Surveillance: SEC Transparency With Gensler

center stage. Lawmakers growing increasingly concerned about distortions in the marketplace, especially within crypto and the new phenomenon known as the meme stocks. That's where our next guest comes in. Gary Ginstler, the thirty third chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission against the served as the Chairman of the CFTC under President Obama and working for nearly two decades at Goldman.

He joins us now exclusively for his first interview on this network in his new role alongside Bloomberg's Tom Kane. Joining us to Gary. Great to catch up and thank you for joining us for the next ten minutes. I just want to start with your statement, your mission statement to meet our mission of protecting investors that's the first line. Gary, what do you do for a group of investors that don't want your protection? Well, I'm gonna be animated every

day in this job by working families. UH, and working families need the protection. And Franklin Roosevelt knew this in the nineteen thirties. We know this now President Biden knows that it's it's about working families ensuring they get the disclosures so they can make their choices in the markets. And there's a cop wing to be protecting against fraud manipulation that helps companies raise money too. By the way, by lowering the fraud manipulation ensuring that there's consistent disclosure

to those investors, I think companies benefit as well. Disclosure is a broad concept, so let's narrow in on that were specifically. Do you think we need more disclosure? Well, I think there's trillions of dollars of assets under management now calling for greater and consistant disclosure around climate risk, and when I've also asked staff to take up UH disclosures around human capital, the most important, really fundamental asset

of a company, the people that work there. Gary, thank you so much for joining John and I this morning. I'm gonna go broader here, Gary, I have never seen a primal cry for an SEC commissioner to just do something. You mentioned something I mentioned an hour ago, which is FDR. I'll go to the Commonwealth speech early in the depression. There is a primal screen chairman to do something. What does the do something you want to do to help us with meme stocks, with SPACs and other things. I

don't understand. Well, Tom, you're you're you're being a little and honest. I'm sure that you understand them a little better than that, and your listeners have listened to you for years. But look what I think the important thing is is investors want another there's somebody looking after that, working families, engineers, people that have four oh one case. So you mentioned special purpose acquisition companies or so called spects. It's really making sure that the sponsor who's behind that

is fully disclosing their take on it. These are very expensive dilutive products. I mean the sponsors take out a chunk at the beginning, then there's more being taken out later when they merge with the private company in what's called a DESPAC. I just call that a target I p O and it's those disclosures, ensuring that the retail investors get the right disclosures and are protected and somebody's

not misleading them. And secondarily that they're participating just like the the institutional investors and a lot of the big institutions buy into these spacts later during that target I p O and they do so at a preferred price rather than the price the retail public's getting. Sherman guests are long agoing far away. We had a red hair.

We all read them, you know, differently ourselves. I start at the back and see the character and the integrity of the people involved, and as you just mentioned, you go up to that single page on delution to see how bad the new shareholders are being taken. Do we know the delustion? Do we have transparency on specs or frankly on other challenges you have. Do we have visibility on these key issues right now? Now? I've asked staff

to think across our whole markets. You know, technology rapidly changes be names and so their their rules sometimes put in place fifty years ago. For instance, on beneficial ownership, Congress set if you went past five per cent and you had an intent to to control a company you have to disclose, but they gave you ten days and we've been given authority to shorten that. Well, technology says we can shorten that. Shouldn't shouldn't the whole market know

if somebody has tripped that five percent wire? So I've asked staff to think about these types disclosure and stock I backs in something called derivatives called security space swaps, and yes, in these special purposes acquisition companies as well, the delusion, the cost and the like. Well, Gary, this situation, this conversation brings up the episode around doc Keane Gholst. What have you learned from that event and what does

it mean for disclosures from family offices. Well, I think that the events of March around the family office do raise questions about the exclusion of family offices. But to us at the U S Securities and Exchange Commission, we're gonna, I guess staff to lean in how we can have more disclosure about these derivatives security space swaps. We have a reform regime that my predecessors put in place that goes live in November of this year for more disclosure.

But I think we need to also aggregate some of those holdings. So people, again, have you tripped that five percent line? Uh? And we didn't have that disclosure. But in the r key ghost Garry one of the choice of you, and I think everybody that is politically with you, and frankly you're people a little bit a little bit off the Gunstler belief. They all have an immense respect of how you have lived Wall Streets through your story career. Great and John and I have talked about this before.

