate in your white paper right now that's not being discussed in Congress. Do you think the President is going to bring that issue forward today?
You know, I can't I can't prejudge the outcome of exactly what these talks will do, but that fifteen percent corporate rate on domestic manufacturing will help at the margin. But it's not the it's not the core of the proposal that you know. There were those numbers that I gave you will be pretty similar. If that doesn't make it into the final version, maybe it'll be a hair lower.
But you have to keep in mind, there's a lot of stuff going into this bill, and any single one of these, any single one of these measures isn't enough to sort of, you know, change those numbers a lot. Because all these measures to combine together to improve the investment opportunities in America, to encourage firms to invest in, encourage firms to bind to invest, new equipment, new factories, all the stuff.
There's a ton that's going into this bill, and that is why it's even so challenging for Speaker Johnson to get all these different factions on board. Something else you don't have in your paper, though, is what's going on in salt. Do you expect the salt cap to raise, say, thirty K forty K?
Yeah, so I do expect there to be salt relief. The President has expressed support for this, and I think the President will deliver salt relief to American households. I don't know exactly what the number will shake out, and as you know, you know, this is how negotiations happen. One side says what it wants, the other side says
what it wants. And the President is one of the best negotiators in history, and he's shown over a career spanning decades that he can forge hundreds of deals, and I think he'll forge another one right in front of us.
Now.
There is a good element in this that you're focusing on growth, and I do think that that is important. You can't cut too much.
You have to offer some sweeteners.
To keep growth going, to keep the revenue side of things going. I do wonder, though, how much of a constraint to debt side really is, given the fact that looks like things are getting a little yippie again in the bond market.
Thanks.
So, I'm so glad you mentioned that, because the truth is that we do have a plan for deficit reduction and we will deliver lower deficits. It just happens that some of those things fall outside of the scoring process. How CBO scores the bill because of the rules that Congress gave it. And so, for example, we're going to get better growth as a result of this bill, as a result of deregulation, as a result of the trade
deals we're negotiating. We get growth to three percent. That generates four trillion dollars additional revenues over the ten year win budget window above the CBO baseline. That doesn't go into the scoring process because CBO doesn't account for improvements and economic growth. We're going to bring in hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue through tariffs, right, that's another
point off the deficit. We're going to bring interest rates down through expanding the supply side of the economy, through more effective tax rates, through deregulation, through pushing the supply side out to meet the demand side, we get interest rates back to where they were pre COVID. That's another point off the deficit. And then there's cuts to waste, fraud, and abuse, some of which are in the bill, some of which are beingcomplished by those that's another fifty two
hundred basis points off the deficit worth of GDP. So I just gave you three to four percent of GDP off the deficit. None of it falls into the scoring system that the CBO is doing part of the yet the conversation is for some reason dominated by CBO.
Well, part of the reason why it's not being scored is because there are a lot of contingencies before you get to all of these realities. And I'll just pick out once, since we were talking about the bond market, the idea that yields go down as you increase the supply side of the economy, there's a pretty bumpy path
to get there. Do you have enough faith in that that you ignore USGG three thirty eight year index GP, that you ignore the thirty year yield, you ignore the ten year yield in the near term and just have faith that longer term it will work out.
Yees.
So, look, you know, we're still dealing with the lingering pressure, the lingering inflation pressures due to President Biden's reckless fiscal policies. But we are bringing those inflation pressures down through pushing out the supply side of the economy. We've had now three inflation reports in a row below expectations. Core inflation on an annual basis is running the lowest level since
March of twenty twenty one. And as we continue to control inflation, it will provide scope for interest rates to come down.
I have no doubt about that.
Well, Steve, you know, the American people are concerned about prices going up, the latest being Subaru. They're going to be increasing their vehicle prices citing quote market conditions aka concerns about what's going on with trade and tariffs. How can you say you're delivering on inflation when actually companies are warning that prices are going higher.
Yeah.
