HSBC's Maher Shorts Sterling

Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg WI Kick things off though, with Brian Belski, the chief investment Strategies at BMO Capital Markets. And Brian, let's start with the news. How is the market interpreting what we've seen here? I guess it's just another layer of uncertainty out of Washington. You know what is? The hits just keep coming here on the radio, by

the way, so glad to be on. Yeah, thank you. Um. You know we are set into this reactive uh type of mood where we're only looking at short term things. I mean, we would continue to tell investors three words. Be an investor, you can only control what you can control, and I think what you can control in this environment clearly, clearly has to be what you own as an investor. And so at the end of the day, you want to continue to own good assets. And the market goes down,

you buy a little bit. More market goes up, you you sell a little bit. So I think we've entered an air of fundamental investing again. We're picking stocks, were playing themes, were owning management. We're buying earnings and sales and cash flow, and we are trying as best we can to ignore all the noise. And today is just another day of noise. It's noisy. My ears are hurting, My ears are hurting, my my fingers are hurting. In terms of trying to type out it's with respect to

my BlackBerry. Yes, I work for Canadian banks have standard issues and so you know, at the end of the day, I think we're entering into this old guy market. We're a bunch of old guys were we actually understand the cycles of the seventies and eighties. Uh, And I think we're going back to good old fashioned investing. You talk about themes and stocks, what what in specific are you looking at right now? Well, you know, you think about looking at stocks from a from a broader perspective on

think about this. We want you to own stocks within industries, industries and sectors. I think sector positioning is gonna be less important. It's gonna be more about picking stocks and playing specific themes. So, for instance, within financials, we love scalable business models like the big banks in Canada, the big banks in the US, those areas that have several different types of divisions that are able to grow through time, and not just the regional banks are not just the

insurance companies. Clearly you should own some regional banks with respect to your financial portfolio, but we think the major play with respect of the secular drive and de regulation of the financial services industry, it's gonna be all about the big banks. Brianski with this, Female Capital Markets will ask him about the falcons here in a moment. So I look, Ryan, within your bullmarket, call Dana her out today with ours. I'm just picking on DHR. You know,

great company. We all know that over the last ten years they've made twelve point eight percent per year, which you can't you can't make money in stocks. But but within that, in down the income statement, help our audience revenues Trump operating income, Trump the fact is it's about making cash flow. What part of the dynamic of cash flow generation are you most focused on now? Free cash

flow yields are are and will continue to be. We think the key, the key key metric in terms of how companies are going to grow and you know the management of cash and what they do with that cash, whether or not they're going to spend that on on capex. We've seen so much cash flow go into things like paying an increasing dividend ends. We think that's a major major secular trend in terms of dividend growth on the

equity side. But cash flow, remember, generates earnings tom and at the end of the day, we're entering a period where the denominator is going to be the most important part of of valuation, going to way too much math thing. And you've got a price and and earnings. You know, the cash earning, sales, cash flow book value, that's what matters. I'm impressed you're having a coffee and a diamon mountain diamond near the Gods. Before I go to Europe, which

I was two weeks ago. I literally before I jump on the plane, grabbed like three or four diamonntain news and import them, import them. I'm glad you bring up Europe. You've just been there, as you said, and in your most recent note, you write, most investors in Europe believe little or nothing in terms of legislation will get done. If you're in Washington, help us understand that perspective. Should we be more in tune with it? No? No, you

think you think we will see some developments? Yeah, we do. You know, at the end of the day, UH, much of the get nothing done mantras. What's happened to government the last fifteen to twenty years where you've had split governments and you hear this whole notion gridlock is good and things like that. You know, at the UH, the European Investor and we have been seeing and visiting our European clients on the institutional site for almost twenty years.

