Surveillance: Stanford Economists Win Nobel Prize

now being priced out. Right, So when we look at the volatility, we can look at it, can you guys hear me, Yeah, we can hear you d Sorry, um, yes, So when we look at volatility, we can look at it both across strike and then across time. So when we look at it across time, that's uh, John, as you say that this thing called the volatility term structure.

So we can look at the VIX. We can look at VIX futures that expire in October, November, December, and because there's been this date certain event on the calendar, the election, uh, for months, the market has differentiated, sometimes strongly, between options UH and volatility futures that expire before or after the election, with the premise that the election would

create two things. One a potentially significant move in the smp UM in and around the date itself, so the outcome would result in a lot of folatility in the smp UM. And then the second one is that the market, at least as of a couple of weeks ago, started to think that um this, this notion of a contested election would lead to volatility on an ongoing basis. So we started to see longer dated vic's futures, those that expire in December. In January also bid up quite a bit.

It's been interesting. A clinic there in the vix Dean current with us and he will continue with us through this important hour on the game theory of volatility and out folds into futures up fifteen. Right now, we need to listen to a moment in Sweden today. Once a

year in October we listen this year's price. It's about auctions Andrada, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, has today decided to award the Svatia six Bank Price in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred no Belle jointly to Paul R. Milgram and Robert B. Wilson for improvements to auction theory and invention of new auction formats, and the celebration today in Palo out of California, more than anywhere else at Stanford University, I think of a frequent guest, Michael Spence,

on all of his leadership and academics at Stanford, and it devolves down to the leadership and intellect of Robert Wilson out of Nebraska, with his academics at Harvard and his held core since nineteen sixty eight on the theory of syndicates at Stanford University. Professor Wilson, for all of us, for Michael McKee, congratulations on this award. Were you surprised? Yes, I was surprised because it seemed like the time had long past. Most of the interests in auctions peaked, you know,

ten years ago. Yeah, you know, I look Professor Wilson at this and we know from Stanford the monetary theory of John B. Taylor and the Hoover Institution in such describe what auction theory means for our organization, for our societal organization where Stanford has led for forty years, all we think of it more generally in terms of market design, that there are many ways and with the institutions, the procedural rules and so on, the ways in which we

allocate resources can be improved. A lot of times. Uh, these interventions are really, let's say, minor changes on the margin. But in some cases there they create entirely new markets. So we saw that in the spectrum auctions. But uh, my colleague Elvin Ross, you know, he worked on a market for exchange of kidneys among donor donors and recipients. So there are many novel applications in which we create markets. People participate and they work and work efficiently and with

good incentives. Well, you're modest there, then, Elvin Roth studied under you at Stanford a few years ago. I think, Robert Wilson of all this, and what I think of is my colleague John Farrell bidding for a piece of art at Christie's in London. Your work goes so far beyond the auctions that we understand the auctions of the art market, or maybe the auctions for a foreclosed house. What does our audience worldwide need to know about where the science of auctions is going in? What it means

for US worldwide. Well, we could deal with very complex multi commodity kinds of situations. So there are many different spectrum licenses in electricity. We're talking about electricity at various times, at various places. So these are ones which were systems which were allocating a huge variety of resources continuously over time. In the case of electricity, uh, it's a complex uh so much more complex than a single piece of art being auctioned under a gavel and then the next one

and then the next one. Instead, these are cases at which your people trying to buy or sell like packages of things or there. In a sense of electricity, you have to have the energy, the transmission lines, all of the connections that are necessary. So you're bitty for a

complex commodity, and there are many of them. Professor, this is an incredibly relevant field of study in our digital era as well as an era of central bank intervention, where a lot of people are wondering whether efficient markets still exist among public equities and public debt. I know you focus on the less mainstream asset classes and how to auction them efficiently, but based on your intensive knowledge of efficient markets, how inefficient have public markets gotten with

that Central Bank intervention. That's way beyond my expertise. I'm afraid I couldn't give a reliable answer. Sorry, all right. Well, in that in that case, are there other asset classes that you foresee moving to a sort of auction format in our digital era that perhaps haven't been thought of

in that way? Well, a good one to think about is uh something like electricity, because we have all these UH needs now for solar powered energy from from solar power and from wind, and it's quite variable, so we need to create new kinds of markets for those kinds of variable resources, you know, to keep the supply provided to beat the demand. So that that's a new and

