Surveillance: Central Bank Stimulus With Blanchflower

while working alongside the former Chance that George Osborne. Rupert, fantastic to have you with us on a program this morning, especially on a morning like this morning. Rupert, let's talk about the response from the Bank of England what may still come from Treasury a little bit later. I agree very strongly with what you've all been saying in the sense that I think this is a real demonstration of

strength from the UK system. I think it shows us at maturity from the Bank of England, which is an institution that is I think comfortable in its independence, confident of its independent and therefore willing to be seen to act in a coordinated way with the Treasury. We saw some similar things in the past, the funding from lending for schemes set up in two douzen twelves. But I think it is a big advantage of having strong credible institutions. I think, as you say, it would be very difficult

for the FED to do something similar. Indeed, we saw the FED deliberately separate its emergency fifty basis points cut from the G seven Finance ministers called I think largely due to wanting to avoid the perception of impositions on its independent So yes, I do think this is UKs stiticians demonstrating how you can loose confidence by coordination. RiPP Let's talk about how important it is to help SAMES in a moment like the moment we're in right now. It seems to be a big focus of the Bank

of England. How do we get that focus to go beyond the UK in two places like Europe and into places like the United States. Well, look, I think that the policy community get it. I think that we will see further action in the budget in the UK to a you know, the these term funding schemes for banks with incentives to lend to SAMES there. They're similar to the kind of things we did in the UK in

two thousand and twelve with funding for lending they're okay. Frankly, the banks can gain the targets, and this is not a way to guarantee that you're going to get cash to sames. You have to see finance ministries acting really to get cash to the simes in trouble on top of the band central bank actions. I think you will see that in Europe. I think it will be, you know, a combination of European wide and Frankie, you just have to going to have to wait and see national level actions.

Um and I hope that we will see it in the US, but of course it's going to be a much more difficult mechanism to get agreement around that, even though the policy community I think now fully understand that that's what's needed. Let me ask you the same question I asked of our Stephanie Flanders earlier today. Did the reason we get that this action today? Was it because of Prime Minister Jansen? Was it was because we had

essentially a pro Brexit vote? Was it because we have a new independence, are freethinking in the United Kingdom less attached to the European continent? No, I don't think so. I think this is because of the sort of historic patterns and working of the UK institutions. I think the Treasury in the Bank of England to have for a long time now worked well together, and I think that there is an understanding in the Treasury and the Bank that this is a time for this. You know, this

is not a time for holding back. So I think you will see Chancellor Richie Sunac in the budget later today. You know, if anything, you know, doing too much, I think you will very much not want to be seen as kind of under delivering. I think it will be over delivered. Belt embraces, you know, resilience and you know, insurance against what might be become. I don't think that you know, particular to this government. I think it speaks more to a sort of historic strength of UK institutions.

But of course it is very welcome to see the UK I think performing kind of well internationally compared to other countries. Going to your core, which is in staying. How does this give you conviction when it comes to putting on a trade? In other words, are you going to invest more in UK assets as a result of what the policymakers did. It's certainly at the margin makes us feel more comfortable that the UK is going to do everything possible to avoid permanent economic damage from this disruption.

But frankly, you know, I think we've seen in market action over the last few days that while policy actions are welcome, you know, people of a market are very very aware that policymakers are our secondary at the moment to the sort of fundamentals of the spread of the virus, and you know, in a sense market to pay more attention to the to the negatives I when and how

widely our restrictions on activity going to be. I think that it's it's about putting confidence in place so that if we do get to a peak situation where people can see beyond the peak of the virus, that's when people will take confidence from policy measures being in place to prevent permanent damage, and that's where will help see the kind of more rapid bounced back. Rupert Harrison, thank you so much with black Rock this morning, joining us

after an historic moment for the Bank of England. Without question our interview of the day on this moment for central bankers, and with this and the honor of having David blanch Flower with us of Dartmouth College, of course, his public service to his very united Kingdom is public service and getting Cardiff back into the Premier League and then out again in the Premier League. We're thrilled to Professor blanch Flower could join us this morning. Uh, David,

here we are. Quote. This is prudence with a purpose. It's resilience with a reason, and that reason is to fulfill the Bank of England's mission, namely to promote the good of the people of the United Kingdom by maintaining monetary and financial stability. By acting today, the Bank is ensuring that the strength of our financial system can be directed to where it's most needed in the months ahead. Mark Kearney, how do you do today? Very impressive. I

