Surveillance: Currencies Increasingly Politicized, Stretch Says

The forward guidange used to be the e C B c S rates as a present level for as long as needed, or at least through the end of the new guidance essentially is that rates at present or lower levels for as long as needed. So that's an extension and strengthening of forward guidance. So that story wants story two on rates. If they introduce a lower interest rates. They've ordered a review of options, including a tiered system for rates, so that would offset some of the paying

for the financials. Good news sort of financials, good news for the bank. So you're a weaker down by a tenth. Banks up on the stocks, fifty euro stocks fifty up by a little more than two percent, So that's forward guidance, that's rates. Let's talk about asset purchases. ECB staff also examining options for potential new asset buying, so under consideration, a review of options on rates included in a tiered system for rates and options for potential new asset buying

as well. So qui under consideration, tearing under consideration, and it looks like this could all come Lisa Bravits as soon as September. This is exactly what the market was expecting though, right, I mean, honestly, this is this is pretty much Uh. They figured the ECB would being trying to assemble some sort of package to really hit the Eurozone and try to ignite some growth. This how it

confirms that. Yeah. I think it's really encouraging though to see the bank stocks up by two point nine percent in Europe. Less focused on the euro for me at least, just looking at the financials and the equities responding positively

to this decision. Basically, the the idea, the implication here being that that the ECB understands the pain that would be inflicted on the banks if it didn't do some sort of alleviation of the steep discount rate given the fact that they would have to pay zero point five percent on their deposits held overnight if they did lower rates without tearing, the idea that they wouldn't have to pay all of that is giving some confidence to European

banks at least. I would also say my other interpretation of this decision as well, I don't think they've held off until September because they get the staff forecast. I think they've hold off. They're holding off until September because they haven't really agreed on the parameters for a new asset purchase program. Is pretty clear that they're still examining

options for that. That headline has come across the Bloomberg also pretty clear over the last few months since President drag first head up the idea of tearing if rates went eve and lower, it looks like they're still reviewing that too. So I think the reasons to hold off

until September are not about forecast. It's about actually coming to an agreement about the parameters for new bond buying and whether you introduced hearing and coming out with a full guns of blazing package to say here's what we got and shark and are let's get this started. I mean really, and it's not just going to be one little blip of a move and then sort of trickle out the rest. Let's bring in Semas Shash now were principal global investors chief strategies seem a great timing with

us on the program. Your interpretation of the decision in the last ten minutes, Yeah, not too dissimil to what you've said. I mean, I think maybe what happened this morning was given the very weak iPhone number and then also the week here nights from yesterday, but that perhaps the market had raised slightly their expectations for every cup today.

But in truth this has really met expectations. I think they have done some pretty good staff in terms of an auncual tearing as you said that it's very important for banks because up till now you've had easily policy which is really been undermined by generally to rate not

really helping banks. So that's certainly positive and with potential for que You know, I don't think anyone was really expecting an announcement today, but the fact is that they are layering the laying the groundwork or something to be done at least some more details in September. It may be that it's really left for Christine regards to actually bring it into force, and really the market just wants to know that, and I think from here on there's a lot of focus on what are they likely to buy?

And we know from previous times that the corporate bond purchase program was the most effective, and that is what the market is frexing on, so seeming let's focus on that just for a moment. As we know and pointed out by Mergy investments of the high grade market in the European credit market right now of financials, do you think there's a possibility that the ECB could start buying the debt of the companies that they also have to regulate. I think that may well be a step too far

at this stage. I think there's so many umt of various constraints constructions that they are under that that may have to be a step further. And you may only see that once the market or the economy continues to weaken. You don't feel like aner deposit is really helping banks. So I think that's that's further step in the same way that you know, we hear all the circulations. Are the ECB ever been to buy equities. I think you need to your really drastic deterioration in the economy before

they go down that road. So let's say the ECB does come through with what the market is currently expecting, a rate cut, tearing and some sort of format for what further asset purchases would look for, look like, will that work? Will that? Will that actually jumps out the European economy? Well, you know, I think that's a key question because what we have here is you have Montro policy. Really it's at the walls of its effectiveness, so you

can only move the das so much. A lot of it's going to be via the communication and simply you know, if they were to just do a rate cut and maybe tearing, that's simply not enough. It definitely needs the quite I think for me, when I look at as the classes, the key beneficiary assuming all of that comes in, is going to be the credit side. Um And it's not a fundamental it's simply a technical move and that's