And the takeaway that I would give you over all, the overarching takeaway is that disillusioned. I mean, this is the most negative I've ever heard them and seeing them in interactions with respective meetings in almost twenty years. They don't like America, they don't like our policies, they don't like our president. And we think that they are basing their investment decisions more on a motion versus analysis, and they're gonna miss the boat again. They're gonna miss the

boat again. John Michols wait, will be in conversation with Jeffrey mL tomorrow. That's good. Is a much bigger dinner if you would a hundred eighty billion ge capital a million years ago, they're now down to a much lesser revenue. They go from one eight billion down to a hundred and fifteen billion. That's a big drop in revenue over five six seven years. Operating income didn't drop nearly as much. And again this goes back to free cash flow generation. Yeah,

I mean full disclosure. We own both dana Her and g and the products that we manage for a great demo brokers up in Canada. But at the end of the day, GEES is reinventing themselves as an industrial machine. I mean, it was a big conglomerate. We know what happened in the eighties and nineties with respect to what their strategy was. Now Mr Emilt is clearly redefining the country. And when I talked to people about think about the

turbines and things like that. They've got single digit high single digit divdend growth five year divd and growth with all the turmoil up nine. I believe that's four hundred basis points above nominal g d P. I mean, that's what Mr Emilt is supposed to do right correct. He's doing his job. He's doing his job, and we think

that's the mantra for corporate America. I mean, Jeff's Mr Emil has been a survivor through what we've seen a lot of turnover on the CEO side and from a corporate perspective in terms of how he's trying to grow this company and how he's trying to redefine the company. That's that's fundamental investing. That's the kind of management that you want to see. In back with respect to an investment longer term, what is what you see tell you or what could portend for industrials as a whole. It's

a great question. You know, we've been bullish industrial work. I never have a great question. That's because I like

the Patriots. Yeah, I gotta anyway, we'll talk about that hopefully. Um. You know, at the end of the day, you want you want to buy industrials when when the operating performance of the sector is beginning to accelerate, and that's what we're seeing with respective return on assets, free cash flow yields, return on equity, and so if you look at the industrial sector from a longer term perspective like fifty years, it's exactly a neutral sector. You want to try to

buy on a relative performance basis. You want to try to buy the sector when fundamentals are accelerating, and where the fundamentals are accelerating most are those areas that are more focused on domestic domestic issues, domestic girl so those companies with tht or less avenue from international sources is where we're seeing a massive acceleration and return on next where you return on assets PEG ratios are much more attractive as the Super Bowl. Now town, I'm ignorant about

the ATLANTAFL. They have a chance. You're you're one of our big football guys. I would tell you that every game you know, they suffered, they suffered. Falcon suffered last year through a lot of of of injuries and things like that. They're very well coached. Um Matt Ryan had a wonderful year at the quarterback side. You know, uh, my my team member that works for me here in New York City huge Jets fans. So I'm sorry he's

a contrarian investor. No, um, you know, I think you know, at the end of the day, if Tom Brady and Belichick win the Super Bowl, let's kind of push it all aside, saying they are the greatest team that we've seen in the history of the NFL. Let's just move past that and find another team. After David Harrows in Chicago medicated over the Packers, thank you for that Super Bowl update. We'll do a little bit of fun with

the folks into the game this week. If you ordered your platter yet, David, girl, you did some klaced holistic artisanal platter and Brooklyn free range chicken wing Buffalo. Why did I know that? Darnm are with us with it, just to see darl Let's rip up the script here. Let's define for our audience. I'll get it out. What is a currency manipulator? And is exploitation different than manipulation? Uh?

Not very different. I mean I think the easiest way to think of a currency manipulator is someone who's actively changing the price of their currency to extract some kind of economic advantage. Print generally to be honest. Of course, the expectation is is to get your currency weaker, have to to get extra competitiveness. But you know, we've had other types of manipulation. Plenty of central banks intervened to reduce volatility in their currency to prevent excessive depreciations you've

seen in Mexico. So there's lots of forms. But obviously the one that the Trump administration is fixated on is the idea that there is this underlying miss pricing of some of the big currencies in the world that is putting the US at a disadvantage because it's making the stronger or the dollar too strong, as he said, Trump said, it's killing us. I mean, that's his characterization, at least on that note, Tom alludes to this interview with Peter Navarro in the FT. Peter Navar the head of the

New Trade Council, Donald Trump's Trade Council. There's a line at the end of that article in the FT he says he's not concerned about the possibility of a stronger dollar and its impact on US exports. I worry about the actual impact America's trade deficit and goods is having on our rates of economic growth and income growth. How do you navigate the lack of unanimity in this administration?