was just listening to the press conference. I thought they did extremely well. Um the co ordination between the three banks the Mideast um coming on a day ahead of the UK budget, so it looked like, you know, the big boys are in charge. I thought, what was interesting reminded me of October seven, two thousand and eight. But I think Kari said it right then. The problem was the financial system causing a crisis, and he said, you know, the financial system here is going to try and come

in and um support this this crisis. So I thought it was pretty impressive, the two that the governor and the new governor sitting there together. Um, I was really impressed. I mean the concern is do that what I mean? I remember in October seven six central banks cut. I was part of it. The big deal then was did they we knew things that the markets didn't know? And the question is is that true? Now? Are the more things they know that? That's the question I think on

the table. Do you have a confidence with a medical crisis and an original ECB to begin with the ECB or frankly any other central bank and execute what the governor and the governor designate executed today. Well, obviously the big concern is that we're whatever is twelve years now past that crisis, and the room to maneuver for the central bank is somewhat limited. I mean, the Bank of England will cut from point seven five to point to five perhaps I thought they might go points is a

big deal. What what can ECB does? I mean ECP is already negative. Christine the guard is obviously talking about this being a major problem. The room to maneuver is somewhat limited. Obviously, the coordination with fiscal policies that big

to you. And the fact that this statement was made on the day when the bodies of the new Bodish Chancer that makes a statement for the budget suggests that these things are coordinated and that's going to be the problem down that, like could the ECB coordinate with other governments? What are the Germans going to say and do? What's going to happen at the at the o MC where it looks like a hundred basis points cuts already priced into the meeting next week, Danny, there's also a question

of what's the roadmap here? And a lot of people are pointing to two thousand and eight, and since you have experience at the Bank of England when you were a part of their indust rates heading a Monetary policy committee as an external member from two thousand and six to two thousand nine through the crisis, is the two thousand and eight period the one we should be looking at? Well?

It seems so. I mean, that's the only two cuts that I recall, Like this emergency meeting, which they very well did in secretum, there was the two meetings to fare in the Bank of England have had at the nine eleven which may may be comparable I mean the cut into a thousand and eight, the October cut. In a sense, what it signaled it was that it's more than anything. It's signaled that the central banks were on the case. It's much more to come. And I think

that's what they were signaling today. I mean, they could have thrown more actively didn't do more que today they have they've sort of holding that back that they did all sorts of things about um but counter sectal buffer for the bank money for the same. So they certainly signaled there was more to come. But the issue is, well Tom was just saying what what what can they do?

How much more can they do? And the concern is if this crisis, as Regard says today is comfortable to two thousand and eight that there are limits to what the policymakers can do. So, you know, I thought it was very impressive, good that they got in there, but

down the road know how much they can do. Danny, are there any non traditional tools that we did not see deployed in two thousand and eight ways to sort of I think outside of the historical reference, it can the central banks to poy now well, yeah, absolutely, I mean I think Americ Rosen grinning the US right. He started to talk about the ability of the FED to broaden what it buys, not to just buy mbs and government backed securities, to broaden out what it buy. Is

that's an obvious possibility that it works negative. Um, that's still on the table. But I think that I think for the listeners, I remember being brief saying central banks could buy anything, um and literally anything, So obviously I think that's on the table. Um. The possibility that QUI will broaden and extend, and as a said, it's thought about in the United States, that's the possibility of going

negative exist. Now how negative, David, I've got to get squeeze us in a headline coming out of the United Kingdom, no doubt what. I'm the Chancellor as well. The United Kingdom sees this year's GDP growth one point one percent versus one point four very quickly, your professor. With that diminished g d P growth, do we also see diminished inflation? So we've got a combination a weaker growth and disinflation. Well,

I think we do. But I think the mark that worries the markets will think that that at one point one percent is overly optimistic. Ian the scale of the scale of the shock that currently looks to be large, So I think that might well be very optimistic. And of course what the central Bank is going to have to do is just look through inflation, look at what's happening in the real economy, and that's what they've done today. So I think what happens to INFLA is broadly irrelevant.

