Surveillance: The Bull Case With Armstrong

rotations start to take hold in the your head. Let's stop that conversation now with Patrick Comstrong, chief investment officer at bloo REMI well, Patrick, got to catch up with you, sir. The things that are set to come under pressure into twenty two Patriot. What pockets to this market are you avoiding? Um? I think it's not going to be here where you want to try to get rich. I think for the last three years we've had massive liquidity in the system.

We've had central banks buying bonds, trillions of bonds, and it's going to be an environment where liquidity is slowly taken out of the system. And I think the meme stocks, the high growth no earning stocks, those types of story stocks, they They've come under pressus in November, and I think that's going to continue. I think if you're making an investment for two you want to have a valuation thesis. At least you have to understand that this company is generating, casual,

generating earnings. And it's not ruling out all tech companies. But I think the companies that are at the most extreme multiples that they're going to be category killers. But that's five years out. I think those are going to come under pressure as liquidity gets removed from the system.

But what about the other tech companies that some may put in the kind of quality basket Patrick, the likes of Apple, which is approaching three trillion dollars in valuation, that are consistently strong earnings growers to bet against the U S. And I know you're underweight the US. Are you also saying that you expect some of those large heavyweights to start lagging. Where I've got my U S exposure is those large heavy wait, so I'm very comfortable

with Apple. We actually sold Apple earlier in the year in February, which has looked like good timing. We did it just before their earnings, but we bought it again about a month ago, So I'm back into Apple. I own Meta, I own alphabet Um, so my US exposures underweight versus the MSCI worldwide. But I'm taking it with the big cap tech companies because just the cash flow

is enormous. Their multiples aren't cheap, but totally defendable or thirty times multiple or thirty times earnings for the kind of growth and profit margin they generate, I totally can justify, so I feel comfortable to own them. But there's many industries where like for like um stocks just trade at thirty premium if they're listed in the United States versus if they're listed in Japan or if they are listed in Europe. So the other more traditional sectors that aren't

tech orientated is where I'm overweight to other countries. Yeah, I was just gonna ask. I mean, I'm sure you're not betting against the United States, but really on other countries where you see undervalued assets, where is that? Well, I've been talking about it for a year and the companies have performed incredibly well. And I think every time I've been on your show for the last fifteen months or so, I talked about Muller Mares capeg Lloyd, and I don't get my head around they're trading at four

times earnings. How negative do things have to get for shipping rates to really make it be a four times earnings on Muller Mares. So it's probably up sixty percent this year, but earnings are growing as fast as the share price is growing, and it's just incredibly cheap our Salur mattel Um. I do think infrastructure spend is going to happen in the United States. I think Europe school to get around to infrastructure spend. Japan's doing it as well. I think steel is very cheap. Company like this is

trading at six times earnings. So there's companies that are domiciled in Europe, their global companies benefiting from the global recovery, but they're just trading at very low multiples and they actually have very high earnings growth potential in my opinion, Patrick, of those companies, the Likes and Modern Masque, some of the minors, some of the energy players would have seen huge amount for their goods and the underlying product or

services a great gain in price. Have you seen the corresponding discipline when it comes to building out capacity, Patrick, because that's been the worry of what's happening in the shipping industry in a previous few decades, what's happened in mining and energy in the previous few decades as well. Is that what's different this time around, Patrick, into twenty two, that they haven't made those big coals, those big investments into capacity that could haunt them in years to count.

They haven't. They're producing tons of cash flow, so it's always a risk when the CEO has got so much cash doesn't know what to do with it, expanding investing assuming that these profits and the freight rates will stay where they are. None of the CEOs are talking like that. There's another who brie about this is going to last forever. They know this is a cyclical windfall that they're really monetizing. I think it will probably lead to some consolidation in

the industry, which may streamline capacity. It will give more pricing power, and I think those kind of expenditures make sense. You can preserve your profit margins with that. I don't think a big, massive build out is what any CEO is talking about of new shipping U So they're being built, but these take years of lead time as well. Patrick, I noticed as well. You say you want to own volatility in the year ahead, Why and how specifically well

queie what it does, It's unclear. No one knows unequivocally what QUEI does for the economy. It probably gives it a boost to give some confidence when times are very scary. QUEI basically brings out some animal spirits and provoke some investment. But what it does is it suppresses volatility, and as QUEI gets removed, the market forces will just be allowed to react to scary things that happen when something happens. In the past, used to get a sell off, it

would be a buying opportunity. Over the last few years, buying opportunities last in the spans of days rather than months. So I do think there'll be some sell offs that maybe will last a few months, where you get an official correction and some things then get too cheap and that provokes some buyers, but there won't be the wall

wall of money chasing every single sell off. And I think when you can have dips, that's the definition of volatility, and I don't think those will be suppressed as much as QUI gets removed in the first quarter of next year. Patrick I just want to build on what you think will spark the disruption. What we saw in the previous psycho.