You have Stephen Manuchon on Capitol Hill saying that he doesn't share Donald Trump's concern with the strong dollar, Donald Trump saying he wants a weaker dollar. Now you have Peer Navari making this commentary on the strong dollar as well. Is the lack of unanimity problematic to you in the f X space? It is in a way because well, it's it's fostering. Is in a world of a headline reaction kind of mentality is well, who speaks next? Because

really that's what's going to color your reaction. You know that, you know Tom described this is a relatively small move when you're a dollar, but of course you're obliged to react to the latest headline. And the difficulty you have is do you want to hold that position? Do you have any conviction and being long euro dollar? No, you've absolutely known because you don't know the next guy is going to stand up and say the very opposite kind

of sentiments. So this is a difficulty. And also to be honest to say that you know, we're worried about what the existing trade deficit means for growth, growth is determined by the shift in the trade deficit. You know, is it a drag? Is that change gonna be a drag or a boost? But look, it is a talking point. And what's unusual about this administration is the president is

talking about the dollar. Used to be the treasuries game, stream about everything, but you know, you know, for it to come in on the doll alright, that's pretty unprecedent. Obama talked about it reportedly, very briefly. I remember the summit back in France, and then the White House has commands. I know, he didn't talk about the dollar. He's talking about something entirely different. You said you could see recovering

the euro in the second quarter. What leads you to that conclusion, Well, that is a function of European politics, which of course slightly sidelined at the moment amid all

the US politics. But I think it will get renew traction if you get through the Dutch election, if the French elections as well again in the in in that second quarter, if they deliver mainstream results, which I think is still the most likely outcome, then some of the political discount I think it's going to creep into the price over the next couple of months, we'll have to come back at im and we can go as low as your dollar one oh one, you know, before we

get the true revival higher than euro dollar. Politics still the driver very much. So it sounds like in Europe walks through what happened at the Bank of Japan last night and an expected outcome here. Yeah, but what is that? What is that portend? Well, they must be pretty happy, I would say, on on some levels, because you know, this time last year it was a fight for their credibility in terms of are they impotent in terms of policy delivery? Are they making the right choices and move

to negative interest rates? This time around it's like, well, okay, the yield curvet stills seems to be working. Last week they up their bond purchases to try and reinforce the idea they want to cup yells on the tenure. So you know they've arrived today. Reason me happy about credibility, of course, what they're not happy about his inflation, which

still remains very far off target. And I remember seeing a report last week that said, what little inflation there is is the wrong type, you know, not even getting the right type of inflation. That's a concern. Twenty seconds is all we got. We'll get you back there. Do you still reaffirm a weaker pound sterling? Yeah, we actually just put a trade on yesterday to sell okay, but we've got a short term target one twenty and we've got a year end target of one ten, so you're

in one ten two thousand seventy. That, Folks, is one of the great outlier cause I think are Anthony from spar To, I think he just loaded up on that trade. He did it like in the triple He's got a triple LEVERAGEX fund with his farroh wink. I think he just loaded the dark go out you think you know, get out of here. That's an outlier called darwiner where HSBC thank you so much. Brought you by Bank of America, Mary Lynch. Dedicated to bringing our clients insights and solutions

to meet the challenges of a transforming world. That's the power of global connections. Mary Lynch, Pierce Federan Smith Incorporated Member s I P C. James Travitiz, who's appeared with this uh many times, Admiral, good morning. How are you doing today? Job? Well, I think I'm Okay, Mike Allen as a must read note out of Washington, and it's the first reporting I've seen. Secretary Tillerson is baffled and General Maddie is quote unquote incensed over what we've observed.

Tell me how an admiral or a general steamed in the academic path of stravitas or Maddest responds to mere civilians playing at government. Well, you know, when I was the Supreme Alley Commander at NATO, Tom occasionally things would happen back in Washington that would kind of light you up, and you would go back and discuss it and push back a little bit. But I'll tell you the general

I'm really concerned about is General John Kelly. Is that Department of Homeland Security because he was evidently cut out of the pattern on this executive order. It came out with almost no notice to his department. It's his responsibility to implement it. Those are his Border and t s A agents who are dealing with the public and no early consultation, no voice in the process. If I were General Kelly, I'd be calling the Chief of Staff in the White House and saying, if you ever do that again,