But it sounds totally optimistic on the part of the of the O b R and the government to think that output in the UK is going to grow this year too. Short of visit David blanche Flower of Dartmouth College here and of course has worked with the Bank of England. It is a fired up Nora Roubini with us today. His book of a Good Deck Togo was outstanding. There is there a book coming up here, you know, I'm thinking about the right thing in you want but he is going to be out next year. Okay, very good.

There's there's a break slusive from Bloomberg surveillance. One of the great themes we've had here over the last number of weeks is a team that has just been dedicated in folks, really working seven days a week to get his voices and One of the voices was Jeffrey Curry of Goldman sex On Oil, who was out front of an oil war of Saudi UH and Russia and then was with us again today and with his microeconomics from Chicago, was just prodigious on these demand and supply shocks that

we see. Let's discuss this now with Neral Rabini and the backdrop for me on this Neral is a visceral feeling of the old world of Saudi Arabia taking on Russia. What's your take on how anyone would take on Russia. Is it doable for Saudi Arabia to actually go after Mr Putin on oil? Well, so the Arabia going after Russia, but it's also going after the U S sail producers.

Both of them are tried to sell the Arabia and I would say over time, uh, the shell gas producer maybe a bigger threat to sell the Arabia than put In and they all in Russia. The other thing in this game is that while in Russia you have to

give credit to put In. That on the micro side is physically conservatives low budget deficit, low public debt, is low inflation, while the budget deficits Saudi Arabia right now is seven percent of GDP, so their break even physically it's more like eighty dollar barrel, while for Russias around fort So in this war, actually on the physical side, it's true that Saouldi have more reserves than they can run them down. But between the two, on the micropoint

of view, Saudi are weaker. But of course they can play this game for a few months until the Russian is gonna come and say let's do a deal by both sides want to get rid of the shell gas producer in US, but the shell gus producing US once all goes to forty fifty, are going to be back. Even if they're back the margin. How does Germany buy from Saudi Arabia versus their long term relationship on hydrocarbons

with Russia. Uh, well, you know, they have to diversify and they've decided to phase out essentially called so they're gonna do more renewable energy, but definitely they need still oil from the Middle East and they need GUS from Russia. So for Germany there's no other option absolutely So, So if we're lower oil for longer, what does that mean?

You know, for the overall global GDP picture. Because you compare that, you weigh at against these you know, the issues presented by the coronavirus on the demand side is that pushes into a global recession. There's lower oil keep us from going into a global recession. How do you weigh those two? Well, if the price of oil falls because of a increasing supply, there is a price war as opposed to fall in demand. Because until now a week ago was a falling demand recession on global growth,

prices were falling. That was a negative signal. But now all prices are falling because there's going to be a glass of supply from Russia and from Saudi Arabia. Then in that situation, actually I think that the impact on the global economy at the margin is positive because the marginal propensity to spend of all importers is greater than the marginal propensity to spend of the all exporters. So they all exports are gonna produce less, they're gonna do

less capex, they're gonna fire some workers. But then the consumers of oil, even in country like the US where we're not any more net importer, the distributional and benefit goes to the consumer, and they hurting the producer let alone in countries like China, like India, like Japan, like Korea, like most of Europe that are net all importers. So at the margin, actually this is a war that is bad for the stock market because the stock market reflects

the energy company's stocks. But for the real economy, actually collapsing all prices is a benefit at the margin. It's not going to prevent the recession because you have a coronavirus, but it's gonna make it less damaging at least for the consumers. So the strategic value here for Saudi Arabia and in Russia to kind of put pressure on the U S shale producers. That will happen. We've seen the balance sheets for these shales producers not good, so there's

a lot of credit issues here. But as soon as oil, as you say, oil comes back to hour, Wall Street's gonna come right back to the shale patch and we're gonna have those guys start backed up in a year or two. I mean, so strategically the oils in the ground in the shale area. So I just you know, I just don't see the long term strategic value for what Saudi Arabia and Russia are trying to do it. Seems like the near term costs are just too much.