That's all great about derivative transparency, but the street is set up based on mystery and based on the unknown. How are you going to force and I'll pick on two familiar names, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs to display

and make visible their derivative holdings. Well, look, because uh, the public is ultimately represented by those of us in the official sector, and whether it was President Roosevelt in n thirties, President Obama, with the passes of Dodd, Frank uh and and multiple precedents in between, with Congress, we have laws that help our capital markets and help those working families and our client, you know, my client are those working families, those those retirees that want a cop

on the beat and rules so yes, whether it's a large firms that you've mentioned, there are other large firms, we have the authority to bring such transparency and we'll put things out to notice and comment. Folks will be able to say they think it's good idea or not. We'll look at the economic analysis, but overall we'll be looking out for our ultimately, our the American public, who

are really our clients and President Biden's clients. Ultimately, if you're cheating in on the bloom Black radio when Blomberg TV, we're catching up with the thirty third year of the SEC. Gary Gainstler check against the Let's continue this conversation around our kegos. Tom and I had a difficulty for about a month knowing what to cool our kegos. Was it a family office, was it a fund? Was it an

asset manager? How would you describe it? Well, I don't want to get into any one company because you could imagine the reasons why not. But um large funds investing our market are required to still play by the rules are anti fraud and other rules and various disclosure rules. But I do think that we at the SEC can do more work here and said that's why the S staff to have more disclosure rules related to these contracts that that entity was using, using something called security spased swaps.

In Congress in two thousand and ten in the reform movement after that crisis of OH eight past rules that said, yes, the SEC can bring greater disclosure. In fact, it's not even once in what's called Dodd Frank, but twice in two different provisions. So I had meetings even yesterday with staff about well, how do we stitch this together and try to put something in front of our five member

commission and get it out for public notice. A gay one stead of disclosures that we haven't discussed today, things around the climate, around gender diversity as well, and in the limited and we have left with you. I think we need to talk about that as well. Republicans have really pushed back against your role in all of this. This is what twelve GOP senators wrote to you the SEC on June fourteenth. They push for more disclosure related to global warm because a little to do with providing

material information for investment purposes. Rather, activists with no fiducry duty to the company or its shareholders are trying to impose their progressive political views on publicly traded companies. Why is that statement wrong in your view? So I have deep respect for the members of Congress, the senators who wrote that letter, and we've had some very good, uh individual conversations about this. I think it's it's foremost about investors,

and this is at our regime. Investors want to know more about this very important risk, climate risk, and how do companies deal with whatever transitions might be in the future, whatever physical risk that they have, How are they managing it, how are they governing it, and what are some of the basic metrics. So invest just want to see information, and then the role of the SEC has to try to bring some consistency, some comparability, and yes, reliability to

that information. And then investors benefit, and frankly also the company's benefit because they get some they get some rules as to how to present it, and they also then can compete for capital in the capital markets based upon that nexus. Chairman, guess, so I want to get a question in here. I know Johnny has an important final question is, well, what I know for certain garreas everything

is free. There was one day where the Wall Street Journal had three consecutive ads one page next page next page of free trading on Wall Street and all that's devolved down to the meme stocks and the order flow debate. What I know is the people that own order flow are in billionaires row in New York City on fifty seven Street. Does the sec of a need to somehow remanage order flow and remanage the fiction of free trading? Tom, I'm glad you're closed. It's not free. It's just simply so.

It might be zero commission, but underneath that, some of these brokers, not all, but some of these brokers are then selling your orders to another firm I'll call it a wholesaler. And when they sell that, why why is somebody paying for it? Is because there's an inherent conflict that even if it's a penny or two pennies or some small fraction that's trading off against you, the retail public. So it's not free. You know what can we do about it? We're gonna take a look at the whole

equity market structure, the stock market. Some other countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, they've banned such payment ford or flow, and so we're gonna take a look closely at that also to look at when you're the retail public, when you put in order in a mark could order, it rarely goes to the New York Stock Exchange or not NaSTA, it goes to these whost salers. That segmentation matters to

