Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Ameri 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. Tag. Concerns continue to
weigh on equity markets worldwide. Alisha Levine of B and Y Walth writing, we do not anticipate macro downside and so expect the markets rally into year end. The risk is to the upside from here. Alisa joins us now for more. Alisha Gimnic good Morning said that last time, what's gone wrong in the last few weeks?
Well, I don't think get anything's gone wrong yet. I mean, if you think about it, the SMP is off about five percent. Really it's the text that took the hit. But what's interesting we talked about how how the multiple was in the SMP at twenty three times, we're now at twenty one times, so the market's done a little bit of work here to take some of the froth out. In the end, we're always looking forward for our client portfolios twelve to eighteen months forward. We think this will
be a biable moment where it ends. There's going to be. As you said, the next twenty four hours gets to all the issues, gets to the earnings, the spending, the depreciation issue on how the P and L is being managed for all these tech companies, which has come up in the last week, as well as what's happening with the labor market as well as what's happening.
With the lower end consumer.
So you're getting all these issues answered in twenty four hours. And I just think that market participants did not want to carry risk into this. It's just too big because you are getting the macro story as well as like the micro of what's going on with this particular trade that has driven the market for the last eighteen months.
So ly should have to unpack some of that. So we've got a big morning tomorrow Walmart, and we've got jobs as well, so that should give you some indication. A little bit at least of what the FED might do next month. I want to sit on Nvidia as a company and as a stock. As a company, the earning should be pretty good because we've heard from their biggest customers, and their biggest customers want to spend more and keep spending more. So I've got that sorted as
a stock. There's an attitude shift that's developed in this market. The things we used to rally on we don't rally on anymore. What's behind that and why do you see it change?
It? Look the big.
Difference here, and you know, I can't talk about particular companies, but this is a theoretic.
This is, you know, the entire market, it's the entire market itself.
Is that the debt financing versus financing from equity or financing from cash flow is the biggest change, and it does introduce a different risk metric. So to me, it does make sense that you're bringing the multiples in a little bit simply because if you're debt financing, that is a different kettle of fish. In the end, we've talked about how the margins are so high, how the cash flow margins are so high, particularly for the sector that
it's able to sustain higher multiples. If that is the case, that in this new world, you're going to compress some multiples here if there's debt financing.
So that's the big the big change here.
The tech sector as a standalone has already dropped two turns of multiple as well, from thirty one times to twenty nine times.
So there's been a lot of work done here. I think it's a reset because I think we're in early innings of this.
I also think it's healthy that there are larger questions asked as we look forward. We expect consumer stimulus coming from the tax code February March and aprils refunds to households, the lower end households. I think you're getting going to get a broadening out here in part because of the questions about how this money is actually getting spent. And in the end, as we know from twenty five years ago,
there are winners and losers. We've not asked ourselves that question as a mark get as a market, and it's almost impossible to know.
It's impossible to know.
So, you know, the companies that are the behemoths today were like you know, a gleam in an eye of some college kid in a basement, you know, back in the late nineties. So that is it's hard to know how this is going to get monetized.
But the questions are being asked. I think the questions are good questions.
You don't want a straight upward move in the market, so this, I think is healthier.
Although as an investor, if we're in the early stages, how do you pick the winners for even the mid stages? Right? And it sort of goes to the heart of do you just honker down with the big tech names that are the big tech names today and generating cash, or do you bet on the evolution of AI to the rest of the index the idea of other potential winners in this potential race.
Well, I think part of what we're seeing here is that evolution from sort of the picks and shovels and the direct beneficiaries to implementation into business strategy. And you're starting to see it in some of the industrials, and you're even starting to see it in the hyperscalers. Like if you just look at some of the revenue per employee for some of the hyperscalers, it's gone remarkably higher since chat GPT was released, so there is already implementation.
The market is going to start picking the winners and losers in the other four.
Ninety three and that's what we're going to see.
That is a healthier place to be if you're changing your business model. What we know is that the overall margin for the SMP continues to march higher separate from the top seven stocks. That means productivity is increasing, and it's likely because there is AI being used across the value chain in many many companies, whether if there's data as part of the company, it's being used.