Oh their cost But then if you can let many of these guys, especially the smaller ones going bankrupt, and many of them were over leveraged, it's going to take a couple of years until these people are gonna be able to start producing again. When you have consolidation in the shale, gus in all industries, so you have a short term loss of income, say for three four months, they get the truth by June, and then at that point many of these smaller guys are gonna be already bankrupt,

and you have some reduction in product. It's not gonna be a used reduction production the United States, but you can cause enough damage that you buy yourself maybe another couple of years, but you're right. Over the medium long term, there is no way in which especially the Saudi is not along the Russians can essentially deal with the fact that we've shell gas and oil. The equilibrium all price

without OPEC, it's closer to twenty, if not ten. Right, in a perfect competitive economy which there is no cartile equilibrium, all prices might be closer town. We're gonna have demand fall in the medium term because there's gonna be pick All dement and therefore all prices have to be lower. No, I got one minute left more than anybody I know. You know Milan, your Iranian Turkish. You ended up in Milan Synagogue Centrale told Jewish sense of Milan as well.

What do you how do you synthesize a lockdown in your Milan? Well, it's terrible. I saw a video essentially of Saskala and Viemon zone totally empty, deserted, like a total desert. But I think the Italians are doing the right They're finally doing what China did, because in the US we are actually fudging it, pretending there's not spreading, and it's gonna get worse. In Italy. Now they're gonna realize they have to do what China did, total quarantine.

You're gonna collapse the economy for a quarter. But if you can stop the contagion, then the economy is gonna recover with the monitor and physical stables. If instead you fudge that you can count down the road like the US is gonna explode in your face. So in the short time, economy is weaken ling less, but over time it's gonna weekend more so the Italians now are going China while we're still doing what Italy did a month ago.

And that's a mistaken us being you. Thank you so much, of course, with New York University and his economic work worldwidetre look he pop futures minneus seventies six right now. It's a miracle. It's a miracle magic here. I don't take blame nor credit, and I've never trade. But when you blame my life, which did you blame? Are your dets a lot of snow buttter Nero being there on international you can ask you want to bring an handsome goal. I now he's very excited about jumping in, and I

can see it. He said he wouldn't speak into the Bostri so his chief US Secretary strategist give money to John. Good morning, your thoughts your message for clients this morning? Well, I can I just jump in on the I mean, if you look at those of Americans who are you know on you know or you know, paycheck to paycheck, that guy is probably not going to be benefited all that much by by moving his tax returns by a month, and at least we got to find a program for

those people. Do we're gonna do? We all agree apparel tax cuts just doesn't know. I think, more broadly, John, the discussion here is about whether some of these demands side initiatives on the stimulus side are going to be useless or limited in use. I don't I don't think. I don't think use. I don't think it's useless. They're

gonna have an effect way after this crisis is gone. Um, But I think that these things, the narrower they are addressing, you know, displacement in the in the energy sector, leisure businesses, and displaced workers. And the benefit of being more targeted is it doesn't have to be expensive. It just has to be appropriate. Otherwise all you're gonna see is at least we'd say before is that this money is going to get saved and and it just it just doesn't

have an impact. Well, I don't mind if it gets saved, and I don't mind if it gets used to pace debt. I don't expect them to go out to a restaurant. I don't expect them to get a flight. The worry we have right now is that people won't be able to make the mutgage repayments. People won't be able to make their loan repayments. And I think that I think the government has a really important role to play there.

I mean, if small businesses need to make sure that they have lines of credit available to them so that if they have a hard time making payroll that the banks are going to lengths and the government can backstop that. Those kind of actions I think are critical. This is such a guy discussion, Mr Brandwich, would you please explain to the world that the number one headache right now,

without question is children will be home from school. Now that totally upsets for millions of Americans, the apple cart and in so many different ways. I mean, not to me, that's far greater than anything else. Well, that is going to be the key question is if you do shut down schools will not keep people out of work, And that's an issue. But those are people often who have jobs that they go to on routine levels or even if they've got gigs. I mean, this is gonna be

a serious issue. But John, I'm curious about you know, all the people have part time jobs the gig economy. Right now, I was watching I was looking at how Uber and Lift and some of the other ride sharing companies are looking at possibly compensating ride drivers if they have to self quarantine for fourteen days or take off because they're sick. I mean, how much does this expose some of the cracks that's been created by that entire infrastructure. First of all, the answer is yes, it does, and

we're going to see that. But I think that the difference between this turning into a recession and not is not whether or not the economy takes a little bit of hit, but whether or not come and he has decided to lay off workers, or whether those gig workers there's enough of them that actually creates a problem. You know, if if you look at the way that recessions have worked historically, it takes a period of time for a company,