What we saw was ultimately no real disruption until real rates got through positive one percent, and so we actually started to see some balance sheet reduction and not just the unwind of KWEI and NETT purchases. Patrick, you send that could happen this time around before we get to those kind of points. Well, they're bound to be before

we get to this kind of point. But the thing that's kept me in equities it's there's three pillars, and thank god I look at them because I worry about valuations and the S and P five hundreds at three point five times sales, it's never been higher than it is today. But massive liquidity, negative real yields and earning his growth. While those pillars remain in place, I think equities do move higher. Um. I don't think we need

real yields at one percent to provoke a correction. But if we get down to less than half a percent negative real yields, where the outlook for treasuries is moving higher, I think that will prove some multiple contractions, and I do think it will be the highest growth companies. Um with the most extreme multiples that are impacted the most out companies that are trading at thirty times earning is

very expensive. But you can see how those big tech, big cap tech companies grow their way into those multiples. So offsetting a multiple contraction with the earnlish growth and Patria before you run, just let me squeeze this one. And you brought up a p moder mask A company used to follow really closely when I was doing some work out of London. Of course, that company out of Denmark, Guy Johnson and I used to talk about this all

the time. I'm not a big fan of stock splits, but of all the names, Patrick, in Europe, does that company need one? Give? What is credit out right? Now? Um? Yeah, it's precludes retail investing. Europe isn't as much of a retail investor market anyway as in America, so I don't know if it would incrementally create demand, but yes, definitely that must open up the shareholder or the potential shareholder base. Patrick, Thank you sir. Going to catch up, Patrick Hampstrong there,

Fleur remake. Let's bring a doctor Amadota now the city of Scola. The Johns Hopkins censor for house security doctor. Let's stop right here, and I think this is so

so important. Have we just taken a big step towards normalizing how we treat this virus, towards getting that to normal I do think that the CDC revised guidance, which was based on science, based on what we've learned about this virus, does give us some sense of normalcy, because what you're seeing is that this is a less disruptive event to get COVID nineteen when it's mild, when the symptoms have abated, and we're making that isolation period something

that people can more easily cope with within their lives, and we're doing in a safe manner. It's important to remember that this one size fits all ten days that have been in place for so long didn't really apply to everybody because many people were becoming not contagious earlier in that time period. So I think this is more precision guided. I think it's going to be something that people are finding will find much easier to cope with when they do get these mild breakthrough infections that are

going to become ubiquitous. Well. Dr ADAGEA obviously to even understand that you have a positive case and need to isolate, you need to have a test, and in some cases you need to have a test to stop isolation and return to your office, for example. Yet testing just doesn't seem to be easily accessible. How does that problem get solved.

This is going to take a full concerted effort by the federal government to incentivize companies to make tests, to make it easier to get these tests on the market. We know we only have a handful that it passed through an ownerous FDA regulation process, and I think we have to make these cheaper because twenty five for two tests out of most people's reach. And this is all a result of the fact that tests have always been undervalued, that we really never had a robust home testing program

in place during the Trump administration. It started during the Biden administration, but it's been very stulted and flawed and not really optimized. So this is going to be the key part of how we move through this pandemic, as we normalize this, As people want to be able to navigate a life with COVID nineteen as as being an ever present issue that they have to deal with, they need these us and I think we can't wait until the fower government solves this problem over time. It has

to be done now. And I think that this is something that Europe has done very well, but in the U S has just not been something that prioritize because everybody assumed more people will be vaccinated than that just didn't happen, and we're still stuck in this limbo. Have we learned now that we can't vaccinate our way out of this, that you need more more than one weapon in this war is? Or are we just still putting