us the public. Check ENSLO. I know you've got to run and your team is firing away emails kind of gets to let you go. So I just one final question on this very important issue. You really pushed back against the language there. It's not free. Is that something you want to do something about the language specifically, or is the priority the activity? The priority is the investing public, and so we're going to take a look at this

and say what works best for them. Congress has given authority to think about the efficiency of markets, and it's the efficiency for the big pension funds. It's efficiency for that person that's going on a platform and app and and trying to say for their future. And so that's our priority. The language matters, but I don't think it's just about disclosure. I also think that there's inherent conflicts and we need to take a close look at at how we reform these markets. Check Inslo, thanks for you

wanting am and on. We hope this is the beginning of an ongoing dialog with you. The thirty third chat of the sect against the Thank you sir, just getting right to it. Our interview of the day on the equity market, Mike Wilson has been just absolutely brilliant trying to go back and forth the nuances of the equity market in this great bull market Mike Wilson with Morgan Stanley, is the great bull market over now? I don't think

it's over. I think this is you know, the typical pause that we get as we go from early to mids angle. Uh, you know, PEK created changes. John was saying, is what we've been focused on not just for you know, growth measures, whether it be economic data or say earnings growth data, but also policy. You know, the Fed you know has you know, kind of pivoted a bit to

start the long process of removing monetary accommodation. 're not doing it yet, but the market, you know, keys off of that, and we've been focused on really money supplied growth because in the world where you're on the zero bound globally, right and every in every sort of major market, that the key determinant whether monetary policy accommodation is accelerating

or decelerating. Is MP two growth and EMP two growth peaked at the end of February early March and has been slowly coming down, and that we think that has had a very large impact on the speculative parts of asset markets. Obviously cryptos part of that, you know, very expensive kind of unprofitable companies, backs and things like that. They've corrected significantly because at the margin, right, the accommodation

has already been deteriorating. So my campus out when it comes to the debate away from the index level, within the index, the churn, the rotation growth versus cyclicals, what does that look like for you and the team? Now? Yeah, so, I mean, you know, the beginning of the year, obviously the you know, the call was rates were going to go higher, and that you took out the very expensive long duration assets. That was the beginning of the correction.

Then it kind of shift too. Low quality names started to come off the boil, and now look the market's going after kind of the reflation theory, typical assets had probably ran up a little too far. But you know, I think, as Leasa said, there's just the inflows of money you know, are still so good. The money doesn't leave the market, it just looks for another place to go.

So recently, obviously longer duration growth stocks have done better as rates have come down, and people say, well, if the rate of changes peaking, and then I want to go where the growth is. So the market is being very efficient internally. The problem is it's very difficult to trade for people because it's flip flopping back and forth. And by the way, this is all normal during the mid cycle transition is what always happens. You know, this is it. This is what you get. It's a chop

at to churn. It's not as easy as it wasn't last year, and we you know, it's probably got another three to six months of this sort of patterned Mike, could you draw a distinction between the rate of change in the money supply the amount of cash slashing around the system versus the actual amount. Basically that we still are climbing to new hot eyes. We saw this catastrophic increase. I'm looking at the M two chart right now on the Bloomberg terminal, just fascinating to see how massive the

growth has been. Why is that not enough to keep the rally going, given the fact that we're also getting the economic recovery, well, I think it is keeping the rally going. I mean, you know, the index level, we haven't really seen any correction. What you know, the the change at the sort of rate of change movement in in M two or whatever money supply growth you're looking at,

you know, is causing the internals to move around a lot. Okay, So once again, you know, the deterioration and that money supply growth is causing the more speculative parts of the market to really underperform, whereas you know, it's becoming a higher quality bid. You know, maybe the markets moving towards where evaluation is more amenable, and so it's doing it that way. Until you know, we see outflows from the equity market, the index level is probably gonna be okay.