what the markets happened. But that from the fundamentals, I am very gubious this is going to really push Europe out of the kind of stagnation that we are seeing in just the next year. Yes, s, I think you've touched on something really important, just a supply story. Are you going to buy the supply story? If they buy more corporate debt will be less corporate debt for other people to buy yours a going lower that may well

apply to credit on the sovereigns. What fascinates me is whether you buy the effectiveness story, because ultimately that would mean you sell ten year buns because you believe the ECB policy will work. Are you essentially saying seeing on the sovereign side, don't expect higher bund yields on longer maturities anytime soon. No, I don't think this can be

any meetings or thing on on buns. I mean, I think you know there's keeping of you know, you simply cannot cite the technicals, so they may well I think, you know, especially if he comes in and be surprising marketing, you could see your slightly down the bund deal. But

they have to be close to best law. Um. You know, we all know that the peripheral yields are the ones are gonna be the key beneficiaries for any ECG move and the boon side the kind of France, they may not be the key beneficiaries that I fee that we could see some movement from Italy from Spain still, but there's you said Germany. It could be a different question, seem I. Do you agree with Larry Fink of Black

Rock that the ECB should buy equities? You know, I think that there is certainly case, but I think there's a very big difference between Europe and the U S And the key thing is this in the US, whereas a lot of retail investors are in equity, in Europe, it is simply not the case because they have a smaller holding of equities related to the US. So if the ECB buy equities, it actually has less of an impact on the underlying economy than it would do in

the US. There is less of a reason. The ECB is also under major constraints politically, illegally, um So I think that that is actually the last step in the Roadman Ta right now down three basis points, fresh record low on a ten year maturity in the bond market, you'll yield negative forty one basis points. Lisa Ramots yields

grinding even lower on the continent. Well, and this really raises a question Seema about the efficacy as we were just talking about, because if you look at market expectations, it is that the ECB will be ineffective. I mean, you're seeing the yield curve shrink, given the fact that you're seeing that ten year boon yield dropped to all time record lows if you look at five year, five

year forward break even raids. I'm just wondering, you know, will this effectively hurt the recovery of the euro Zone of the ECB doubles down and add stimulus here. I mean, I don't know if it would necessarily hurt, but I think that maybe, you know, maybe we're am looking at the wrong wrong indicator, which is the key stimulus is going to come in through the Euro and I think maybe that's what they're trying to move here. Um, you know, so far this is it's on expectation to you. Wait,

this is important, hold on a second. So in other words, currency wars, yeah, and you know, I mean let's say, let's say, for example, that Jegy had done stoping today is something pretty aggressive in terms of rate cuts. We know that there would be some kind of response from the Use administration. Now today we haven't got that, and I think they're gonna be keeping an eye on what the FED does next week and that may actually load

someder ground rates of what they do in September. But I do think that the currency side, when you get to a point where montropology is losing inspectiveness, and it certainly is that it's walls in many countries, then you're only route to hit the economy is via the currency. And as you said that in RT current I seem a greater to catcher with you, Michelle the Principal Global Investors Chief strategist. I think my focus at the moment leads to the prospect of lobal rates in Europe. My

first question how will the bank's tolerates it? And to see the financials on the euro stocks fifty up by a round about two point four four percent, I think it is encouraging on the idea that they also implement tearing if they drop rates in September. That's someone encouraging. Yeah.

It basically is an expectation that the ECB recognizes the pain that they would be inflicting on the banks that they already have, and that they would lighten the cost that they wouldn't have to necessarily pay banks UH the full negative zero point five repay their zero point five pc deposit rate for all of their assets. So we'll see, let's bring a Jeremy stretch show. We see IBC header

G ten FX strategy. Jeremy really thoughts ahead of that news conference in twenty eight minutes time, Well, obviously the the headlines have you've just been discussing, and I think in a sense it looks increasingly likely that to drive you we use his penultimate meeting to effectively through the kitchen sincat. This will be underlying backdrop in order to facilitate as better as best a condition as possible to hand over to his successor after his last meeting October UM.