too much epsis on that. In particular, the vaccines are the best tool that we have by far because they remove the ability of the virus to cause serious disease, hospitalization, and death. So that has to be the key component of our response. But not everybody is going to get vaccinated, as we've seen, and tests are one way, especially with a contagious variant like omicron that can get around vaccine

and duce protection and cost. Mild infections. Tests are going to be almost equally important because people need to know their status. Many organizations want don't want to have any tolerance of cases in their inside their workplace, for example, or at their event so this is something that needs to be done in order for the country to kind

of move forward. Even if all of these cases are mild, there's still not a risk tolerance to have these mild cases, and you still have hospitals that are under stress from Delta patients and now some omicron patients. That's going to be the key thing. So until we get to that point, this is treated completely like another respiratory virus. Tests are going to be something that people want to do very frequently,

and it's and it's it's still a major mess. How soon do we get their amish because, um, you mentioned that you expect this to become these breakthrough mild cases have become ubiquitous, meaning pretty much everyone is gonna get it, and it seems like, you know, with one point four million new cases yesterday, that's gonna be fairly soon. We're not fighting the Spanish flu anymore, even though we still get the Spanish flu and it's one of the biggest killers. Um,

it's just so common. Is that what this is going to become. Yes, this is going to go the way of the other four ronaviruses that cause about our common colds. So this is going to be something that everybody gets it probably will probably get it multiple times. But it's going to be a tame reversion because our immune systems are going to be trained to respond through vaccines and

prior infections. We're gonna have tools like anti virals, monoclone, land of bodies, and rapid tests so people can know what their status is and they don't infect other people. So yes, we probably will get away from these these public health record with these public health regulations and more towards an individual based way of of dealing with this. The problem is we still have hospitals in the United States and around the world where there are still issues

with the capacity. And that's the key pivot point for me, is when we remove the ability of COVID nineteen to cause hospital capacity concerns, and that is the case in many parts of the country, but there are still areas in the country, specific regions with low vaccination rates where they're still at risk for too many people with conditions that put them in the need for hospitalization that are

unvaccinated that can crush the hospital. That's the point where we kind of move fully to endemicities when we're not seeing hospitals report over bet capacity I see you from multiple days for example, because so when do we get there? I mean we have we had that in the past with flu seasons that were really bad. Um, some hospitals get overcrowded. Do we do we end up next Christmas in a situation um the likes of which we would have seen in bad flu seasons ten years ago to

twenty years ago. Hopefully that will be the case. Right now, it's it's still worse than influenza seasons, even the worst of our influenza seasons in many parts of the country. That has to be what what what? What changes? So probably by the end by next winter a year from now, we should be at that phase in the United States and many of the developed countries uh that that this becomes handled more like influenza. But I still think it's going to have a bigger burthen influenza for some time

because of the attack. Great how many people get infected, And it seems on a pound for pound basis to be worse than seasonal influenza when it comes to mortality. But that will all adapt over time, and obviously new variants can come and change that prediction might be faster or slower but I think we're still looking at next flu season, in the next fluid respiratory virus season, being probably closer to our baseline, but still probably a little

bit more intense than usual, but hopefully manageable. Amish, thank you for all that you do. I know you're busy on it a Christmas weekend as well. We appreciate it's for everything you've done and for us this year as well. We'll catch up soon, thought to Amish it down to the Matt you said that that CDC decision for some paper at least including you, and for me to some

degree a bullish co Yeah. Absolutely. Because of the problems businesses that have had with employees being out for a full ten days at least ten days after testing positive, they've had to shut down services. Some companies have had to shut down production, some companies have shut down retail outlets. If they can reduce that to five days, and the CDC now says that you can as long as you're

asymptomatic um. That obviously opens up a chance for them to do more business and raise revenue profit as well, and maybe to some extent, makes it easier to forecast this economy into twenty two. Let's do that right now with John Riding, the Chief Economic Advisor, a bree Capital and a good friend of this program for a long long time. John, It's good to see you buddy. As always, let's start with a call for next year, John, what are you focused on? Well? I think the main focus

is the inflation story. And this was a story that as early as April of last year, we warned that we were going to have an inflation event, not a disinflation or deflation event, because it would negatively it been the the virus and the government mesh lockdown measures would negatively hit the supply side. Now the supply chains have been hit harder, more prolonged than I think that we imagine.