So, look, you know, imports are only fourteen percent of the economy. The ability of the ability of those types of things to really move the needle on inflation are limited, and what we saw in the tariffs in twenty eighteen
twenty nineteen was zero macroeconomic evidence of inflation. What we've seen so far since the tariffs have been in and don't forget, we've been introducing tariffs since day one of this administration, and what we've seen as tariffs have started to come up has been no real meaningful macroeconomic effect in inflation. And so while there can be volatility in the short run, I do believe that US importers have flexibility.
But where they get stuff from they can make stuff at hellme home, they can import from other countries that treat us better, that rate trade deals with US as opposed to countries that treat us worse, and that flexibility gives them leverage. That leverage allows them to force the burden of the tariffs on the other party on other countries. Now,
in the fullness of time, that'll happen. But in the short run, can there be volatility in prices and economic activity just as there were in financial markets, Yeah, it can happen, But over time we have the leverage and that will allow us to force the burden of the tariffs onto other countries.
When you think about tariffs, do you think they're going to be revenue raising or do you think that we're going to get deals so the revenue raising won't be as high. And do you have a number within the White House that you're discussing which how much you want to get in terms of revenue raises to offset this tax bill.
Sure?
So, first of all, what we've seen with some of the deals we've made so far is that there's still a ten percent tariff in place, and in the case of China, there's other tariffs too, the fentanyl tariffs, the tariffs from the first term as well, And so even if we strike deals, odds are will still be collecting some tariff revenue. But even if we end up bringing those tariff rates below or down to zero, you know
that means more economic activity. If we're writing deals because we're succeeding in opening foreign markets to our exports, allowing American firms to sell into foreign markets the way we allow foreign firms to sell into our market, that means more economic activity here because of more exports. And if there's more economic activity, more exports coming out of America going to foreign markets. That's more income that gets taxed at the personal level, at the corporate level, and that's
lots more revenue too. So either way you slice it, we get revenue from tariff's or we get revenue from higher GDP because we're selling more to other countries.
Sounds like when win Steven les Typer ends up that way. Steven Marin there the White House Council of Economic Advisors chair joining us now here in New York City, the former Wealth Bank President David mount Pass, David and Moonic good Mornington more than a decade of warnings August twenty eleven, Standard of Pause August twenty twenty three, Fitch May twenty twenty five. We've ignored them for the best part of a decade. Should we stop paying attention?
Absolutely?
The fiscal situation is a real mess. I've written about it that the spending is out of control. So the question is how do you bring control to a Washington that really wants to grow. You know, the lobbyists right now are in seventh heaven because of the complexity, and so you have this system that is able to borrow and tax like crazy, and so then Washington sees that and says we should just spend double whatever we can bring in, and that's what they're doing.
Now. Whose fault is that.
Everybody wants to point fingers at everybody else. I think we've got to see a fundamental change in the spending system. Does started that, and now this Reconciliation Bill is the extension of that and enactment into law. Notably, it includes regulatory reform, which is going to help a lot with growth.
But David until Washington sides to go and really look at Social Security. That's the biggest piece of the pie when it comes to spending. Really everything else is on the margins. Is this administration willing to go there?
I don't think so, and I don't think they should. I think you have to build credibility with the public. Why would you go after Social Security? People put their money into it, and they then retirement is a really important part of people's lives and their children's lives as they watch. Don't do that age be raised. I don't
think it's timely for that question to come on. You really have to show that you can cut some programs, downsize government, and set up a system where you actually make decisions so they're arguing about the fraud and waste in medicaid. I think that's a useful discussion of how can you get quite a bit of savings from a program that was expanded drastically.
You talk about how this administration has to have trust with the constituents. Well, President promised a number of policy provisions on the campaign trail, lifting the salt tax, which was capped under his first administration, making sure that things like he did say he doesn't really want to touch medicaid, definitely doesn't want to touch medicare. How do you build that trust if these are some of the issues that are on the chopping block.
I think by going to the hill and talking with members, but then also clear communication from the administration and from all around the country of people saying we want the government to stop spending so much money and then make decisions and start I've advocated start with small decisions and
then make them bigger and bigger. Sometimes I've talked about it that you need to make three major spending decisions per week all the way through twenty twenty five, and so I think they're doing that sum in this reconciliation bill.