It's just it's it's a sideways chop, and so the the action is in the internals of the market, not the index. Mike, when you touched your analysts, and you know, I don't know if you're doing this or they're doing it, but when you sum up SMP earnings, can you get out to a two d and fifty dollars statistic like some of the optimists, Uh, well maybe in like five years, I mean, okay shot. But we we think that's another risk here is that the peak rate of change on

growth has also been reached. And um, something we've been focused on a lot here time is at the first quarter benefited um from you know, two fiscal stimuluses that were enormous. It also benefited from, you know, the run up in cryptocurrencies, which increased wealth by over a trillion dollars,

and some of that leaked into the real economy. So what we're focused on, what we think is a potentially is that people are now annuallyzing this Q one from a margin and sort of earnings growth standpoint, and so we're having a hard time, quite frankly getting to to ten for next year, which is where the bottomtop consensus is. Part of that is because we're baking in some tax increases, but also we think the margin assumptions now have got

a little too aggressive. So now we think the earning story is also something needs to be tempered back, and we saw the beginning of that last week with the financial stacks, some of the financials companies talking talking down guidance a bit, which is why those stacks underperformed. It wasn't just about the rate curve the landing. This is the heart of the matter, John, I don't mean to step on you, but this is the heart of the matter.

I mean, you've got our earnings analysis in every interview we do is different in nuance and it really is the heart of the matter to get through the summer. I remember the note that Mike and the team put out a couple of months ago around earning season. Mike, he was execution risk. That's what you were discussing, execution risk. When it comes to Machin's What is the cost pressure

you focused on, Mike that you worried about. Well, I think the one that we have to pay attention to the most because this is the one that will probably cause the FED to move more quickly or not is wages. Right, So labor is an enormous, you know, input to most companies cost structures. And you know, I think the transient like the materials and some of the commodity stuff is

somewhat is in because obviously it's self prectic. There's demand instruction, but labor, you know, seems to be a bit more structural. You know, we did destroy some of the labor supply

in the pandemic and the lockdown. There's some people now retiring earlier given the windfalls asset prices, and you know, and also the movement of labor around the country, you know, where people don't live, where they need to live to meet the job openings, and so that part of it I think is really important to watch here over the next couple of months. What's the direction of the turn right now, Mike, what's set to outperform over the next

three to six months. What's the best asset? Yeah, what's the direction of the turn of the turn underneath the headline number of the index. Well, I think well, first of all, we're pretty barished at the index level because we're having a hard time getting much about four thousand by year ends. That's pretty punky returns at the index level. So you know, once again we're trying to make money at the top level of the tech level, trying to trying to be a bit more nimble and tactical UM.

But we still believe in the flation inflationary story. So I mean, banks and material stocks have corrected here recently, are you can start looking back to going to UM growth areas. I think you gotta be released selective in terms of what you pay. We've been favoring the higher quality growth theories that are more reasonably priced. That would

include some of the fang stocks. And then healthcare we think is a very interesting area where there's probably pent up demand as opposed to payback in demand from last year because we'll put off healthcare services and whatnot. So that those are areas we're focused on right now. We're going to continue to have an open mind and be flexible as a market changes. Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley might looking forward to get you in the studio soon. It's

going to catch up the chief US equity strategists. It's a cheap guy funny guests that appears on Bloomberg Surveillance on radio and TV. When some starts to interrupt, keep sulking. James Sweeney's back with us on police to say sweets. Chief economist James gonna have you with us on the show. We're just continuing this conversation about the amount of uncertainty we have, the lack of clarity as we work our

way through this reopening. When do you think we will get that is at the end of summer, the beginning of September. James, what's the date in your diary. Yeah, I think late summer we start to get uh we we get better information on the wage picture, and we could talk more uh informed about about services inflation given

that wage picture. The problem right now is that with this reopening, with the checks just sent, with the base effects, with the seasonal effects, with the composition effects in the wage data, you can't really tell. But but I'll tell

you what was happening. What was helpful in this FED meaning is exactly that dropping that kind of debate about temporary which was which was lame all along, because that was that word was aimed at a strong man argument of very high inflation down the road, where professionals care about the path of inflation within this and whether inflation could be a little bit higher and a little bit more vol tile once we're through this whole pandemic event.

And I think the the incoming information suggests that that is very possible. The path is very interesting, um and a little bit higher inflation, higher wages, more volatility is possible too. And I feel like the FET is having that debate and they're acknowledging those risks now, and so let's please stop talking about temporary because of course the pandemic was temporary and we had special factors throwing inflation around.