especially the labor market is tight. Companies, if they think this is gonna be over in the next two or three months or whatever that period is, they're not gonna want to lay off workers if they can avoid it, and they rather take it out of profits in the near term, because hiring that worker back is going to be more expensive, and that's gonna be critical. If this lasts longer, then you have a second issue. Yes, his individuals are displaced, but but broadly, I don't think you

will have that futures negative negative. And then take this recession discussion and it's all earnings, earnings, earnings for fancy guys like you right now, forget about that. What's the due to the revenue dynamic? And what is the revenue dynamic in this crisis signal to you six months out? Well, we you know, first of all, the first quarter UM is really gonna be fine. Why because we had a good January and February and even now we're just beginning

to see certain things being closed down. So the first quarter earnings, you know, our estimate is is it used to be that we're gonna have six and a half percent earnings in the first quarter. Now we think we'll have one. That's not a great number, but it's not a disaster. The second quarter we think that, you know, EPs for the for the SMP is gonna be somewhere between down five and ten percent UM. But it really the question is how much longer does this does it

go on? If that's all we're looking at, and you get a bounce in the second half of the year, which we think you will flat earnings this year, which is what we're calling for. It's not brilliant, but it's if that's your worst case, that's not terrible, but it has to be. Ultimately, it's how how how quickly we contain Can you model what kind of multiple you would

put on those earnings at the moment? John, Yeah, I mean the multiple is gonna move, you know, Tom It keeps harping on this issue with the VIX, but it's like, it's super important if the VIX ends the year of fifteen, meaning if this thing is reasonably resolved by the middle of the one five. But if if the end of the question we're is a VIX on December thirty one,

not whereas the vix on on Wednesday. But if the VIX on December thirty one is back down somewhere in that ballpark, which means that this is is now part of our history, then you're gonna have a multiple over eighteen on the market um come year end. How depending on are all of your estimates on the policy response, on the idea that we get a coherent and timely policy response in the United States, Yeah, I'm not. I'm not assuming that we're gonna get something brilliant on policy.

What I am assuming and I think, but what when I talk to in stitial investors they're assuming is that the number of cases is going to rise as we test more people, and the news flow is gonna get a little bit ugly over the coming weeks. But in if we use the Chinese or Korean experience or whatever, we're gonna see in two or three months from now, the number of cases is gonna be shrinking, a number of new cases, and the market's gonna say, Okay, this

thing is now under control. And if that's the way it plays out, then um, then and the multiple does rise back up? On should I get out of cash and triple average cash? What do you think? Triple leverage? But you know, I mean, do I think? I mean, we have a thirty three hundred target between now and the end of the year. You're sustaining that right now? No? No, we went from thirty six hundred to three hundred. But what I do I believe that the mark will be

higher between now and the end of the year. Absolutely, do I think they will see new lows. Fay feels like December, the end of the week, at the end of the week December thirty one feels that white silm it does futures negative seventy one, down futures negative five seventy four, John, thank you so much. We're gonna say it, John, Why don't you bring in Megan Green here with some really interesting what's great about her? She's got a fancy British education as well, so she can really do the

trans atlantic look. To be honest, knows you're better than anyone I speak to on a regular basis. Macan Green joining us Now, how the Kennedy say, any a fellow, Megan, Let's get straight to Europe. The ECB tomorrow, Christine Laguard coming down and telling you you leaders reportedly that if they don't act, we could have an outcome that remind us of our way. Your thoughts on that line, Yeah,

I mean, I think that's pretty stark. Um. I think it's probably a bit overdone, except for where Italy is concerned, right, because Italy still has a massive debt burden, they're almost certainly in recession. They're going to go further into recession with the entire country in lockdown, and so then you know, you could get some throwback to the sovereign debt crisis. UM. But I do think that the e c D has more tools now than they had in two thousand and eight,

which is a good thing. I'm just not sure they're going to use them this week, so UM, I think they'll probably end up cutting rates and they'll probably announce more QUI I don't think that will help much at all. UM. With the tool that they do have that could help as their targeted lending refinancing operations with tel tros Um, which already exists, UH, and they should use them to try to get cash exactly where cash is needed. This is a different challenge to two thousand and eight in

that and TIS hasn't for all of us. Across the developed world, we were looking at the seizing up of markets um in a multi year decline and then really slow recovery this time around. A lot of businesses need of, you know, a bridge loan for a quarter or two and then they might be able to weather this, and so getting cash exactly where it's needed as difficult. I think the Teltro's could help, just because they're targeted and subsidized by the ECB, but I don't think we'll hear

an announcement about it. Well, let's talk about those lending tools and talk to our listeners about the tow try if you're not familiar too familiar with ECP monetary policy over the last few years, it has been a tool that they've deployed many times under President Mario drag Megan, how can Christine the guard adapt that to address the same issue, so she could offer her teltro's at its own rate rather than at the deposit rate right now?