It's really long.
I don't know if you've looked at the bill, but it's intensely complicated.
Well, you talk about that and how it's a daydream for a lot of lobbyists. I'm wondering if you speak to people in Washington, DC and get a sense of what kind of constraint bond yields are at a time where bond vigilantes are getting very excited.
I think that was the big issue at the beginning of the Clinton administration. You know, spending had been growing, and so so you had the idea that I want to be reincarnated as the bond market because it's so important. I do think we've changed a lot since then. For one, the FED is buying lots of bonds, so that changes
the dynamic in the bond market. The US economy is fundamentally really strong, and so I think we could have lower interest rates on the short end and the long end with if they could begin to think about the spending side and actually pull it down. So I'm not one that thinks there's so much a limit or a higher yield that we're that we're that we're going to have to see. I think more we have to see the growth come out of the regulatory changes.
I'm ashaw you advocate for monetizing the debt in some capacity, given the fact that the Fed is buying bonds, albeit at a slowing pace, and has been known to do that.
You know, I'm not a fan of qees. So since the beginning, I've said it was a shift in duration. The government was basically buying duration to cover up the lack of growth, and that took us from twenty ten all the way through twenty twenty one. So a giant problem, but that it's correctable. Is not a big step for the US FED to say it's going to downsize its portfolio.
That would reduce that problem. That's already going on in Europe. Look, the ECB is selling off its bond portfolio or reducing the size of its portfolio fast and it hasn't hurt their yields, and so I think that's a lesson. So that shouldn't be the issue right now. The issue is the Fed is huge, it's doing regulatory control, it's not
talking much about spending. It didn't talk during the Biden administration about the blowout and spending, and the interest rates as a result end up being higher than they should be. The models. You know, the models within the FED are not working at all. They're based on their fifty year old models, economic models of how the economy works, so that needs to be really rewritten.
It's been ridiculous for quite a while, running a six percent Lodget deficit, thank you, with unemployment close to four percent, just absolutely ridiculous.
And everybody knows that.
And then they say, well, my politicians should stand up and go after social Security. That's not really the answer to me. You've got to make suicide name programs that we don't need. The public will support that and then build on it, and there's some of that in the Reconciliation bill. It's good to have President Trump engaged on it.
David Mountpass is going to see you, sir, as always. As David said, the system is so large in Washington. You start to push against it, it pushes back pretty quickly.
That's the reason why we've seen year after year people say the same issue and never remedy it because it is political service.
Let's stick with the economy. Towson's slock Apollo writing, the list of headwinds is growing. The trade war is making products more expensive in Walmart, student loan payments and restarting, and the Moody's down grade is pushing up borrowing costs for consumers and for firms. Towson joins us now for more Torston, good morning. A lot to worry about, and FED official has just told us to take summer off, basically that they'll get back together in September. Consider what
to do. Do you think they need to do something before then?
I don't think they need to do a thing before, but I do think that the list of worries is indeed growing. It used to be the case for the last several months that we've been worrying mainly about the trade war. What is coming from the trade war, very importantly is what Jamie Diamond pointed out yesterday.
Name it.
Now we're going to see the negative effects of tariffs on earnings and therefore also on the economy. The yield budget LAP is quantified that the impact on GDP this year will be minus zero point seven. Normally GDP growth this too, So if I subtract minus zero point seven, that brings you so still one point three. That's not a recession, but it certainly something that will be pushing point rate up. In the same calculation by roughly half of percent.
His point. So the first thing is tariffs.
We are still waiting to see the actual effects of tariffs, both on earnings and on the economy. And the things that are being added now more recently is student loan payments are restarting, is beginning to hit people's credit scores. That's about nine million people now who potentially will have a hit to their credit scurse, and therefore we'll have challenges going out buying a house, going out buying a car, going out buying a wash on dryer.
And third, and finally the downgrade.