One thing that people keep saying is that all this is predicated on enough energy to power, and increasingly a lot of the hyper scalers are realizing, oh no, we don't have that, so we have to come up with a backdoor way off the grid to try to power our sites. I just wonder at what point you can invest in the energy sector or whether it's hamstrung between policy and politics between Saudi Arabia and pros Trump the potential agreements on oil.
Right, so look, there are no accidents here, right, I mean, I think that part of the new administration, well that's not new anymore. But part of the Trump administration's policy was to keep a lid on energy prices, and that is exactly what's happened. We're sending it sixty dollars on WTI, sixty four on Brent. That's exactly what the policy has been. And I think it's no surprise that bring energy down
to drive all of the innovation. In the end, it is a competition with our adversaries out there, and so this is part of the plan. There will be questions asked along the way. You know, you know, the expression is wiser but sadder, but wiser. We are wiser about technological innovation than twenty five years ago. We understand there are bumps along the way. What I see is a remarkably resilient corporate sector. The productivity is going across all sectors.
We will see it. The margins are higher, and.
So we can ask questions about financing on the top seven in stocks. We got four ninety three that can also power the market. And I think we you know, as a business, we are raising our earnings estimates for next year and for the following year into this.
So we believe in the productivity. We see it. We see it in earnings estimates.
Yes, some textors are coming down, like communications services because of the spending of some of the hyperscalers, But overall we're raising estimates.
You think is some scarring from dot com that the issues that we saw then have conditioned a certain companies.
One hundred percent the way we've had scarring from GFC, right, like they're scarring there about. You know, is this a bubble while we're up one hundred percent? It's not a great colleague of mind sent me a bunch of charts on like what previous bubbles look like. We're just like a tiny little speck, you know, right the appreciation in the market and the particular companies at the at the heart of this are actually exhibiting a shallow.
Rise in compared to what we know. Oh, we're bubbles in the past.
We think we're actually early to mid innings of this, and there's a way to go. The fact that the market appreciated for six months in a row, seven percent in the third quarter and we're quivering over a five percent down George just tells you how great a year it's been. And you know, there was broadening out and I think, look, we have to get the FED question also, like is the FED going to cut?
I think the chair has been very careful.
To keep the probabilities at fifty to fifty, even though we've had hawkish comments. The market's not pricing in anything less than fifty to fifty on the chances of a cut, and that's done for a reason, because they want optionality to cut.
Let's finish on this. What's a good number tomorrow morning? On paying rows? I can tink you the estimate in our survey it's fifty four. What's a good number for this month?
I think anything over fifty is fine, right because the three month rolling average is twenty nine and that's pretty awful. So anything that pulls so I think fifty is fine. That will change the probability whether we get a cut or not. Also in December, I think overall, you'd rather see a stronger economy in a better labor market, so I think that's important. I think in Nvidia, you know, we'll have to see what the earnings are, but like you said, the hyperscalers are spending, so that's.
I think more knowable than not.
And then ultimately, for the largest retailer on Earth, you know, half of the American population is a customer. So we'll see what half of America is doing and the.
Other half things that group one of the airport. That's the US economy right now. Alicia Levin of bm myy Wath, Alicia, thank you, stay with us. More Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this. Let's turn to the labor market, data, invest design, the long delay September job support you tomorrow. Francis Donald of NBC writing, we think fourth quarter to day too will likely add more confusion than clarity. Francis joins is
now for more. Francis, welcome to the program. If we're going to be more confused than clarified, what does that mean for that decision on December tenth.
Well, it means the Federal Reserve is going to be more confused and clarified, and the Federal Reserve, just like markets and economists, are going to have to think a little bit further out into what Q one and Q two are going to look like. And probably that tells us that employment will become slightly more problematic, not dramatically,
and inflation will continue to rise. It's a continuation of that stagflation light type of environment, and even if we have a bit of a whole here in a couple months of data looking through, our view is still the same, which is growth is going to be slightly below comfort level and inflation is going to be slightly above and that will be the situation that this federal reserve and future federal reserves will likely continue to have.
To deal with.
What are you looking at to confirm that view?
We know that September data is going to be backward looking, yes, we get that. Tomorrow. We know that October data is going to be mundy at best, confusing at worst, and potentially might even distort the picture further because of the government shutdown, and it's unclear what CPI data we're going to be getting. So what are your benchmark rights benchmarks?