And on the other side, we're going to get massive demand stimulus that was monetary financed, and we've certainly had that and UH As a result, the combination has been a far more elevated inflation rate than anyone expected. Almost seven percent, may well be seven percent when the December

data come in. And so the question is how much does that inflation rate moderate and what is the policy response, because I just don't believe that that inflation is going to wind itself down to two percent without little action from the FED. I think inflation expectations are getting embedded. Your previous guests talking about all those pressures on the airline industry was just an example of the cost pressures that companies are able to pass along in this environment.

So I think the inflation story is the first. I think the inflation rate is going to be close to four and the Fed is going to end up taking more steps, as its signaled at the last meeting with its dot plot, than people have been expecting. A couple of things that John, then the scale of deceleration on headline inflation. You're looking for seven potential to close out of the year into next year, and the policy response that would shake that move lower. John, let's build on that.

The expectation now for many people is three hikes next year. Does that do anything? John? Does that achieve anything? Well? I think it starts off as a signal, and I think the key thing was for the FED to recognize

the problem. I don't think the FED fully recognized the problem at Chair Powell's last press conference, but I think it went some way to recognizing the problem by getting rid of the transitor language, putting again three hikes that were supported by thirteen members of the committee as opposed to the one hike that was at the in the last dot plot back in September, which was basically a split decision with as many people looking for one hikers

looking for no move at all. So it is an important signal, and I think the really good thing would be if that move came in March. The asset wind down at the asset purchases ends mid March. The next decision day, I think is March sixte So if the FED were to raise rates on March sixteenth, it would be a signal. And then the next signal will be start letting the balance sheet run off and perhaps do that as soon as June of next year. Will that

be enough? Probably not, But it is important that we the FED recognizes the problem and starts to take steps. And then that makes companies begin to think should price increases, which I fear is becoming the case, uh not be part of our process for making profits because we're in

an environment right now. We we've got cost pressures, but companies are raising prices by even more than the costs are going to go, perhaps using the cover of costs and widening profit margins, and that's relatively unusual, necessarily different from the profit from the inflation environment that we had in the nine seventies. So I think those signals are

very important to start reframing the decision making Pross. But no, by itself, I think there's going to be more rate hikes into three more I think, you know, being signaled by the dot plot um. But on the other side, the economy is still going to be rolling along because there's so many supply constraints, so higher rates are not going to hurt the economy. We've got so much access demand in the system. Taking some demand out isn't going to slow growth. It isn't going to create any slack

in the labor market. There's just simply plenty of jobs out there, and all of this COVID protocols are making it harder and harder to fulfill those positions. So is what you're saying, essentially, John, that the FED is likely going to have to move more aggressively, but it's not going to amount to a policy mistake of some kind. Um. The policy mistake has been made, and the policy mistate was keeping the emergency measures in place for too long.

There was no need to have continued purchasing at a hundred and twenty billion dollars a month almost through to the end of this year. They they only started that to wind down adjustment in November. So that was one policy and state there was the Fed could have signaled that inflation wasn't going to be transford. They weren't going to let it be anything other than transitory by by

recognizing the problem. But I think there was some mischaracterization the inflation from a lot of focus on really a lot of focus on a handful of items, even as all the data showed that it was broadening out and the inflation precius of broadened out. And you can't talk down this inflation problem. You know, a credible FED has to talk against the inflation problem, take action against the

inflation problem. Well, John Matt brought up the great point earlier around the timing of Powell changing his message and messaging, retiring the word transitory, and the President renominating him for a second term at the Federal Reserve. The President still, though, has several more nominations to make seats that need to be filled. Do you think who sits in them could

shift the balance of policy going forward. It could, and it could shift the balance to the detriment of the outlook, and it could shift the balance to the detriment of this administration. This is false belief that somehow having dabish members of the committee by Davish, I mean less inclined to raise interest rates or to be more focused on things other than inflation. Uh, somehow helps the administration. And

that's just a falise choice. What we need are people who have some experience with inflation, some strong academic background on the inflation frontum. We need strong people on financial regulation because the other problem is going to be with especially the chair of the Vice Chair for Financial Supervision open is going to be the potential impact on the markets of unwinding all this accommodation which has been in

place too long. So yes, good choices could certainly helped this and push the federal Bad choices could make the inflation problem worse, and that will hurt the administration. It will not help the administration, nor will it help the economic outlook. I think you know, you bring up an interesting point, an important point, John with her guards to experience, and you're obviously a sprightly young man on the football pitch. But you were around during the nies when we saw

a real inflation. You were advising the Bank of England, you were advising UM, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. What can the FED do other than simply raise rates in order to fight inflation. It's about signally and it's about saying what your priorities are as well as taking action. And an important signal will be starting to wind down this balance sheet. Now, my preferred outcome, which is not going to happen, is the Fed actually starts selling assets.