different kind of application. Robert Wilson, I want to take you beyond the theory of syndicates and what seems like ancient auction theory to what we're dealing with every day, which is our new digital dominance, the auctions that take part obviously on eBay, but far more the auctions and the information flow led by Apple, led by Google and the rest as well. What would you presume to be

the future for how we bid each day within technology? Well, I think if you take those kinds of auctions as examples. What you see is that mostly automated that these are. They're a minute by minute or second by second, and they're done with bidding bots. You know, robots are algorithmic methods. So there's a continuous reallocation of resources, and I think you're going to see a lot more of that in

many fields. Robert Wilson, thank you so much for joining us the Nobel Prize winner with Professor Milgram, Paul Milgram as well Michael mckeeon, and I say thank you as this all of Bloomberg Economics. John just to call one point one million dollar prize this year, Tom an upgrade from the year before. So we see how you can put that money to work. With Dean Kern and the macro risk advice, how the professor get a trade? How the professor get a trade? Dean, we were talking about

the volatility term structure just before turning to him. It's been faded volatility in the back half of this year over the last couple of weeks. How do you navigate these issues now? Dean, I think one of the things we should really step back and contemplate in terms of volatility is that, like any market, it's just a it's an outcome of supply and demand, meaning, you know, the price of alatility of the market just reflects where two

people found a way to do a trade. And one of the dynamics that was occurring over the summer that started to ease off is this tech stock mania. So look at indices like the New York Fang Index or just picked Tesla or Amazon. The speed with which these stocks were going up and then the retail almost reflective participation in that led to a tremendous amount of call buying in the high flying tech stocks. And if you look almost to the day when the tech stocks peaked

right around the first day of September. Since then, as things have been um you know, down a little bit, not tremendously, but certainly not that high performance to the upside, the volumes and tech stock options have declined, in some cases dramatically. And so what what's happened is, against thinking about it from a supply demand perspective, the demand for optionality in the market has started to recede because the payoff to being long upside calls has started to recede.

And so that that's one part of the story is that because there's less demand, the price of volatility is going down. UM. So as we started trying to disentangle what's happening, some of it, I do think is Biden pulling away sufficiently such that this notion of a contested election may be less of an issue for the market. Um. But but again, some of it is just a fall off in demand and that's allowing volatility to clear the market at a lower level than it was doing, you know,

in the peak several weeks ago. So Jana had this conversation with Muhammadalarian on Friday, and I do think it's important the price seems to be shaping narrative. It's not the narrative driving the price. Do you see some of that going on here as well? Oh, tremendous amount. I mean, the street is in some ways hopelessly addicted to backfilling the narrative. Um. There's a lot of confirmation bias in it. Um. You know, we stare at prices and we try to

figure out what the market is telling us. I think that's a useful exercise. We're supposed to do it. But again, I think a framework that brings to just this notion of of supply and demand, especially as it comes to volve. It's been a really interesting year for volatility because we've had a couple of these dynamics. One, as I mentioned, this incredible demand from an unusual source, the retail source for for calls UH in tech stocks, and then the second one UM I'd point to two things on the

supply side of volatility that are important. One, UH March was a year even worse than the worst part of two thousand and eight in terms of the explosion of alatility and what it did to short volatility strategies. There was a massive destruction of capital UH in the space, so all ell sequel, there's less supply of volatility. And then the second thing is just in and around the election, an incredibly political event for our country, polarizing, but even

for the markets themselves. My senses and just talking to people that UM risk managers would would prefer not to lose money on the election. You know. It's it's one of these things that uh as, especially as time draws nearer, I think people's risk limits are going to be called into question, and the ability to provide capital hedging type capital into that event is going to be called into question.