Right now?
You know, we definitely have enough on the job side from a variety of private sector data in order to give us a sense of the momentum.
Do we know the exact.
Level, No, but we know it's sort of soft, stabilizing enough to bring us towards our forecast to an unemployment rate of about four to six later into twenty twenty six, So that in and of itself we can see the big problem is on the inflation side. That's where we
have really minimal perspective. We don't have the ability to see much of what happened in October, and we're probably not going to get full clarity on what that level looks like until early in January, and actually you don't even get the January data until February of that month. But I think one of the stories here is that we get so obsessed with month over month data. Is if we need to see what happened last month or three weeks ago to know the trend of the and
the truth is we don't. We actually have the ability to map out over an extended period of time. That's why economists have one year or five year forecasts, because if we know the direction, we can make various assumptions. And our assumption is that we have not seen the
inflationary impact of tariffs as of yet. We are still drawing down on inventories in the United States, and we're likely only going to start seeing that real pressure on inflation in early twenty twenty six and in the middle of twenty twenty six going forward, So we can maintain those assumptions even if we don't have week to week, maybe obsession over what the exact level will be.
One thing that a lot of people said during the pandemic was listen to the companies. The companies have the front view in terms of how to plan their businesses. We heard from home Low's, we learned from home Depot, we heard from Target.
Kind of a motley picture.
Here are you getting a sense from the retailers, from the consumer facing companies of a picture that gives you more clarity heading into twenty twenty six.
Absolutely, we're looking for anyone who can give us information. I might add things like the FEDS Beige Book into that story. So some of the anecdotal evidence that some of these core themes are coming through. The big thing we're seeing really now accepted in the broad based narrative is something we've been talking about for well over a year now, and that's that concept of the K shaped economy.
And while I think there is still maybe a little bit of a view that that just means the halves are getting richer and the not halves are getting worse off, I don't know that we've really internalized how this is changing the dynamic of consumer spends. That we've got some consumers that are trading down and that benefits some companies, and we've got other consumers that cannot trade down at all.
It even flows into conversations of, for example, potential two thousand dollars checks to American households, will that be inflationary? Not for the lower part of the K who are still really struggling with affordability crises.
So we're looking for sort.
Of evidence of what the shift in the consumer is really doing. And I'll add on top of that, it's not just a K shaped economy, it's also an increasingly
retired consumer. What are those spending habits looking like? Because this is really a consumer that we haven't seen for many decades in the American economy in any time, type of anecdotal or hard data that we can get on it is very helpful in constructing that narrative and helping companies navigate an increasingly difficult operating environment.
For Insis, I don't expect you to get deeply philosophical when I asked this question, but just to take a step back, what has gone wrong in the West? Why do people hate these economies so much? Because it's not unique to America. I stayed across Europe as well. What's gone wrong care since the pandemic and what can we get right?
Well, when we look at the data, which is the economists perspective to the philosophical questions, what we see is really a break in twenty twenty three. And it comes back to this perspective that historically, while you know, the wealthy spent more than the not wealthy, most of the economy followed the same economic cycle. So if your upper incomes were doing well, so were your lower incomes. It was tides that lifted and sunk all ships at the
same time. So even though maybe some had more than others, it really felt more egalitarian that we're all sort of following in the same economy. After twenty twenty three, and that's where we see the data really start to break down. That's when we see that the haves or the upper part of the k are really experiencing an entirely different economy and a different economic cycle. And this is I
think the biggest question for the Federal Reserve. It's not who's going to be the chair, is that how does policy act in an environment where interest rates impact everybody at the same time, but some areas of the economy require different interest rate policy, what about things like fiscal
policy has to become extraordinarily more targeted. My concern heading into twenty twenty six, if you've asked me to be philosophical, is maybe that that lowercase K becomes even a upper case K because we're going to see things like changes to the salt cap deductions that's going to benefit the upper part of the K. Financial markets doing well benefit one side, and we still haven't seen any material relief
on the affordability side. So when I talk to clients about the K shape, they say, well, what solves it? And my answer to them is, you should really think about this as maybe semi permanent type of dynamic. It's not going away anytime soon. And if you're a company trying to figure out how to service your clients, you have to be really, really aware of which part of that K, or maybe we should increasingly call it a FAN you need to be looking.