So right now banks keep borrows needs to be at the deposit rate, which is negative, so they get paid as long as they lend onto the real economy, and so it can be targeted more specifically to lending onto the sames or to lending to small companies and distress um and then the cultural rate could be deeply negative. So essentially banks could borrow from the e c D it let's say negative two basis points, so they get paid to borrow, and then they could lend it on

to distress companies at negative rates as well. So they've been a bit from a carry trade, but everybody gets subsidized by the ECB. Essentially, Megan Green, in honor of all the people listening to this who studied some of this in some books at some time. What you're discussing almost sounds like devious or affected or funny money procedures. Is there any evidence any of this will work without some form of consequence out there? Well, so you could

end up with a misallocation of capital. You're right, if you're subsidizing everyone, everyone will want to borrow. So it's like, I feel like, I'm you know, central bank t ball. Everybody gets a blue ribbon, this undegree, and this isn't the first best option for anyone. And of course there's a big fiscal stimulus package would be the best option, um, but that doesn't seem to be coming down the line and the way or the size that lots of people

are hoping for, particularly in the in the Eurozone. And so the e c D is kind of the second best option here. But but at least there is one, um, you know, in the US to FETs hands are really tied by Dodd Frank after the last crisis. So at least the ECB has the more for more room for reneuver Megan. I'm I'm kind of struck by by the focus right now on the public sector, the public response

from politicians and uh AND and monetary policy members. You and I have talked a lot about the private investing sector and how it's exploded with respect to capital. Supposedly, there's all this dry powder on the books of private equity firms and private debt firms. Why isn't the focus on whether or not they are going to actually deploy some of that and help some companies stay in business through this period of time with bridge loans or other

types of measures. Yeah, that's a great question. So for starters, I'm not sure that there is a perception that there's tons of dry powder out there in the private markets, um, partly because we just don't know what's sitting on their books. So it's possible that they don't have any dry powder at all. Um. And there's you know, for example, a lot of clos sitting out there, um that that could go under. So I think that the credit worry certainly

applies to private markets as well. UM. But secondly, you know, the prive factors are in the business of making money, so um, it might be in their best interest to provide bridge loans that they're under new obligation. That's for sure. So I think what we need to see is um numbers that are so big coming out of fiscal or monetaryary authorities that are targeted to get us through these court you know, a couple of months, quarter or two where we need to get cash where it's desperately needed

for individuals of corporate Megan. They're also is a proposal out by German regulators to possibly ease up on some of the capital requirements offer banks. Basically they don't have to hold us much capital if they use that money to go out and give loans to companies that they

can stay in business. I'm just wondering whether banks are really and and should be in the position forget you know, extending some of the deadlines from a charities and things like that to keep people going, but to actually extend loans at a time when we could be heading into a recession and that could potentially financially weaken them. Yeah,

so you raise a good point. I think it does make sense to reduce countercyclical capital buffers, and so that UK did it earlier today, Um, it makes sense in years on too, But you're right for starters, you know, it could put banks in a perilous position going into a downturn. But also it's not like the cost of borrowing has really been the issue, So it's it's not like this will make businesses desperately want to go and borrow from banks. And it's not like banks are actually

obliged to go ahead and land. So there is a question about how much any of that capital is really being freed up for lending because banks get to make their own decisions even if governments lean on them. Um, So I'm not sure how much this will help. I'm not particularly worried about UM banks in this case, although

European banks I am more worried about than than us. Thanks, um, But you know, I think if we're heading into a downturn anyhow, UM, it's worth trying to avoid one rather than not doing anything because you're worried that a downturn might come. And Megan, thank you so much. Mega Green with us with the Harvard County Senior Fellow. Thrilled to have her with us. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.