The FET's not going to do that, but they could wind down somewhere between a trilling and a trillion and a half dollars simply by stopping reinvesting and putting relatively high caps to that runoff each month, and that would be an important signal. But it really is about It really is about a signaling and to back up the rate actions so that all the we've heard, what are the instruments of policy. The FED has asset purchases, rates, and forward guidance. So put all of those into action.

And if the Fed were to talk about assets sales as opposed to asset runoff, that would be a real tighty move. But I think taking action on the balance sheet in June, which I think could happen would be would be a strong signal. But it's once the inflation gene is out of the bottle and it's getting out of the bottle, it just doesn't easily go back in again.

To for those of you, John who in Christmas pantomimes when you're a kid, that the you know, the the getting the genie back in the bottle, very very difficult trick. I used to hate them, John, he's behind you. That reference is lost on everyone in America. John, just quickly you said something. They're so important, and I think we can sort of think about this without the noise of the market on a week like this. You said they should sell assets. Can you imagine, John, what would happen

if they sold assets? John, what do you think would happen in financial markets if they said we're not just gonna when reinvestment, we're going to sell. Well, I think that especially if they were to say, let's sell the mortkeage assets because we really want a treasury only portfolio, or sell them partially reinvest in treasures, that would be like more like a capital market decision. But I think the key thing is telling the markets in advanced guiding

the markets to that. But what what would happen? Would tighten financial conditions and effects trying to sort of pull off this impossible scenario of tighten policy without tightening financial conditions, and that's not possible. It's like trying to make an omelet without breaking eggs to use them. To use the well worn analogy, financial conditions will have to be tightened, and selling would tighten them a lot more. But look, it's not going to happen. I think one thing we

can count on the Fed's not going to do. The best we can hope for is an early end to reinvestments. Since the FED were to hike rates in March and to allow a lessets to start to run off in May or June, as I think some on the F one c want to do so, or Governor Waller has been very clear on wanting to allow assets to run off fairly quickly after the FED starts hiking rates. I think that would be um a good step in the

right direction to tackling inflation problem. But let's be clear, even under the best policy from fighting inflation, we're still going to have an elevated inflation rate in twenty three and possibly even into John just quickly. Tom Keane rides in, asked John on Preston, North End and Stoke on January three, and I think we should have to Let's let's hope the game goes ahead. The king be all the games that I've cared about were counseled on watching, which is

a sam Win six. And those of you, late Donald, hight not happen, your beloved Preston, John riding and Merry Christmas to you, sir. It's gonna catch up John running there of bring capital with an echovy market at all time high. It's and a bit of trouble down in d C. For the President at the United States Johning us now on that is Wendy Schiller of Brown University.

When do you let's just start there? The President in the last twenty four hours saying there is no federal solution in many ways, that states the obvious when it comes to COVID nineteen and coronavirus. But do you think he's lost control of the messaging in a way that he thought he would have control over it when he

ran to become president of the United States. Yeah, Jonathan, in some ways, he's just right back where he started when he first was inaugurated, right dealing with a lot of holiday surging on COVID UH and the vast majority of Americans were not yet vaccinated, and they were told, look, go get vaccinated and things will get back to normal, or at least as close to normal as possible. And the vast majority of Americans did get vaccinated, many many millions have not yet done it, which is part of

the problem. But nonetheless, mother nature is a very powerful force. And though here we are a year later and it just feels like deja vu. And I think that's just a really big problem for the Biden administration, which has been doing a lot of things successfully. Actually they just stomped on their own messaging with the failure of build back better and then build back better is about more government. And when voters look at government now, they think, well,