At stay with us. More Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this. Here's a view on Wall Street so far this morning. J Emmanuel have Evercore calling for the S and P to hit seventy seven fifty by the end of next year, writing the path to a bullish long term is often a series of volatile, uncomfortable short terms. This is one of those times. Julian joined us now for more Judink.
And Mornic, Good morning.
Things have changed. Why have they changed? What's behind this recent shift the way the market treats this story.
It's actually the debt concerns in our view. Again, because and this is an escapable and we talked about this a number of times throughout the year. You cannot get away from the comparisons to the late nineteen nineties in
many respects. And when you think about the late nineteen nineties, the problem with the bursting of the bubble, besides the fact that the FED was hiking in nineteen ninety nine, was the fact that a lot of the build out was financed by companies that were incurring debt and had no revenues on the other side. And because you've seen this accelerating debt issuance, there is the worry that that is coming back. And we would say that's actually a good rational worry.
Well, and it's a worry potentially to buy.
I mean, I guess that this goes to the question of why what makes you so bullish on an ongoing basis despite some of the rhyming features of this particular rally with respect to the debt component.
Well so a number of things. Again, the macro backdrop is favorable. Okay, the Fed is going to be cutting. We're going to have more stimulus. Whether we get two thousand dollars in our pockets at some point next year
or not, we're going to have more stimulus. And from evaluation perspective, as much as angst as there is, in fact, certainly in comparison to the late nineteen nineties, these names are I wouldn't say cheap, but they're certainly not expensive relative to history, and they're not expensive relative to their own history. And what we've seen over the last several years and a lot of them is they just mark time going sideways, so earnings catch up devaluation, and that's an ongoing process.
At the start of the sell off, at the start of November, it was very much what you're talking about, a realization of the debt component. It seems like the tone has shifted over the past couple of trading sessions to not just a techt story, but to an everything story. We're raising questions first about whether the FED is going to cut next month, and second whether the US economy is strong enough to withstand some of the optimism without
that ratecut. How much do you see that story continuing, The idea that maybe the weakness under the hood is part of what's pushing this story as much as the debt overlaid artificial intelligence.
Well, a lot of it is the fact that we simply haven't gotten data for the last month and a half. And you know, in the beginning of it, it was okay, fine, the market, we're doing well, you know, we're the uncertainty is a positive. But then investors realize that uncertainty is uncertainty and should be discounted.
You know.
Our suspicion is is that over the next number of weeks, as we get back to normalizing the data releases, people will at least have something to anchor on. And the question in terms of the economy and which is certainly the question that's the backdrop for sustaining these valuations, and of course monetary policy, is the economy okay with the slower speed of job growth, you know, we think the sort of the monthly break even is somewhere between thirty
and sixty thousand jobs. Is that palatable? We think the answer ultimately will be yes.
Jitny, forgive me. It's almost like we've forgotten what it was like when we had the data. When we had the data, people questioned it all the time, the question the quality of it. They didn't like the payrolls data. In fact, the payroll data was super weak, even if you believed in it. And I don't know how relevant the equity markets story was to the payroll stations that we've seen over the last seven eight months anyway.
Well, we have never put stock in in the monthly payrolls data. It's the weekly jobless claims data that that's always been high frequency importance, and we've been sort of calculating it back of the envelope at Evercore II. The no it's you know, steady as she goes two hundred and thirty thousand every single week. And I think once that becomes transparent, we're going to see that again.
Does it come down to this, the stock market what it really wants the ning story that it's already got, but it wants the right cuts too, And to get the right cuts you need the weak job states. Is that what it comes down to.
Look at twenty six times, you have to have constant positive narrative. Stocks are expensive. Stocks. Being expensive is not a reason to sell the market. You know, it can be a headwind as it is at the current time when you have this uncertainty. But again, ultimately to your point, John,
is that earnings revisions are just phenomenally strong. The runway to next year in terms of earnings growth is great, and as I look at it, our seventy seven to fifty price target is likely not going to imply any multiple expansion, which makes me want to mop my brow in relief.