So I think you're right to laud the prospect of tearing because I think that was one particular concern in relation to the negative deposit rates spectrum, because the ECB has been the only of the negative yielding center banks to avoid that scenario thus far. Um. But it seems to be the case that you know ten basis point

is very much baked in four September. The question is will draw you allow the market to discuss or consider more than that, and of course if he does, then that will be a catalyst for the Euro to continue to retreat, and of course that will be interesting. Uh. And I will be keeping my eye on Mr Trump's Twitter feed to just to see if he has an

early early response to this. Well, Jeremy, I want to pick up on that because Sima Chaw was just on a principal global investors since she was saying, Uh, this essentially is a bid to weaken the euro, because we were talking about the potential efficacy and if you look at German markets right now, European markets, it isn't a material boost inflation expectations, yield curve flatter, Uh, Inflation rates

over the next ten years not materially higher. I'm just wondering, do you think that this is just a reignition of currency warriors. Well, of course Mr Dragon will be asked about the currency today, and as ever, he will always back that back and say that the ECP has no

specific intention on the currency. But of course implicit to their inflation assumptions are the influence of imported prices and of course if you are going to cheapen up the Euro, then you would get higher imported prices and find some

stimulus on the inflation side. So in a sense, it's it's sort of an implied process, but it does raise the risk of adding to already a relatively feeble atmosphere in terms of the currency world, because of course these tensions in terms of currency levels are becoming much more politicized, and I think that is something that markets will remain very mindful of, even if as a as a say Mr Dragon will push back against any explicit commitment on

currency values. Jeremy, we're a week less than a week away from what we could get a right cut from the fellow Reserve. I just wonder if we've had enough today from the e C and we don't know what comes in the news conference, but just so far, if you can make a judgment that would be welcome, Whether we've had enough from the ECB so far to insulate

the euro from strength. If the Federal Reserve comes out swinging next week, well, it's it's it is interesting to know to sort of think about the sort of the juxtaposition between the interplay of central banks, and I think that was one of the reasons why it made sense for the c B two to row back from policy action now and to wait and to see what the

federal Reserve we're going to do now. Of course, the U c B would also argue they need to consider these other package of majures to go with the negative rate story. Um, I think we've we've obviously seen the market which has has been anticipating and assuming that there would bear and coming from the Eurozone, alongside the macro weakness of that has been keeping the euro on the defensive. I guess the question is how how low can we go?

And I think if we do see a print in the upper one tens at this point, I think it may well be the case of just sort of looking to lighten some of those eurosual positions, and we may well see a little bit of a constructed by US coming back in which might just ease the burden a little bit for Mr Powell next week. So, Jeremy, I want to sort of discuss the consequences of a potential currency war race to the bottom in terms of what

you do as an investor. Wouldn't you just double down on emerging markets and the riskiest currencies could develop markets are all racing to try to make their currencies as weak as possible. Well in the world where there is this perception of trying to cheapen currency and or by virtue of monitor policy stimulus, then of course then carry is potentially king. So you're you are coming back to

looking at those high ulding markets. And I was discussing Turkey with with your colleagues on television a little bit earlier in the context of even with the more aggressive rate cuts that we've seen from these center bank today, you've still got a very substantial real yield level compared to elsewhere. So I think there is going to be a case for investors to continue to look in general

for opportunities in high uning markets. But I think it is very much the case that you need to be wary of some of the specific idiocy and cracking issues and some of those nations. But ultimately, in a world where the developed markets or the developed currencies are seemingly under obvious pressure and or external downside this, then investors may well continue to look for those high uling alternatives

as well. So Jeremy, I don't know if you read it, but there was a story yesterday by my colleague Craig torres about a professional worrying unit in the New York Federal Reserve, a woman who has a unit whose job it is just to think, what is the Federal Reserve doing wrong? What could potentially go bust in financial markets? And I would guess that she may be tearing her hair out as she listens to this conversation, thinking, Wow, people are being encouraged to lever up, double down on

carry trades. What's the potential consequence of that longer term? Well, of course, we are an environment where the assumption is that inflation is relatively benign or if not dead, and so if there were to be some degree of consequence of an inflation respector coming back into the marketplace, then

clearly that would create enormous degrees of instability. And of course, as we as we well know, when you're looking at your markets or less liquid markets than of course there is that liquidity risk, and that of course is one of the one of the sort of the legacies of the post crisis well over ten years ago when we

had those difficulties in terms of liquidity. So it is you know, it is this sort of fear or perception of revisiting some of the some of the mistakes of the past, which I guess will be causing some consternation for those that are played too to worry about what could go wrong. Jeremy. We're very much in an easing cycle now, Australia cutting rates, South Africa cutting rates, South