I'm out of here. General Maddis is incensed because of the impact it has on brave Iraqi translators who are now banned from coming to this country, as well as the effect it has on jihadis. So I think kind of the same reaction out of General Maddis. Yeah. Fascinating story by Damian Pelletta in the Wall Street Journal today looking at that tension between the White House and John Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security. Just want to

read one line from that piece if I could. This is all centering on the pick of who is going to be his deputy. The White House pushing for Chris Koback, who's the Secretary of State. I believe in Kansas. Ultimately they picked a Lane Duke. But an incredible line here. The White House tried to persuade Mr Kelly to accept Mr Koback is his deputy secretary, but Mr Kelly wanted to go a different route, picking someone with a background

in Homeland security. People's what I thought. It begs a question here, Admiral, that being what's happening here with picking deputies in these departments. We look at the State Department, it's so many vacancies. This has got to be worrisome for a guy like you, it's totally worrisome. And I am, as I've said before, I'm encouraged by the high level PIS General Kelly, General Maddis, Rex Tillerson, Dan Senator Dan

Coates at d NA. These are good choices, but the second and third tier is where the rubber meets the road, and so far we're not getting good visibility. And I suspect there's a lot of what you saw at DHS, which is a political filter being put on these folks. And that's understandable up to a point. But in these departments that deal with their national security, we have got to choose competence over political bonafides. We've talked to you

about the State Department job. By all accounts, you talked to the President about the State Department job if you were Rex Taylorson right now, watching all of this unfold, the retirement of these career civil servants, forced retirements of these these career civil servants, you see this disarray. What's the thing At this point, I got to imagine that a guy who had a huge multinational corporation probably wanted to come in and make changes of his own accord.

What's happening here exactly that he is going to want to select uh deputy and under secretaries the next tier down who have serious diplomatic experience. I think he'd be very well served to select a career diplomat as his deputy and not simply take whatever the White House is pushing on him at this point. And I would suggest someone like Ambassador Bill Burns, Ambassador Nick Burns. We've got a a raft of these outstanding folks who could come

in and help Secretary Tillerson learn this new culture. Um Admiral, there's there's General Languel, General Goldfine, some lightweight admiral named Richardson, General Kneller, General Milley, General Selva, and a guy named Dunford on top of the food chain and joint chiefs of staff. You and I go back to eighties six and the monum mental Goldwater Nichols reorganization of the competency

of our military. How do you take Dunford and what he represents with Selva, Millie, Kneller, Richardson, Goldfine, et cetera. How do you take him off the NSC. It's inconceivable to me. And by the way, I have to point out for you, Tom, since you love the academic pedigrees, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Joe Dunford, is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law Diplomacy. Take

a lap while you're making note he's down to midshipment. Okay, that he would be taken off the Principles Committee or not invited all the meetings. I suspect that General Maddis, the Secretary of Defense, had a very short and sharp conversation with the White House Chief of Staff after that announcement and said General Dunford will be attending all Principal Committee meetings with me. And you might have noticed Sean Spicer at the podium yesterday saying, oh, of course, General

Dunford is invited to every meeting. Madis will make sure he comes. He's got to be there. You need that voice of unbiased, unpolitical experience in that Principle's Committee. A question that didn't come up in that press briefing yesterday was a basic one, that is, why is Steve Bannon going to be at these meetings? And maybe you can help us understand what these meetings. Therefore, we look back on George W. Bush's presidency. He would not allow Karl

Rove in the room. Exactly what these meetings are not about is, gee, let's think about this decision through the prism of domestic politics, and so to bring folks with that bent into the room, Uh kind of shapes the discussion in ways that I think are deleterious to our national security. These are to be meetings of experts to lay out options in front of the president and have a discussion without fear or favor as to the politics of the day. So I don't think it's appropriate to

have someone like Steve Bannon uh in that room. I'm like to switch gears here and we're gonna we're very generous of the arable will be with us for two blocks today. It is a small number, five thousand, eight hundred nineties six self identified Muslims out of two point two million active and reserve duty members. It's a minority. How did you as a command officer in the Middle East with NATO and with your other duties including the you know the tug about your first commission out of Annapolis?