Well mop your relief or put a higher multiple on the idea of bubble territory. We're on bubble watch, or maybe bubble call or whatever you want to use the word B word that everyone seems to be overusing these days. What would it take in terms of FED rate cuts to get to your extreme bubble call full bubble, which you put it a thirty percent chance currently for next year.
You'd probably need four or five cuts in an economy, well, look back it up. The fact is is that in the last several weeks, both the trajectory for growth and the trajectory for inflation appear to be in proving. We took our number down to two point seven on the court PC for the end of next year. That's certainly going to be sufficient enough for the Fed to cut.
We took our growth number up to one point nine, and frankly, the way the setup is right now, there could be upside to the growth number and downside to the inflation number.
Stay with us mul Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this. Can you persuade Americans to say, for that two thousand dollars check good luck?
How would you persuade them you're going to get a sale.
You're going to Burken Bag in December?
If you yeah, I mean, honestly try that with kids.
Two thousand dollars can spend almost immediately. Libby cantl to Pimco has this to say, we're very skeptical of the Republicans in Congress at this point interested in adding more to the deficit with another tax count Leby Joan just now for more.
Libby, good morning, Good morning.
There's a shift of the White House affordability and folks new initiatives. Where's the shift coming from? And is it durable? Is it sustainable in to next year.
Yeah, well, I mean, yes, there is a shift, and obviously it was precipitated partly at least by the election two weeks ago when Democrats, if anybody who had a D you know on the end of their name, basically did well. And most Democrats did run on affordability, probably in some ways learning the lesson from twenty twenty four where they don't think they didn't sort of lean into
that issue as much. And so now the White House, I think, understandably a little bit like how President Biden did in you know, twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two, maybe in vain is trying to shift more to affordability. I think there are obviously limitations to what the president can do unilatterally, and I think he's I think Secretary
Vessett understands those limitations. You do need Congress in order to cut taxes, even if the revenues that are going to offset that task that would come from terraces, which obviously we're put through unilaterally. So we are skeptical now with that said, and this is something we think that the market is obviously focused on, is that there will be a really nice, healthy tax refund come next spring. I'm not even sure Americans actually realize that they're going
to get too nice and refund. But you know, on average, you know, households will likely receive one thousand dollars kind of plus sort of depending on their tax break and their tax situation. So that could maybe you know, have the same effect. But in terms of an additional task cut paid by tariff revenues, we think.
It's very unlikely.
What do you think is on the menu? So we've seen some tariff relief already, we're seeing the prospect of a two thousand dollars rebak check. We've also had a conversation about fifty mortgages as well. What else is on the menu?
Yeah, all the proposals of so I mean, obviously the reduction in tariffs for food stuffs, for beef, for coffee from bananas, a little bit of a tell that maybe tariffs do raise costs at least incrementally. And then obviously,
you know, the fifty year mortgage. You know, we again skeptical that that actually goes through lots of issues with that maybe provide some upfront affordability, some cost avings in terms of mortgage payment, but obviously reduces the amount of equity that folks are able to build in their homes. Is not TVA eligible to be very wonky, so probably has a liquidity issue as well. So I think the
upshot is that we think that's unlikely. Of course, the real issue with housing, as we all know, is supply, and so trying to incentivize developers and folks to build that probably takes Congress as well. And there's some things that they can do from a permitting perspective unilaterally, but really difficult even on the federal level. So I think the upshot here is they're just limits to what the president can do unilaterally. He can talk about it, but he probably eats Congress to do most of it.
But what we learned from the mid midterms, and i'll call them the mid midterms, it's essentially what they were, is that there is this shift to affordability, and there seems to be bipartisan support to more to really help consumers with the cost of living concerns that they have.
It is a bipartisan issue.
Politically, Why has the vibe shift not moved into materially higher long term yields? If you have bipartisan support to reduce the amount of tariffs, to reduce the amount of cuts just broadly to.
For abit et cetera.
Yeah, I mean it's a you know, it's a good question. I think we you know, we've obviously I mean, of course you all know that the curve is obviously steepened a lot of the last year, and so it still remains relatively steep, at least relative to the very kind of flat yel curve that we had seen, you know,
for years previously. So in some ways that term premium has come back a little bit, but there's still is a bit obviously for treasuries, and there's you know, we always say the kind of the cleanest dirty shirt, This expression of Bill Gross is our founder of him.