Korea cutting rates, Indonesia cutting rates. The ECB team one up, the Federal Reserve next week, slipping under the radar, and no one's really talking about it. The Bank of Japan, Jeremy, you expect think anything from the bo J anytime soon. That's a very good question. In a sense, they have You're You're absolutely right. They have been sort of left out of the sort of the market discussion for some

considerable time. Um. And we are in an environment where the sort of the macro story remains under a little bit of threat. And obviously there's there's this ongoing issue regarding the consumption tax hike that's coming through and how that will impact on the on the consumer side. UM. So I think it is going to be a case that markets will be watching out for, perhaps the the Bank of Japan looking to continue to extend its own balance sheets. So in a sense, it has been the

one central banket. It's been off the radar screen. I think invariably markets have become accustomed to the Bank of Japan always consistently arguing that we'll get to its inflation target over the over the rainbow, almost as we speak, but never actually achieving it. And I think still that's the presumption, and so the the Bank of Japan will continue to remain exceptionally easy. But I think it's it's not the sort of the pre eminent story in terms

of the global central bank cycle. As we as we turn to speak, Jeremy Gright to catch you with you, Jeremy stretch that c I PC head of Strategy. Well, Saturday Night Live has become an institution. Since nineteen seventy five, Louren Michaels has brought SNL into our living rooms each Saturday night. David Rubinstein, Carlisle Group, co founder and host of Peer to Peer Conversations, sat down with Mr Michaels.

Take a listen to what they had to say. So from seventy five the late seventies or early eighties, how has humor changed or the people who laughed at the same kind of things or certain things you can make fun of now you couldn't or vice versa. There's almost nothing we did in the seventies that I could do now. Gilda Rodner would not be able to play Rose Amazona down and John Belushi would not be able to play Japanese. Uh. Garret Morris Julry News for the heart of hearing would

have been making fun of a handicap. So it's it's just all values change. And then I always said that between the movie Arthur and the movie Arthur to alcoholism became a disease and no one wanted to laugh at drunks anymore, whereas for two years they had left the drunk. That's David Rubinstein speaking with SNLS Lauren Michael's David Rubinstein, Carloud Group, co founder and host of Peer to Peer Conversations. You can hear that tonight on Bloomberg Radio at five pm. David,

thanks so much for joining us. Just a fascinating discussion I'm sure you had uh with Lauren. Could you just give us a key takeaways that you had from your conversation? Well, Lauren is somebody who has I've been running this show more or last for forty years. Um he started and for five years he ran it, and then he took five years five years off to do some producing of movies in Hollywood and so forth, and other TV shows, and then he came back. So he's been running it

for forty years. Think about how many people have been at the top of their profession for forty years. But this show has sustained itself because he's been able to figure out what makes people laugh and to evolve that. As he said, it's different than it was years ago. But he's a very smart person, very much has his finger on the pulse of what's funny and what is

not funny. And obviously his political humor recently has got an enormous amount of attention talking about the enormous amount of tension around political humor and the things that you could say in the seventies versus not today, by the way, that was hysterical. I'm wondering how their approach to political news has shifted. I mean, other things that they can do now or can't do now, that they used to

be able to do. There. I think that they are willing to take on both sides, Democrats, Republicans, everybody, and they think they feel they can make fun of virtually anybody in politics, because politicians probably have a lower public esteem than they did many years ago, and therefore I don't think they upset that many people when they attack politicians. But obviously you're the one being attacked, or you're the supporters of the one being attacked, yes you're not happy.

But generally the political humor is what they find is the most appealing thing that they put on the air. So I think they're going to continue to do that. And obviously many politicians are pretty good, uh, examples of people that you can make fun of. So, David, one of the things you mentioned, or one of the things I find so fascinating about Lord Michaels is that he's been at the top of his game for so long. It's you rarely see that in any walk off life,

much less show business. Did you get a sense of what continues to drive Lauren Michaels. Well, he's driven by I think the fact that he is a perfectionist. He likes being the top of the profession. He let me come to one of the shows that he was producing. I saw he's deeply involved in every detail he's on the set. He goes through every script, he goes through all the rehearsals, so he is pretty much a hands

on person very often for forty years. Some people tend to kick themselves upstairs a bit and aren't has involved in the DTL, but he's involved in everything, and I think that's one of the keys to his success. What was the most surprising thing that you learned from the interview? Well, the most surprising thing, I guess is that um he um doesn't really want to say what who's the funniest person of all time? Or what was the funniest show.