you're failing us. You're failing us in COVID, you're failing us on testing, you're failing us on care. You know, why would we give you an opportunity to do more when it looks to us like you can't do what you're supposed to do now. Well, Wendy, the President yesterday said there is no federal solution, US gets stalled at a state level. Is that the president trying to shock some of the political blame away from himself or is this a president who's just not adequately adequately responding to

a national challenge. Well, I think when we're in crisis, voters don't want to hear blame it on somebody else, even if there are realities where you have governors like the governor of Florida who's actively trying to prevent mass mandates, prevent vaccine requirements, and private businesses uh penalized people for trying to take safety measures. You know, he's very popular

in Florida, but that doesn't help. The problem is that you know that's not just the only one state out of fifty and then you know, blaming the voter or blaming the person who's not getting vaccinated, that just causes more division. I think it makes communication and messaging to those people harder. I think the issue will be public health.

Does the government have the right to do what it has to do, as you're seeing in New York City with the Mayor of New York City or President Biden to mandate vaccines and the idea of man date being a sort of unattractive thing to a lot of Americans. Were about to find out the court allows the government to tell larger businesses what to do. This is gonna be a big issue, and this is gonna be a turning point in the twenty one century for all of America.

You know, will we make these sacrifices, will we allow the government to issue these mandates? And just not clear that's gonna happen yet. Yeah, we'll see how those arguments go when the Supreme Court hears them in less than two weeks time. Wendy, do you think that COVID nineteen is the president's biggest political headache right now? Or is it something else? No? I mean, I think it's it's twofold.

It's COVID nineteen. It's obviously existing politization and division in the country that he inherited essentially, and it's also still the fractures in his own party. You know, if he could come out of the gate now, he's not gonna have you know, for the state of the Union will be about COVID. It won't be about what can we

do next? He's got to line up the Democrats. You know, at least twenty three I believe now announced that they're retiring, So he's looking at a pretty lost majority, probably for two and beyond. After the election, he's got to think about a simple thing that he wants that he can get from his own majority party, and they've got to

figure that out too. That's another headache. But things like making life easier for people who struggle during COVID, like childcare for example, that is likely to be popular among voters who are coming out of a very difficult economic situation and a stressful situation with the pandemic. Think small, Think targeted, Think what you can accomplish and get that done.

You know. We talked to Mohammed Units yesterday from Gallop and he pointed out that the president's approval ratings have been low since the fall of Kabul and and haven't changed much since then. But in the meantime we've seen inflation really ramp up, and of course his critics blame that on President Biden. How important is the resurgence of inflation and what can the president do about it? Well, it all goes to the same sort of sense of

misery on the part of the average citizen. You go to the shelves, you can't find things that you need that you normally can it. It's hard to get a new card, it's hard to get a used car, it's hard to get a dishwasher, it's hard to get things that Americans are used to getting relatively easily. And now of course that's transferred to home testing for COVID. So it's all about we can't even live the laws we

want to live. An inflation is part of that, but it's all going to the fact that it seems as though things are out of control and that the government can't get them back in control, and inflation has become one of another thing that's really fueling this sense of frustration. If this is delicate, and I want to finish here with you because I think you're the perfect guest to cover it with me, there's something about the attitude sometimes

an administration where they kind of missed the moment. I remember when the Press Secretary Jen Sanky was asked about home testing and basically, why haven't we got home testing? Why can't we do what the UK does, which is basically send a message and you get some the following morning, and she turned around and said, what would you like us to do? Send one to every American And that's exactly what they're going to try and do. Now, do you think they need to adjust a little bit, just

less of the snow, less of the attitude, actually start listening. Well, I think at least they have to appear to be listening. Uh, And I know we're a little bit sure on time. I can go a long time on the political malpractice of very experienced politicians who are in the White House. Now, President's gonna have to shake your staff up. That's what Clinton had to do many years ago. Biden did, I'm sorry, Obama did it a little bit later into his term.

You gotta shake it up. If the staff that you have now are not serving you well, and you're having messaging issues, you're having government competence issues, at least the appearance of them, you've gotta make a change. You've got to get people in who are are better attuned to this and who can pivot not only that people under the president, but the president himself to learn how to really focus on the things that people are caring about

in their daily lives. And it's policy or it's COVID, and make that the only message you are conveying for the next three to six months. Wendy, thank you as always, Wendy Ship of the Brand University, looking forward to catching up against Sue. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to ten a m. 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