James Sweeney, where's the emotional number? I mean for the people listening and watching, it's real simple pros are framing three percent inflation fo dotted out. Uh, where's the emotional number where the nation goes into a collective sweat Well, I I think for broad household inflation expectations, you know, that's actually not an inflation number. It's a spending number. It's it's when you see house prices and and car prices, you know, start to rip when people are buying things

because they think prices are higher in the future. But actually the surveys suggest that people are saying that they it's a bad time to buy a house or a car because because prices are higher right now. So I don't think we're going to get there. I think we're just gonna have a little bit higher inflation, a little bit more aboli high inflation. I think we're gonna come

down from this kind of temporary base effect peak. And the question is how much wage growth, how much services inflation, and are we gonna be running at you know, two point to two point three sustainably for for a few years. Because if we're there, that's fifty basis point higher and core terms than the average of the last twenty five years. And it's a pretty big deal. But to a lot of the strawman arguments about money supply causing runaway inflation

seems pretty boring. But the people in the bond market, that matters, and that's what we're focused on. James. You talk about higher used car prices, you talk about home prices. Has there ever been a precedent for the diversion experiences of individuals on the ground buying stuff and official measures of inflation? You know, I don't think so, and I think the reason is, you know, those inflation and the these are two third services and one third goods, and

services spending is typically remarkably steady, even in recessions. I mean we we've had two contractions in services consumption I think in sixty or seventy years before before this event, So you've had significant volatility in that side. So you have a lot of relative prices that have to adjust. As always, people in everyday life were more focused on goods prices and services prices, but the whole price complex is jumbled up by the specifics of this pandemic, and

people should not lose sight of that. Also, James, the FED has had a pretty aggressive role in the bond market with their bond purchases, which has raised some questions about the accuracy the effectiveness of looking at break even rates for market predictions of longer term inflation. Do you think that there has been so much noise and FED buying around those particular instruments as to render them much less useful as a gauge of a market expectation for

longer term inflation. I I wouldn't blame FED purchases. I think they were never a good gauge for for longer term inflation expectation. There's the risk premium in break even, and I never call break even inflation expectations. I call them break evens. There there there's something different, James Sweeney, He's gonna say it's gonna catch off pass always an urn. Apologies for the instruction to the Kimas sanction. Jimes Sweeney that Swiss chief economy it is definitive because it is

wildly eclectic and controversial. That is a new addition of Foreign Affairs magazine. It is can China keep rising? Dan Kers failing with his expertise on China, and George Marshall of another time in places with us this morning with an absolute tour to force. I picked up the magazine and I'm like everybody else, you know, I read the commercials, the advertisements, Dan, and then I go of the table

of contents and this is wildly eclectic. I want you to inform our audience about the adversarial environment of Lung Jesu. Who is he? Tom Good to see you launches this this really fascinating figure. He's one of the people in China, one of the most respected analysts of the world of international politics in China, and he has for a long time been one of the most prominent Chinese advocates of

a cooperative US China relationship. And so what we asked him to do, as someone who has been really supportive of cooperation between the United States and China historically, was to release to tell us from China's perspective, how does this deterioration in the relationship between the two countries, between the two superpowers look from Paging's perspective, we in the United States and in Europe no exactly what we see leaders in Beijing, especially Inder changent Ping doing that looks

menacing to us. We asked this launches, this advocate of of a cooperative relationship to tell us what that looks like from Beijing's perspective and what he sees and what he what he tries to convey to American readers especially, is a situation in which the United States is, as he tells it is really going out of its way to threaten some of the core interests of China and Taiwan, on on Hong Kong. Some of the things that if you're Chi Jim paying you see is as really integral

to your power and your success. Our sources of growing tension with the United States. The tourtive force of your academics is George Marshall. Not only were the chaos of China, but the chaos of US policy and roughly nineteen and ninety seven, what is the chaos of President Gee's policy right now? Domestically? What are the challenges he has now?

Is China attempts to keep rising. So it's a great question and it's part of what really animated this set of pieces that we put under the heading can China Keep Rising? If you go back to the beginning of this year, think about how good a position chi Japing seemed to be in. You know, the United States look to be in political chaos. We just had jin your six the insurrection uh. The US is struggling to control COVID. China was shipping vaccines around the world. You know, just

six months later that picture has shifted almost entirely. You have she jimping um uh really on the rocks over you know, the origins of origins of the virus, and you know that even if you leave aside the kind of lab league questions, the questions of what China failed to do and the ways it failed to communicate and suppressed information in the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan, you have um you know, the US and growth else were on the West starting to really pick up. In

China out looking quite so good. You have a really terrible demographic picture in China. You have population slowing pretty rapidly in a situation which you know population is going to be shrinking quite soon and the work engage population is going to create a real demographic crisis at China. Obviously there's one in in western countries as well, but it's much graver from the Chinese perspective, given the One China policy that was in place for a long time.