Now again, it may be a little bit less so if if the market becomes so convinced that a Biden uh win is is uh you know, baked in the cake, and the Senate win increasingly as well is baked in the cake. But I think that's just another thing to really watch is the streets ability to provide hedges over this period is compromised by just the unusual nature of the event and the reality that it's just not analyzable in the in the traditional sense that Wall Street likes

to analyze things. Dean, given where positioning is now, and given the fact there does seem to be a complacency around a bowl a long call, how susceptible or markets right now to a violent move should there be a contested election or an outcome that people aren't expecting right well, I think price would tell you more so than a couple of weeks ago. As John pointed out, there there's been a fading of of things that measure volatility, whether

it's option prices or vicked features. December, vicked features are down from thirty two to twenty eight over the last couple of weeks. That's actually quite quite a big move for that so I think more so than the peak a couple of weeks ago. There there is this complacency and a risk. I think one of the big risks is that the polls start to narrow, uh significantly. I think that's gonna, you know, uh enable Trump to potentially gen of controversy, and I think the market will be

uh not well suited for that given current pricing. Jean Curnin, thank you so much. Macros Advisors. Betsy Stevenson enjoys now at Michigan, the Fourth School at Michigan, Professor of Public Policy. Betsy, what I want to do to start is go back to first principles, which you know is Carl Case so I'm sure you studied with at Wellesley a few years ago. The first principle is if you have debt, you need economic growth and a growth rate that is better than good.

Are we anyway as certain that we will have a growth rate to help us out of this huge amount of debt. Well, you know the thing is, we got to do the stimulus spending in order to get the growth rate that will help us out of the debt. I mean, it is absolutely the case that one of the best ways to deal with debt is just to grow so fast that the debt shrinks as a percent of GDP. But you know what, you were the idea that when the stimulus comes, that it needs to come fast.

That the whole point there is that we need to restore potential GDP. We need to be able to get to potential and go back to growing if we put ourselves on a permanently lower level of GDP. So we're we're sort of never quite getting back to potential in a lower growth path, so we're never like quite back to where we were. Well, then that's a problem, and now there's lots of reasons we could end up doing

a lot of permanent destructions. The more businesses that would have been viable that would be hard to to put back together again, that disappear um, that causes problems, Families that you know, go to bankruptcy that are just never quite able to get back on their feet again. These things happen, and that's why it's so important for government to respond in a timely way. But it's also important for government to respond in a timely way because it

alleviates the suffering. So we can tell the economic story really, you know, get us back to where we were as quickly as possible get us on a strong past, but realized every day they delay, there's somebody's not put food on the table, who's at risking in their I don't need a single point estimate from you, because that's what we do in market economics, and you're clearly under the

academic purview. But where is potential g d P. There's a belief in Mourning America that we go back nostalgically to a time of what we would call substantial GDP growth. Are those days gone? Well? I mean, you know, I you guys know the whole secular stagnation argument as well as as I do. Um. You know, estimates I've seen of where growth can be is that it's it's lower. You know, there's concern that we've run out of ideas in a way that's just gonna make it harder for

us to to, you know, grow faster. But I have to tell you, you you know, I go to UH tech conferences every year sort of UH is artificial intelligence gonna take our job but make us rich, And I'm impressed every year by the amount of progress I've been seeing there. So I think there's actually you know a lot of room for us to do things better, faster, cheaper. That's where our growth comes from. And and I'm always an optimist,

we can do it. I also think we have a lot of untapped potential in people, um and that's why investing in people is so important, because we can harness all that untapped potential. You know, that's what will fuel growth. And realize, if you know, if you go back to the nineteen seventies, nineteen eighties, you know, a large chunk of our growth just came from the rise of female

labor force participation. If female labor force participation in twenty nineteen had been back where it was in the nineteen seventies, are in g d P would be about fifteen percent smaller. So just think about that and then realize that women's labor force participation right now is back where it was in the mid primate. Women's labor force participation is back where it was in the mid nineteen eighties. So if you want us to get back, we got to get

all these people back in the labor force. So, Betsy, two really powerful concepts you've touched on in just minutes. Something that I've heard from other prominent economists as well. The longer we are below potential, the lower potential growth might be in the future. But when you talk about policy, you're talking about structural initiatives as well, not just throwing

money at the issue. At the moment, Bessie can put those two concepts together, and the urgency to do something quickly, well, I think, you know, we need to do something quickly, and that's the idea that we need to get money out the door, and that's, you know, the same thing that they did with the CARES act. I think that's money to individuals, to families to make sure that they can keep spending so that we don't end up with demand driven problems. Um and we are seeing demand driven