How how do you deal with religion on a day to day basis in the Navy? Well, first and foremost, you have to look at those Muslims who are serving on active duty as assets. They have a feel for the culture, they have a feel often for the languages given their individual backgrounds, and you have to be not only respectful of their religious freedom, because that's part of what we're fighting for, but also you have to think

about how can I leverage their connectivity. And I'll tell you where we did this very effectively under my command in Afghanistan was with UH Turkish NATO troops who are obviously overwhelmingly Muslim. We found that they were capable of moving and operating in that Afghan Muslim society very effectively. We can do the same with our US Muslim population, but we can't do it if we alienate them through ill thought out travel bands like we saw brought forward

over the last couple of days. Now. I know a lot of people have spoken out about this, reporters as well as folks in the Armed Service, that this has taken a long time to get translators visas to come to to the U S. Are you disappointed with that how long it's taken? I am. We have not kept faith with the terrific people, and every time I went

both to Iraq and Afghanistan. I had outstanding translators and they had been promised at the end of the day that they would come to the United States, and I think some have, but it's been a long uh bureacratic process. Hey, Having said all that, I want to stipulate, we want to protect the country. We want to conduct serious fetting. On the other hand, we don't want to just slam the door arbitrarily. And that's how this travel band felt. We'll come back here, but I have a quick question

for you here. I learned that the the pick to be Navy Secretary is a former Army captain. You've got to react to that. Well, maybe it'll help West Point in the football games. I know, uh, I know Secretary Desert Nit Philip Building very well. He's an excellent choice, deep experience in Asia, understands the world business. And by the way, he has two sons who are at the US Naval Academy. For that, I thought you were gonna

say the Fletchers School. Another busy day at the White House here the second week in the White House for President Trump. Admiral and at twelve thirty pm today in the Presidential dining room, the President will sit down with Mayor Rudy Giuliani his cyber security advice. Right now, you've thought a lot about care, a lot about cyber security. What do you suggest should be at the top of the agenda for these two gentlemen today. I'll give you

three things they should try and focus on immediately. One is UH dividing US Cyber Security Command from the National Security Agency. Those two are combined at the moment, so you have the military need intel function together. That's inefficient, it's a quick win and it ought to happen. Number Two, we are to work on the inter agency and bring together all the disparate cyber voices today, DHS, FBI, D O, J, D, O, D,

it's a soup of acronyms. Are all working at cross purposes on cyber And Number three, and most importantly, they are to sketch out a plan. And here's a businessman UH there to sketch out a plan for business private public cooperation. Government will not solve this. So there's a tactical and operational and a strategic thing they should think

about today. How hard is it going to be for this administration to move forward on cybersecurity, while there's still the whirl of activity surrounding what happened in the election on Capitol Hill going to be very, very difficult and cyber broadly, this is the classic case of building the airplane while you're flying it. You don't want to do

anything that crashes the system. But at the same time you've got to deal with this political overlay that came into it because of the Russian activity there frankly their attack on our democratic process. So somehow we've got to separate that issue investigated, understand it, from the larger strategic imperative of securing our networks. Atmost, see to the tour in Miami. You're ahead of an US Southern Command. You

know the border. Well, we've had this conversation, uh, much more loudly over the past week than we have in the past. By building a wall on the US Mexico border. How much of a difference would a fortification like that make. It will not change the general flow of migration, which, by the way, as I'm sure you know, these days, more people are going south than are coming north to Mexico.

Um that look, does that include graduates of the Liberal University of Boston right, they're all moving, you know, they're mostly time. They're going to Canada, but at that going to Mexico. Um, listen, here's a news flash. You can build a hundred foot wall, and you look at it from Mexico and right to the left of it, I'm an admiral, there's an ocean. So if people really want to go, they'll go around it. At see, they'll tunnel under it the way that cartels are doing, or they'll

fly drones over it to move products. So, yes, we have to control our border. But a simple solution like build a big wall is not it. It's got to be a combination. There are portions where you do need a wall. Other places fences are fine, other places surveillance is good, can be on foot, can be drone. You need a combination of things to secure the border, and then long term, you need a strong relationship with Mexico.

That's in the end how we'll secure that border. So simply building a wall, both symbolically, tactically and strategically, I don't think we'll succeed. We're running out of time. Would you please explain the stravitas approach that this administration should take With Mr Putin of Russia. I was flabbergasted in the phone call Saturday. I don't believe Ukraine came up,

which should I be shocking. I think they defaulted to the lowest common denominator of cooperation, which I guess is okay for an initial call, and that is the fight against the Islamic State. We can both agree on that. Broadly speaking, Tom, what we should say to Mr Putin is, look, we're gonna have areas of significant disagreement with you where we will confront you. Ukraine is one of them, Syria, where he supports a war criminal is another. Cyber attacks

is a third. But we ought to also say to Putin, will confront you where we must. But let it find some zone where we can cooperate, and there are plenty, so it's got to be a mixed message. Dian and Aari, Well, thank you so much, greatly appreciated than most venus, of course, decades of service with the United States. Maybe David Gurr and Tim Keen, New York not joining us. A gentleman who has had a profound influence on the immigration dialogue over the last ten days, David Beer of Cato Institute.