So if you're She Jimping, you know what emerges from the set of pieces this really kind of desperate, frantic effort to use a short window of time, a short period of time to try to overcome some of these challenges. But what emerges through these pieces, whether you're looking at the fight against corruption, whether you're looking at economic reform in China failures of economic reform rather, whether you look at Hi Jimping's attempts to really hold onto power for

you know, the the indefinite future. You see him creating these real weaknesses in the system. And the question is are those weaknesses going to emerge and and drag him down and drag China down before they're able to overcome some of these problems. Dan, are you saying that China is in a much weaker position today than say, pre

President Trump's reign and certainly pre pandemic. Well, if you, if you if you go back to beginning of Hi Jim pings rank and you know, go back almost a decade when you saw China that was starting to engage

with the World War, that was trying to reform its economy. Um. The narrative that we've seen in the West over this ten year period from you know, the first meeting between President Obama and Chi jumping through Trump and now through Biden is a jijimping that has really changed the fundamental direction of China in ways that I think people were a little slow to detect at the time. And for a long time, the narrative in the West has been UM, one of this you know, kind of march forward in

this success uh and this almost triumphalist narrative. And if you scratch flow the surface again across all of these areas, you see a pretty perilous situation and a lot of risk for them, UM that you know they're they're trying to overcome and you have a um, a pretty significant effort in Beijing to address these problems. But the environment is only getting worse. And the question is whether, uh, you know, in an environment of US China tension, that's

going to add that's gonna add new challenges. Dan, how does public sentiment how does public sentiment within China way into this Because during a President Trump's reign there was discussion about how sentiment actually improved for Ji Jimping internally in China. Has that changed, especially given some of the propaganda efforts that Ji Jimping has put out there. So this is a really hard thing for any of us, not you know, sitting in China to have a clear

idea on there. You know, you've had predictions of the fall of the Chinese Communist Party for for decades and decades, and it's success. It's success economically, uh, it's you know, the tools that uses to suppress the scent has given it a grip on power that is probably pretty secure. What is most notable about public sentiment, since you bring it up, is not what we know or have a hard time knowing within China, but just seeing how dramatically

the world that shifted against China. So you know, again, if you look back four or five years when views of China in the rest of Asia and the United States in Europe were you no, reasonably good, in many cases those have just soured so so quickly. And so you know, this period when um, the you know, international menship President Trump, the COVID that you global economic situation should have given Sheet and Paying a chance to really

solidify global global leadership. In some ways, what you've seen instead is the world really turning against him. And so it's this kind of stagger and a missed opportunity in many ways. Dn Orville Shell Grace is your pages this month. He is a giant on the China watch. He has seen the five or six China since World War Two. I think only of Jonathan Spence who could keep up with Mr Shell his perspective on the future of President's China.

So we have we as Orvil Shell, who is one of the great observers of China and chronicles of China in the United States and anywhere in the world at this point, to look back at the hundred year history of the Chinese Communist Party. China is going to have this big celebration marking this history and is going to try to very try to tell a very particular story of what the Chinese Communist Party is and what this

history looks like. And when Oorraville looks back at this as someone who has has lived at you know, very very directly in chronicle chronicle, but very powerfully over the last several decades. He sees a much more complicated story than the one Chi Jimping is going to try to tell us this summer. And you know Orville. Orville is very sad about the course of China. He's sad about the lack of access that people like him have to, you know, country that they have traveled in and we've

been a mud for for many decades. Um. But but he sees again a more uncertain future than that triumphalist clear certain image that Chimping is trying to bervet. So there's this tone of sadness to Horrible's wonderful piece, but also a degree of hope that there will be changes in China that we're likely not anticipating right now. Doncas Lan got to catch up old wise Farna Fest at its own. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening.

Join us live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day from six to nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course on the terminal. I'm Tom Keene, and this is Bloomberg