problems starting to pick up. We thought demand driven problems we're huge in the spring. So that's getting money to people. You get money to businesses to help businesses that can make it to the other side survive. We're gonna lose some of some businesses for sure, and that's why the next step for government is going to be thinking about how do we transition people, how do we provide the drop job training programs, how do we provide the liquidity

in markets? For new businesses to be able to get started. How do we foster the creation of change? And there I think we need a government with as strong as set of plans on that as on the stimulus package. And so I think the second is what we're gonna have to wait and see after the election, just because I think, you know, nobody can take um that kind

of strong initiative now. But now that would be where I would hope we see, you know, in the early spring of next year, you know, comprehensive plans around how we move the economy to the next stage, because there is going to be some permanent realignment, some permanent sectoral

shifts to build on what John was talking about. With the timing of this plan on it maybe not the one next year that focuses more on these skills gap issues that you focus on is the question of fiscal austerity at a state level, the idea that states and local governments are saying to the federal government, we can't go into debt the way that you can, and we are running out of cash. We're going to have to

lay people off and cut services. How different is the scarring that comes from an acceleration of fiscal austerity on the state level that you see as posing a risk to the economy if there isn't this near term fiscal support bill that's passed. So I think that the fiscal austerity the states go through UM in modern times has really caused recessions to drag on to deepen UM. And it's the case that the federal government should just prevent

that from happening. But it's even worse right now because what happens if the states have to start letting off teachers, which they will. UM. We're already in the situation where there are a lot of parents who have cut hours or who have quit jobs because they've got kids at home from school. And we've got a lot of kids who are struggling from you know, this period of you know,

eight ish months where their school hasn't been normal. They're gonna be going back to school in a world where they're you know, wearing the ones who are our in school, or in a in a world where they're wearing masks. They have to keep distance. How do we do that with fewer teachers in the classroom? Do parents feel comfortable but that's the place they can done their kids? UM?

And what we're doing with these kids. You know, I just saw someone talk about future US productivity in future US growth and he was saying, you know, one of the big open questions is what are we doing with these kids? And is there some sort of permanent loss of human capital? So this could not be a worse recession for states to have to lay off UM, state and local workers and um, you know, is there is there permanent you know, problems there. It really depends on

what they're choosing to do. Are they having rolling furloughs that will cause a lot of a lot of harm and hurt in in terms of state employees, households, um. But maybe we'll keep them attached to the job, or do we see you know, government workers decide that it's not worth that they're not going to stick it to these jobs, or do they do permanent layoffs um. In particular, One thing I don't hear anybody talking about is we've never seen such a decline in the labor force participation

of people over the age of fifty five. And I think you're gonna see a lot of older workers deciding to retire a little bit early, and that's gonna put enormous strain on social security, on medicare um as well as again, you know, on the economy. As we take all these experienced people out early, that's going to give us a bumpy road over the next five years before

sort of losing too many older workers at once. That's great to catch up on a really important policy conversation, Betty Stevenson, their professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan, Rat pob Donovan, get to it very quickly. You'll um us in a global chief economist in the Zitgeist this weekend, Parl. There's no question about it. Can you believe China's recovery? Can you? Yes? I think

China has had a genuine recovery. China's recovery was very different from what we saw in Europe and in the States, because in Europe and in the States, people acquired savings during lockdown and then as soon as they're released from lockdown, you know, you've just spent three months sat at home watching home makeover shows on Netflix. What are you gonna do? You're gonna go rush out and spend the money. And that's exactly what happened. And once you've spent the savings. Then,

obviously the momentum slows, slowing fourth quarter momentum. It's hardly a surprise. Every economist was expecting this to happen. But China didn't have that model. Because China's lockdown, people weren't able to accumulate savings. They were having to live off their savings because there's a far less efficient social security net.