Yes, the market reaction yesterday may be more mild, and yes we did go from the US being hyper exceptional to just being exceptional. But it's certainly a risk with the fiscal discussion and in rates markets that we are also adding on to the layer in terms of the issues that we see.
The stress and the buyer now pay later dates as well, and you've seen that build for a number of months. The question I would ask, the brutal reality is low income workers haven't had a good run for a long long time. That's been true even when people came on this program and said the economy was good. Do you see the stress mind grasing up income levels at all?
That is exactly what's going on.
So your saw Klana yesterday say that they were reporting that buy Now, Pay Later was seeing more weakness among consumers, and the issue is exactly that it's migrating up towards middle income households. You're seeing this also more broadly in for example, in the housing data. The Santa weekly data for traffic for home builders is beginning to slow.
Down, and this spring selling season.
Has basically been much weaker than the spring selling season we've seen for the last few years. So also the weakness in the housing market is leading indicator telling you that the middle income consumer is also beginning to look monstrous.
So you don't.
Necessarily see recession, but this downside to growth that comes at a time of pricing pressure something that looks a bit like stagflation. And I wonder some people say, well, if it's not a recession, then it's pretty good. Is this actually a worst case scenario for risk assets because there isn't a very obvious reaction function from the fat reserve from policy makers to respond to the fundamental underlying weakness in consumers.
Exactly because inflation if that is now going up. We've heard all the stories from Walmart now super various. Of course, retailers are saying prices will be moving higher over the coming quarters.
That's what everyone expects.
This is a textbook definition of a trade will, namely higher prices because imports of containers that come in to Los Angeles.
Of course, things will become more expensive.
And that is exactly challenging the fed's room for maneuvering because they will have to keep rates higher for longer in response to almost no matter what growth is doing. If growth, of course gets into a deep recession, they
will be cutting. But if growth is just weakening, and that is the expectation from the contentus, that's what we're seeing in the data, then you will have this stackflation situation, which is very uncomfortable from a FED perspective because inflation higher for longer says the fetch you would be hiking, But growth slowing down says the fetch should be cutting.
So this becomes a question for the FED, do they like apples and oranges, Do they put more weight on inflation being high or do the more weight on growth slowing down?
Something that that John was talking about Jamie Diamond yesterday talking about this complacency in markets, particularly with risk assets, given the fact that yes, you have these tariffs, but you also have this kind of backdrop that does pressure the consumer. Do you think that risk assets really are not pricing in this type of backdrop at a time when you've seen big rebounds in this wake of any kind of selloffs.
I think the stock market is backward looking at the moment. The stock market is not taking.
Into account the fact that we have these three different folds that are now pushing the economy down. First of all, we have tariffs weighing on earning terrrists weighing on GDP, Terry's pushing you on Tornmada. We have also student loan problems that will hit people's ability to borrow. And finally,
we also had the movies downgrade. Yes, again, that might just be a thing in marguts where we said, oh this just went and came away, and well we suddenly no longer an issue, but it is certainly something that this conversation, the direction of travel when it comes to the fiscal discussion is only one way, namely that we will see that levels go up, and there's more and more discussion around what does that mean not only for rates but also.
For the dollar.
And note also, yes, by the way that the dollar went down even though rates went on a round trip, still telling you that there is something here to think about in terms of the bigger picture, not only in terms of what rates are doing. And where the dollar goes down, of course we get even more inflation and pressure, and that complicates the job for the faired even further.
Torstan, you keep talking about downside risks. Do you see any upside risk to policy proposals right now in Washington?
I do think that the stock markets focus on deals when it comes to trade deals. We do see, of course that there could be some good change, that we could get some deals of course over the coming weeks and months ahead. But the issue here is that the policy has already been implemented.
Let's not forget that.
That is, but average tariff rates went from in January three percent to now eighteen percent.
So that's a fairly dramatic shock.
Remember in twenty seventeen eighteen, from first term tariff rates went from two to three and now we went from three to eighteen. That's a very significant impact, which is exactly why this earning season gave this outcome that companies are having a hard time giving forward guidance. Companies are having, of course a lot of challenges. We're dealing with higher tariffs. That's why ford More Company had losses of one and
a half billion, Apple losses of nine hundred million. It really is significant how these coming motions of what will happen to earnings and GDP are not being priced in into markets at the moment.
In your office at your headquarters, on the calendar, what's circled, what dates which month?
So what's most important is back to when the square the circle is. To what you said without the FIT meeting, it is very important how the FIT communicates about this. So far, if i'm C members have said we have a weight and C mode, because it's fair to say John Williams said this, and Power also has been talking about this. It's fair to say, let's wait and see what the data actually is going to turn out like.
But if I turn on my Bloomberg excreing that side ECFC, go and look at what is the consensus expectation to inflation this year, it's going up.
What's the consensus expectations of GDP growth, it's going down.
As an investor, this should be the number one thing to look at when I do asset that location. So the answer to your question is the incoming data does it play out as the consensus and the textbook would predict, namely that inflation is going to go up and GDP is going to go down? And I would expect that is exactly what we're looking at.
Over the inflation short lived or persistent. They say they need time. New York Fed President John Williams said, maybe by September. Is that enough time to know whether it's one or not the other?
Well, hold on.
So there are two very important aspects of that. Bet Hammack said in a speech here two weeks ago at the HUA Institution that she is already seeing companies that are not impacted by tariffs also raising prices because competitors are raising prices. And the second thing, also, let's think about it the following. If it ends up being the case that you will have imports that are significantly lower, and therefore you will have less variety on the shelves, that means that I may not be able to buy
a white shirt and a right color. And if that's the case, then the price of all the shirts that are left will be going up. So that means that it's not only about this one time lift in changing the sticker and what is the price of my shirt, But it's also that if there is less variety, if there's less goods coming in, and if we're trying to avoid and prevent goods from.
Coming in, it will mean that the goods that are.
Left might see a more permanent increase in inflation.
So that's why this is not just.
A temporary feature in terms of thinking about inflation. It is something that potentially could have more longer lasting impact.
Just don't buy a gray shirt. Can't stand a gray shirt. You united that gray shirts? I just find no one makes a great shirt. Looks you are gray. No one makes a gray shirts. Not the tight color. Sometimes, just like white shirts look sharp, blue looks precisely, it looks dirty. Yeah, it looks like there we go.
I don't clean it shirt.
It's going to see of Apollo. Thank you, sir Misra of JP Morgan rites. And the tax cuts will get extended and the spending cuts won't likely happen. Physical term premium should rise more steeper curve higher cost of capital to create dispersion in growth and returns. Prayer's whether it's around the table, prayer, good morning. How much risk is in the so called risk free asset.
So it depends on what you define by risk credit risks. There is no credit risk. I mean the US issues and see we will pay back our debt. The duration risk, which is really a function of term premium or I don't want a bond geek out here, but risk premium that's much higher. So you're looking out the curve. There's a lot of risk in those ten y or thirty year bonds. We look at Japan, so I think if there's a global rise in rates, if we're ignoring, I mean, I think the whole mood is downgrade.
We knew about it. It was lagging.
I hear you.
But you know, in the words of Hemingway, you know, how do you go bankrupt? And not that I'm saying that the US is going bankrupt, but you know it's gradually and then suddenly, And I think we at that point where the market says, you know what we have
to look out for fiscal sustainability. Congress is not doing its bit, so the bond market has to force Congress to do its bit, and so I think that's why the long end is scary, because how high do rates have to go before the administration or Congress says, you know what, we don't have the political will, but the market's forcing our hand. I'm not sure what that level is. I don't think the bottom mark is very beautiful right now.
It's in the hippie state, so you know. That's why I think when you ask about risk, the long end has risk. The front end is being dragged with the long end. That's where I think there's opportunity because I think, I mean, we're trying to move away from trade, but we're still in that pause. Effective taraphrate is still high. There's uncertainty. I think the FED will be late, but at some point they're going to cut a lot, you know,
more aggressively when they start. So the front end, I like the long and that's where that risk comes in.
Let's unpack some of this. You use the important word global. It's global. What's making it global at the moment? So some of it is I.
Think US rates do tend to drive the rest of the world. I think there's some element of that we've seen it in other you look at the Taper tantrum, even when it's a US domestic issue, you do see that impact whose investors are global. But the other thing is the rest of the world. If the US is forcing the rest of the world to do more fiscal stimulus, either because of trade defense, you name which issue, you could have a lot more supply in the rest of
the world. And then if I'm a foreign investor I'm Japanese, I can look at the highest Japanese rate, or I can look at the US and say, you know what, I don't even know what's going to happen with the dollar. Maybe the dollar is gill obal valued. I'd rather hold the US. So I think when it's a global rate trise, it does tend to have more legs, which is why that to your risk question earlier, that risk in the long end is higher because this is a global bond
sell off, and I wouldn't fade that. I don't think there's a cross market trading. I think it's a steepener trade globally.
Well, just to build on that and something that Edyar Danny was talking about, how global bond vigilantes are grabbing their pitchforks and marching into the streets and pushing back against some of the fiscal stimulus and just some of the recklessness. Some people would say that these developed markets
have been with their budgets. How much does the risk if you will, really lie in the developed markets in a new way, its sovereign debt markets that totally upends investing logic of the past couple decades.
I think it is a developed market issue, and I think some of this goes back to if you see how much friskal still has happened during COVID, it was much more in the developer now was not.
As much in Europe. But we're going to get a lot more.
Defense spending, infrastructure spending. But the US spent a lot of money. Part of that exceptional story was the fact that we had significant fiscal expansion. And now I think the market's saying, you know, no, mask What I struggled with is risk assets are ignoring this.
So if things slow.
Down, we've just the FED is telling us actually very clearly that we're not going to be in there quickly. We might be constrained because of inflation risk. Now the fiscal site's telling you there may not be a lot of fiscal put either, So I think the risk asset complex is a little complacent. But to your point, I think the bond vigilantes are awake.
Do they take over?
I think it's a bit of a dance between the hard data and the bond vigilantes, and we have to see what who wins.
I keep thinking about it at your DNA, and he can't decide whether it's going to be a stock market melt up or a bond market meltdown. And it seems like the risks right now are the potential for ongoing growth, also with inflation and fiscal irresponsibility on one side. So the duration risk is the big one, or it becomes a growth scare and suddenly the credit risk becomes the
key component. Are you saying that the credit risk component, the growth scare is the one that we should prioritize, which will ultimately cure the other side, at least for most of the duration in terms of where the risk is perceived.
I think that's like the trillion llar question here. I mean, the hard data is going to be so muddied by front loading. Maybe there's still frontloading happening because we're in that pause period. We're in an uncertain period. I do think if I step back and look at fundamentals, I think we're slowing. We've taken that tail risk of recession off the table, but what is our base case below trend growth? And so I do think if you ask me to pick one, I would say the growth side
is likely to continue to weaken. We'll be looking at details.
To companies pass on.
I mean, this is a consumption tax ultimately, whether it's a corporates eat it or or consumers have to eat it, it's going to start to hurt demand.
So I think growth slows down.
But to your point, I don't think we can ignore if we get a bill and it's still not done. The Senate has to work. I mean, I'm focused on the Senate. They don't like even the Medicaid work requirements. So if you get salt, you get a lot more fiscal stimulus, and we realize it's all front loaded, then
I think you can get that long end. But there is a self limiting aspect to that long end, Like I don't know if it's four and a half five percent, I think every other market's going to pay attention to it. The economy is going to slow down because the long end is what actually drives the economy. So there's a limiting aspect. I just don't know if we're there yet.
And if the hard data remains muddied and all we get is the soft data hard data disconnect, you can get the front end being stuck and the long end taking over. I think that's the risk scenario, which is why you know it's nervous to be in the long end.
Think you're supposed to have.
Steepeners and if you own risk assets, you're supposed to buy that front end because that's the only place where you can have confidence that the FED can come in and somewhat control.
Preyermisra IF, JPMOK and Asset Management Prayer. Thank you. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing 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.