Go.
You used to talk about kind of the you know, there is no alternative. You have a lot of dirty shirts you wear. The cleanest dirty shirt doesn't look great on absolute basis, looks good pretty, you know, relative to the other shirts. And I think that still stand. So, you know, there is going to be some natural limit in terms of how at least right now, how how you know, how high the thirty year, how how much
that term premium does expand. But all things equal, if you just go back to where we were back in you know, October of last year, the you know, the Yeld curve has steepened.
Yeah.
I just wonder if bond vigilanties have either gone to sleep or never existed, right, because at a certain point we're talking about, you know, the deficit that at one point was the rally and cry for people who are saying gills are going higher, and all of a sudden, we're looking at the potential rollback of tariff revenue, the potential edition of policies they could potentially support consumers, whether that two thousand dollars gets passed or not, you're talking
about a bigger deficit. Suddenly nobody cares. What's the deal?
Yeah, And I know we've been talking about kind of the six seven percent deficits really for the foreseeble sorry for the sample future time, but really the foreseeable future. And that was our view going into this that regardless of who won the election, the deficit would be the biggest loser that has obviously come to pass. And you know,
nobody is talking about sort of fiscal responsibility. I mean, they're not talking about increases to increasing taxes or changing entitlement spending, and that's really what you actually would need in order to change the fiscal trajectory. But the same thing just from an investor's perspective, I mean, people are looking at the US as the sort of source of growth, right.
I mean, if you just look at what's happening obviously with AI, with labor mobility, still immigration, I mean, the dynamics of the US economy are so much more attractive than the other develop rich world. So I think there is a little bit of that where there's just going to be kind of demand at least as of now, for you know, for our for our debt because of those.
I cannot believe six seven made it to Bloomberg.
It's okay, I think that it's great.
Man made it happen.
It's gonna be so proud you made us relevant right now?
That is yeah, exactly nice.
Okay, Where has Lebby taking this? I think pr Pimko confused already, Libya, I want to finish on maybe a fracture in the Republican Party. Congressman Friendship was on the program a little bit earlier this week, and he made the point that he didn't like broad based tariffs, and he's typically very diplomatic, but I think a little bit more vocal. Now we're starting to see signs of the Republican Party on the Hill. It's pushing back a little bit to the White House sensing the same thing.
Yes, I mean, obviously the vote on Epstein files was a little bit like that, you know, just sort of put the exclamation point on that sentiment. I do think that this is again, this is actually a bipartisan phenomenon. If you just look at the Biden administration at the end of twenty two twenty one, the coalition around Democrats was fracturing then as well, so there was more pushback on President Biden by his own party. I think the
same thing is happening now. Right after the off cycle, the midterm midterm election of two weeks ago, you are now seeing that political runway for the president shortened. And again, this is I think pretty consistent with history. But I do think you will continue to see more pushback, and as it relates to fiscal policy task cuts adding to the deficit, a lot of Republicans very uncomfortable with that.
I also think it has implications for the FED share in terms of who's actually the nominate you may see, you know, if the president were to nominate somebody who was viewed as not independent, it was viewed as too political. I think that Republicans are increasingly feeling a little bit more comfortable to push back. They have been privately, but maybe more publicly as well. And again pretty consistent with other cycles in history.
Do you think just find me that could lead to a sensible fet chat choice.
That has been our view. We think that we think that there's.
Going to be a much more conventional, orthodox fed share than I think a lot of crystal is feared in the market.
Yeah, that's what's sensiblest to me.
That's to be right exactly. He would be the easiest. He would be the easy Would.
You think the president believes is politically correct? What does that mean to the president?
Yeah, not not sure, but I think probably somebody who's more familiar to Washington. So whether that is Governor Waller or Kevin Hassett, somebody who's going to be, you know, a little bit more familiar with different characters.
I don't know, very different.
Six seven let me get to see you, oh nice, okay? Or from me again? Overwhelming okay, invited back Liby, You'll be invited back. Banks of being here Levey Cantrell and Fimco. This is the Bloomberg Sevendans podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angio politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app