So what's happened in China is that there was a pause before the domestic consumption started to kick in, and that coincided with the recovery and demand that we've been seeing in Europe and in the States. Can you bring that recovery and demand over to GDP in the US and in Europe? And by that I mean equity markets today dowwy THO one, sp X almost up to thirty five hundred, almost out in your record highs were a

bit away from that. I don't want to oversell that, but Paul, can you look at the expectation of the equity markets and half out do you get that real GDP that goes with that? Well, we've got to remember, of course, that there is a there's a really important distinction that the equity markets are just a sub set of g d P and listed companies are not actually

nearly as important as people think that they are. Um And so what we're looking at here is a GDP environment where a lot of the negatives on g d P are actually in sectors a million miles away from listed equities. So it's it's the small restaurants that are suffering. It's the small service sector businesses that are suffering. These are not listed companies. These are mom and pop stores. They're not they're not in a position to be quoted on equity markets. The listed market tends to be more

biased towards the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing is doing better than services. It's got better access to capital, it's got better control of its costs. The listed sector is going to outperform g d P in this environment, and that, of course, is exactly what we're seeing happen. Paul. I'd love for you to compare and contrast what's happening in the United States and Europe, not just the US and Europe versus China. There's a trade that's become really popular in the bond

market over the last ever a weeks. I'm sure you're familiar. Short treasuries get along Europe. Just the idea that this US recovery continues and it stalls in Europe. What you're seeing right now, just the trajectory of the respective recoveries, does it speak to that, Well, not really, I would say. So what we're seeing now is a shift. So as I said, you know, we've had this surge of consumer spending fueled by the savings accumulated in lockdown. That's pretty

much universal in the developed world. And that's your third quarter story record third quarters. As we go through the fourth quarter and into next year, fiscal policy is going to start playing a larger role, and there we're going to have I think, um some issues now are depending

on the election result. We might get a large fiscal stimulus in the States in January, but of course, you know, the the negotiations in Washington at the moment your rival briggsit for the the delays and the chaos and the internal tedium of of what's going on. So the failure to do fiscal stimulus now is actually doing real damage to the US economy. First, because if you're unfortunate enough to be unemployed, you are clearly on a far lower

income than you were. And second and economically, this is very important if you are afraid that you might become unemployed, that fear of a loss of income in unemployment is likely to delay spending. And so what we're getting here is is two hits to the consumer through fiscal policy. Now that's not in evidence in Europe. In Europe we are seeing the number of people on furlough fall, but that's because they're being rehired, not because they're being made unemployed.

And so I think that the fiscal policies on the two sides are creating slightly different stories. At the moment, the US will grow faster than Europe simply because of demographics. I mean, there's no surprise about that. We know that. But I think actually Europe's fiscal policy at the moment is is clearly support. In the US, we've got this cloud of uncertainty over the fiscal support. So this is

slightly contrarian porn. I stress this is relative to expectations and anecdotally just the conversations we would have on a program like this. But you seem less constructive on the US recovery than say most Well, I'm still constructive. I mean, the recovery carries on in the fourth quarter. I think though, that we are seeing some damage to the recovery come through from the um the indecisiveness over fiscal policy in the United States. I mean, there are plenty of people

who are relatively secure in their jobs. They will continue to spend, they'll spend down their savings. That's all great. If you look at the employment participation in the States, it's very interesting. The high skilled people, people who've got college degrees, they've got pretty much normal employment participation. Low skilled people, people who failed to graduate high school have

also got almost normal employment participation. The area where employment has been weaker has been people who graduated high school but did not go to college, and that, of course is an area where you're likely to see quite a lot of service sector jobs. These are the jobs which are at risk in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But that's the area of weakness, and I would argue that fiscal policy today is not doing much to help that particular cohort in a way that perhaps it is helping in Europe.

On both sides of the Atlantic. However, in the US and the UK and the rest of Europe, you're seeing this bifurcation that you talked of earlier, you touched on of big companies doing better or having a better chance of surviving, while smaller businesses go out of business at

the fastest pace in some cases on record. And there was a statistic in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend showing that smaller businesses account for an incredibly shrinking portion of overall employment in the US and around the world. How much does that hamper global growth going forward? Well, now, this I think is a really interesting issue because you're quite right, of course, with seeing a lot and lots of small businesses closed, but we're also seeing a phenomenal

pace of small business creation at the moment. I mean it's it's absolutely staggering the rate of small business creation. And it's not just the States. This is the UK, this is France, this is Singapore, this is Japan. I mean, it's it's across the board, and we're talking sort of business creation rates of a hundred hundred and fifty percent growth. I mean, these are not small numbers. So what I think is going on here is we're seeing lots of

people set up individual businesses. Your single proprietors are setting up businesses. You know, you've you've had some time to reflect at home over the last few months, and you've decided that you know, now is the time to start selling your hand knitted sweaters on eBay, or you know you're going to convert your TikTok account into merchandise sales