He's very reluctant to the point out one show versus another, one comedian versus another, So um he wouldn't say Eddie Murphy's funnier than the Gilda Radner or so forth. Um. He obviously has his views on that, but he didn't really want to talk about that, in part because I don't think he really wants to pick between the various comedians.

If you look at the comedians he's had over the forty years, it's it's virtually anybody who's been funny over the last forty years in television or in movies has been on that show. And I guess he does as one of the like saying which of your children do you like the most? And nobody wants to answer that question. Nobody wants to answer that question. Have you watched S and L for a long time? Personally, I've watched it for a long time and I'm glad they haven't made

fun of me yet, but I suspent something point you will. So, David, going forward, what do you think Lauren Michael's next five to ten years? I don't want to think forty years. But is he plan on doing this for the foreseeable future? Like many people at the top of the profession who've done it for a while, they are reluctant to say when they're going to step down, because when you say that,

you've become a bit of a lame duck. Um. He is in pretty good health mentally physically, it's clear he has a great work quotition, So I don't see him slowly down any time soon. And in this eight day and age, you can work to your eight I think he's in mid seventies now, you can work your eighties and people are still saying, okay, if you can do the job, fine, So I think he'll be there for quite some time, and the ratings are good, so why would anybody want to get rid of them? If you're

a Comcast, which is the owner of NBC. That's right, the ratings are good. That's always the bottom line. David Rubinstein, thank you so much for joining us. David Rubinstein, Carlisle Group, co founder and host of Peer to Peer Conversations. You can hear that tonight on Bloomberg Radio at five pm Wall Street Time. Well, one of the things that big technology has to deal with, I think, which is new

for Silicon Valley is regulatory oversight by US politicians and regulators. Historically, Washington has taken a fairly light touch to Silicon Valley, but that may be changing. To get a sense of how this might develop, we welcome our good friends Shira Overday, Bloomberg Opinion Colmas covering all things technology. She joins us here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio. Sure, thanks so much for joining us. It seems like things have changed

a little bit. The rhetoric coming out of Washington has changed a little bit as it relates to big tech. What do you make of it? I think that's a correct assessment. I mean, particularly the last couple of years there has been I think a little bit more focus among the public and people like me and lawmakers about

some of the downsides of technology. Right that the focus, I think in the prior decade had been about all these great things that technolog G had brought us, you know, iPhones and breaking down barriers between people and and kind of removing the power of distribution from the hands of

the elites. And those things are all true, but we're also thinking about G there were some bad things that went along with that, and I think now you're seeing that big technology companies, particularly in Washington, which is I think new for Silicon Valley, big tech companies are now this punching bag. It's literally the only bipartisan issue in Washington is to criticize big technology companies for um for their downsides. Again, I think both real and somewhat imagined.

In some cases, big tech has become a verbal punching bag as to actual action. Perhaps they're missing with their punches because so far, certainly there doesn't seem to be much of an impact on share price, it doesn't seem to be much of an impact on the bottom line, and frankly, lobbying costs may have ticked up a bit on part of big tech because it has hit a record, but other than that, it seems rather ineffectual. Well, this US Department of Justice inquiry, which they announced on Tuesday,

be somewhat different. So I think it's easy to be cynical and I am to write about the speed of Washington relative to rhetoric. But I do think that this kind of broad tech reckoning it is having an impact. So, just to pull out a couple of examples, Amazon last year announced that it was increasing the minimum wage for

all of its workers fifteen dollars an hour. And you know that may have been a business decision, right, the labor market is tight, and that may have been kind of a decision to attract a better caliber of workers on Amazon's part, But it also came after the company faced high degree of criticism, particularly from Bernie Sanders, the now Democratic presidential candidate, for working conditions, particularly of the

warehouse workers, people who work in the warehouses. Right, So that's a case where um, political red rick probably did have an impact. Um, if you look at Facebook's earnings yesterday, Again, if you look at Facebook's top line, you can say, well, the FTC find them five billion dollars and it didn't matter. There's been all these privacy headaches and scandals and it

didn't matter. But Facebook is talking about a sort of step down in growth over time, including late this year and into next year, and it blamed in part some of these privacy changes that either it's implementing because of all these scandals or that are being imposed on it

from the outside. Like in Europe there's been last year they implemented a fairly strict data privacy law, and Facebook has said that is having an impact on our ability to highly target these ads based on our human surveillance machine, and that's resulting in kind of a slower rate of

revenue growth. So I think those are some examples where yeah, there's a lot of rhetoric and a lot of below any um in political capitals all over the world, but some of these privacy and broad tech reckonings are actually having an impact on business. So when we talk about big tech, we think about Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Is there a sense that one is more at risk than

the others others? I mean, you mentioned Facebook and that seems like one because we're talking about people's privacy and their personal communications. Is there a sense that one might be more at risk than the other. It's a little bit hard to know, because the issue with antitrust investigations is that you just they're so unpredictable. You have no

sense of where they're going to lead. And if you give government investigators basically power to dig up every email that Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos has ever have ever sent, who knows what they will find. But saying that, I think it's generally thought that both Google and Facebook are maybe a little bit more exposed than Amazon and Apple um in part because of the size and just kind

of global span of their businesses. And also they're both these kind of ad machines that basically have their hooks into just about every corner of the Internet economy. So, as I mentioned before, lobbying costs on part of big tech have reached record levels, not only for big tech but just for any industry whatsoever. Certainly trying to make their influence felt in Washington, d C. What do they

want to see? Well, I think they want to influence any kind of legislative action, right, So, I mean there's another way of phrases is are they conceding there will be legislative action, and they're basically going to propose some sort of self regulatory mechanism. And if that's the case, what is it, Yes, I do that is exactly what

they want. Like any company, right, the tech companies, they realize there is probably going to be both federal and state legislation in the United States that impacts their business, and so they're trying to have a hand and in influencing the outcome of that legislation. So there's privacy legislation that's being considered both in Congress and in multiple states. California past a what seems like a fairly strict kind

of online privacy regulation. Recently other states are considering similar things. There's all kinds of activity around political election advertisements that also affect the big tech companies again these antitrust investigations. Congress is also engaged in its own antitrust investigations of

big tech companies. So on multiple fronts, you see the big tech companies again like any giant industry before, at banking, energy, they're trying to influence lawmakers and to make sure that if there is legislation pass that affects their business, that they try to control any downside. We've even heard some you know, some of the politicians, probably most likely like uh Senator Elizabeth warren't talk about potentially breaking up big tech.

Is that even remote risk? Do you think I'll go back to say, I don't know, because you just don't know what happens when these anti trust investigators get involved. I think right now that doesn't feel like a serious possibility. But we'll see. The nature of investigations is that they're unpredictable. You know one thing that strikes me as you're talking. I'm thinking, you know, these big tech executives, they have to get ahead, both in terms of legislative action, but

also from a public relations standpoint. They have to come out and say privacy is important. We don't want bad actors some smaller companies that operate in the tech space or using your data for things that are bad. We don't hear all the protections that we have. Are you expecting statements like that in the earnings and I'm thinking Amazon reporting earnings after the bell. Is that something that they that you expect them to do, or or that they should do. I think the tech companies, you can

see it. They are now very concerned about their public perception and companies. Let's take Apple as an example. They have made um kind of data privacy and explicit marketing pitch to its customers, saying, you're worried about the safety of you and your kids online. We're worried about that too. Here ways that we are implementing kind of data privacy

protections and encryption on our gadgets. Please buy them. And I think you can go on down the list and of all of these tech companies, they realize they need to project the image to their customers and potential customers and advertisers and other business allies that they are taking seriously concerns that these companies are too big, hurting the economy, hurting workers, hurting competition, hurting privacy. They know this, and so yeah, they are engaged in kind of image burnishing efforts.

Sure overday, Thank you. I know you've been crazy busy and we always love getting our insights as we do also reading your columns. You can find them on the on the terminal O P I N go, or you can go online Bloomberg dot com, slash Opinion. Sharah Oviday is a technology columnist and she is basically glued to her computer. It actually just came with her and it's sort of stuck to her back as she writes her column of the week. But definitely interesting to say. What's

gonna happen with the Amazon ear next? 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.