David Beer I want David Gurr to speak to you, but very quickly here. What will you presume to see in the appeals court process, the appeals court process, um, after these lesser courts act, Well, you're gonna see it probably uh split decision on some of these issues, but a lot of them are now mute because of the releases and the changes in policy that we've seen from the Trump administration. UM, so you know, we might might have all of these cases resolved by the time h

uh an appeals court gets to hear them. What do you think is is the strongest legal argument against what we saw put in place here over the weekend? You cite the Immigration Act of nineteen sixty five. Is that the strongest case? Does it rest on that? I think so? I think the constitutional challenges are going to be very

difficult because the uh state of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has held that really the Bill of Rights does not apply to most immigration decisions, and so the question will really depend on whether the president has the legal

authority to carry out these actions via executive order. And like you said, I I cite the Immigration Act of nineteen sixty five, which amended the nineteen fifty two law that gives the present discretion to ban certain groups of foreign born people, and that law says pretty equivocally that you cannot discriminate based on national origin against immigrants who are coming to the Hind States to live in it permanently.

It's been interesting to watch the fallout from this executive action, the protests at the airports over the weekend, the response UH, slowly but surely from from members of Congress. What's this say broadly about immigration reform in Washington? D see? A couple of years back, there was a robust conversation about what immigration reform would look like it was being driven by the Congress. Here you have the executive branch taking the lead, rightly or wrongly in the courts. I guess

we'll we'll weigh in on that shortly. What does it say about where immigration reform is head? Where that conversation is headed? You know, I think it really shows even broader than just uh, immigration reform, that we're seeing this trend towards executive power that is just so expansive that it's making Congress almost irrelevant. All of these dramatic policy

changes being implemented both by President Obama. What he attempted to do, of course, and shut him down on that, which was a positive development in my from my view. But now we're seeing the Trump administration go the same direction, and uh, you know, we've seen it in almost every other area. President Obama and President Trump both doing expansive executive orders in action. David, My amateur take and please inform us, is that this reads like history. There were

previous immigration themes. There was nineteen fifty two or whatever it was. Then there was nineteen sixty five was Senator Heart and Representative Emmanuel Seller, and basically they said, excluding Asia and Africa is not the calculus we're going to use in immigration. So then we moved forward this this well, it's two thousand seventeen. Do you presume that a legislature can move immigration back to nineteen fifty two? A legislature

meaning Congress. Congress could certainly do that if they if they wanted to go back to that type of discriminatory system, they could. Um. But I contend that it's it's illegal for the president to override that ninety five Act, which was all about it was full it's only intent was to create an unbiased immigration system where every country has an equal shot at the immigration This is a critical question.

Do you see any indication from a Republican Senate and a Republican House that what they would like to turn the clock from nineteen back to nineteen fifty two. There have been disturbing signs that a significant portion of the Republican conference is on board with this band. Now, the ban itself is uh is stated to be at least ninety days long. Now, if that remains true and he reopens immigration to these countries after ninety days, then it will not be seen as as big of a deal.

But you have to understand that this executive order also claims the authority to make this permanent, and so we'll see what happens after ninety days, but it certainly would be turning the clock back if it remains in effect. Davier, thanks so much for joining. I appreciate he is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute and Thomas will be just fascinating to see play out of their protest

last night. I mean, it shows no signs of stopping here people who were opposed to this measure by by the President. I'm in the gird time out chair. I cut in there with that final question. But I thought it was really I mean, that's he framed that beautifully. Yeah, it's like LBJ and do you want to go back to Eisenhower? Two are almost Truman. I don't. I don't have any wisdom on this. That was great. Yeah, I learned a lot and we'll do this sure. Thanks for

listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm out on Twitter at Tom Keene. David Gura is at David Gura. Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio, brought you by Bank of America Mary Lynch. Dedicated to bringing our clients insights and solutions to meet the challenges of a transforming world. That's

the power of global connections. Mary Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Incorporated Member s I p C.