or whatever it is now. Then I think raises a really interesting question about the future and about how we think about employment, because I think we end up having multiple in come streams become a lot more common. So you'll have somebody who maybe has a job, full time job, part time job, but then they've maybe got a sideline, be that Airbnb or selling over social media, whatever it is,

and so you have these multiple income streams. So there are positive as well as negative signals in business creation at the moment. And I think that what we've got to try and do is understand how the structural changes of the economy which we're rapidly going through at the moment, might actually be changing our concept about what it is to actually be employed and how people actually get income in the months and years ahead. Paul, great to catch

up that final topic that Lisa introduced really important. We could continue this conversation for a long time. Paul Donovan of Ubs. Paul, Thank you sir. This is a this is too short in interview with the announcement of the laureates today Mr Wilson and Mr milgn him, I simply sent one note, get me Michael Spence, and of course you know Mr Spence, Professor Spence, of course has spent some generous time with us over the years. What you may not know is arguably here reinvented graduate studies in

America with his work over a decade at Stanford. At the time, it was absolutely historic. And rather than talk about auction theory today we will talk about the wonderful millia that is Palo Alto, California and what it did for Robert Wilson in his PhD student Paul Milgram as well, Michael Spence, thank you so much for joining us. A special day for Wilson and Millgram. What is in the air in Palo Alto. Yeah, well, it's a it's a wonderful intellectual environment. And you know, I think Bob Wilson

deserves a lot of credit for that. You know, he he brought along a whole lot of students, uh is in allectual insight, in depth. It's extraordinary, just a very exciting environment. I mean, there are others in other parts of the country, but but that that this this is a wonderful recognition of both of their work. But also I think you're right, Tom, indirectly, it's a recognition of

the fertility of that intellectual environment. The word that is so associated across degrees at Stanford is a strange word, organizational And I you know, you go back to theory of syndicates and Wilson seminal paper on all this, folks. It was like Dylan at Newport, it was all original when he did this in n What does organizational mean, Professor Spence within the Stanford architecture, Well, I think you know that the what what's the really special about the

work that's gone on there. You know, it's you know, Paul and Bob Wilson, Dave krabt Uh, John Roberts who was a co author with ru Paul Milgram. You know, they brought theory to things that were talked about in a kind of fuzzy way, theory and rigor uh the things that we're talked about in UH in more general terms, as I guess the way I would put it, Tom, and it just had an enormous on on a wide range of disciplines, especially economic on this special day, an

offspring of the Stanford experiment. Lisa Bramwoods, Lisa, you grew up with this foolishness, right, Yes, my father got his PhD at Stanford, and I will say theory ruled the dining room table, and if you couldn't pass muster it was well, it explains a lot. I will say, Uh, you know, there is this question, uh though at this at this point when we take a look at the concept of auction theory, Paul, can you come in and talk about why it's important. Some people might look at

this and say, isn't this somewhat peripheral. It's not, it's central. Why Well, I mean, I think it's central because there's because it's used to allocate some of the most important resources that we have. I mean, there are private auctions, you know, their auction housesn't all that. But I don't think that's the reason it attracts the attention. That does. The reason it attracts the attention is because we allocate you know, the electromagnetic spectant doing this um in much

much more effective ways. So I think that's where you know, enormous impact has come and what they've been recognized for is having brought first theory and then real innovation how these auctions are conducted. Professor Spence, one final question, you're busy day. I know that that your phone is ringing off the hook. To most of us, an auction is in a James Bond movie where there's some piece of artist Christie's or something he's being sold and all that.

But we live auctions each and every day. Are our auctions changing because of the speed and depth of technology? Oh absolutely, I mean I put up more generating tom um markets, you know, including auction markets are changing because of the vast quantity of information that's available at you know, negligible costs that wasn't there before. And because of you know what's now called artificial intelligence, that is the ability

to process that information. That's that's changing the informational structure and a lot of the innovation in auction theory, tom and Lisay has been you know, recognizing very particular characteristics informational structural characteristics of different kinds of auction situations and that and and digital technology is transforming that. Michael Spencer, Philip Knight professor and Dean Emeritus, Stanford University from Align Italy Today on Wilson and Michael Spence, thank you so

much for joining us here on short notice. 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 Keene before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio