Surveillance: The Great Inflation Debate With Kasman

to all of you. One of them is stochastic, which is the movement the spikes trying to catch the knife in the dark, and the other is trend based analysis. Anybody that knows my work over the years knows I am totally and completely in the trend based camp, as is Christopher Verrou and the fabulous technical analysts. It's trtiguous. Chris, it was great to hear your children in the background before they were sequestioned before we came on. What is

it like naming your young children's support and resistance? Did that go over well with Mrs vone? You know, it didn't go over as well as you might think. Support and resistance is the trend right now? What is the equity market trend? Now? Are we breaking out of resistance to new higher levels? Yeah, and I think that's clear. But what I think is less clear and arguably more important, is under the surface. We continue to see signs that

participations actually getting broader. Here as you see it with just over the last month of the reinvolvement of industrial is the improvement in discretionary I mean, these are groups that have largely been relative laggard for the past two and a half years that are starting to showcase sometimes some type of relative strength. That is welcome, and I think it reflects a broadening of leadership and that's certainly

something I think most participants have been creating. This word relative, folks, is absolutely foundational trend based analysis, and I want to go to the relativeness Christopher roone of those eight stocks that are going up, we know who they are, the digital dominance and everything else. For everything else to improve and go up, do they do it on an absolute basis or do they simply have to do it relative to a stable or even advancing tech group. I think

they have to do on a relative basis. And what I'm occouraged by is that it's actually happening. I'll give you a couple of examples. When you look at like transportation group. For example, we look at transport relative to utility is as a barometer for cyclicality. It transports of underperformed utilities for the better part of the last two and a half years. That has decisively changed over the last eight to twelve weeks. We see with the broader

industrial sector. Yesterday consumer discretionary flipped to positive in our relative trend model. So all the things you'd want to see that would support the idea that participation, particularly in relative terms, as you talk about, I think it's important all the things you'd want to see in that front are happening. I'm surprised to hear you say this because

we hear from Morgan Stanley's uh. We hear from their chief equity strategist that he thinks that we're going to see a potential sell off if we get an ongoing optimism in the economy. The idea of Mike Wilson coming out and saying that because of how narrow the leadership has been, it makes this rally fragile. What are you

seeing that he's not well. I think what's most important, and this has been the focus of our work over the last number of weeks, is that the leadership tone of the equity market, we think is telling us, is screaming at us that you should expect a positive economic surprise in the back half of the year. We just can't think of any other reason why things like industrials and discretionary and materials and transports would be acting as

well as they are here. And frankly, that's pretty consistent with what you would expect to see in the first several months of a new economic cycle. So I think the market is telling us the consensus is probably still is still too pessimistic about the trajectory of the economy

from here. Although Chris, I wonder about fundamental analysis at a time when best By this morning was the latest company to to draw any prediction for how their business would do for the rest of this year, how accurate can traders be in this equity market at a time of such limited visibility? Well, I would just positive. Is this really any different from any other moment in history? And it's easy to say yes, but I would argue that it's not. And by that I mean, go look

five six months off any major market loan history. You're not gonna like where the economy was. You're not gonna like the visibility that was in front of you. That's the game we played. That's investing um so. I I don't think this is as unique as the consensus wants it to be. I think what you've seen historically is markets discount future improvement. I don't think the markets describing

the economy today. I think the markets describing the economy that's in front of us, and I think it's stronger than what the consensus expects. Okay, Chrispherhon, I looked at the SPX and I used a fancy moving average study. This is three moving averages. Good morning, George Kleinman out of Nevada, if you're watching, christopherone. I looked at the trend base and it's extremely well behaved, extremely well contained. Can you extrample to a target? And if so, how

far out can you go? With enthusiasm? So the only targets we care about are higher or lower, and that means it's the trend up or is the trend down. I think the trend is up here, and that tells us Tom what rules were playing by. And when trends are positive, you buy weakness. You know, it's been five or six months since we've had anything more than a five or six percent drawn out. Is it reasonable that we may get something like that over the next several months.

Of course it is. But how do we want to treat weakness? We want to be buyers of weakness when participation expanding and when trend is up. And I think that's build a base case here, which sector is the best value the rest relative value? I mean, I want to buy the dip in Amazon. Maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't. The banks are unloved, which is the Christopher On sector where you get to pop off everything else. I think industrials are emerging as multi year leaders here.

They've frankly have been in purgatory for the better part of the last half a decade. I think that's changed in a meaningful way. I would encourage everyone to look at an equally weighted industrial sector relative to the SMP you just broke out from a five year base. This is the real deal. This is the start of meetingful leadership in that group. Let's say yields rise, at what level do they have to rise to that that could potentially disrupt your theory and you could see a sell

off in stocks. Well, I think what's interesting is this is the point in a new economic cycle where you would actually expect to see yields start to rise. I think the fact that they haven't is in many respects adding more fuel to this cyclical bias that has started to emerge. Um. In many respects, you know, go back to let's call it mid two eighteen, late two thousand eighteen,

bond yields for three percent, cyclicality was starting to peak. Um, Chinese stocks are rolling over Chinese bond yields were rolling over all. The exact opposite trends are playing out right now. So I think the runway before you could say yields are a big problem to disrupting the story. I don't know whether that ninety bases points, the Hunter basis point, a hundred and ten basis points, but I think it's higher than where it is right now. Very good, Christopher on,

Thank you so much. I just gotta Saint Lisa. There's so few people that work the circuit constructively like Regina Mayor. She owns for the World Economic Forum at Davos right on down to every other energy conference. She absolutely owns the high ground on this. But Lisa, there's something more important to talk to you right now, and that is there miserable and irving Texas this morning. Yeah, so they're watching the storm, they're watching Laura bear down on them,

which is threatening a whole host of oil reserves. And let's start their Regina. The idea that you've got these twin storms, with Marco actually fizzling out, but Laura still looking like a hurricane headed toward the Gulf coast. How much could this disrupt oil production the US. Well, it's not less of a risk on the supply side with oil production because only about ten percent of US production comes out of the Gulf of Mexico, and we're sitting

quite pretty with regard to crude supply. The thing to keep an eye on is refined product supply destruction because of the US refine capacity comes from the Texas and Louisiana Gulf coast. So, based on the current projection with hurricane or tropical storm Laura projected to become a Category three hurricane, you could say roughly of gasoline capacity is in the path. I'm less worried about that though, because

I don't think it'll take that capacity offline. Um, But but there is at risk and meanwhile over in Irving, there's another storm, and that is the storm against hydrocarbons, with the energy moving away from that area Exxon and being removed from the TAO, the longest serving member of the index, after its market share fell from four hundred and fifty billion dollars of market capitalization back to less

than two hundred billion dollars. Now, are we just seeing the beginning of the destruction of the hydrocarbon complex or is this the end of the destruction? Well, it is. It does mark a shift in the era of where capital wants to go and what investors are going to look at. Are the text box are clearly on a boom. You know, I wish I had made some different choices, you know, early in the pandemic. But it does indicate that the large industrial you know, the behemoths of our time,

are probably not where capital wants to flow. And it does mean that these very large international oil companies have to pivot their portfolios to embrace what's known as the energy transition if they're going to stay relevant. And you see the different players taking different strategies, and I do think they will pivot and survive. But this does indicate a big shift in investor sentiment. Regina, what's so hard

of the matter here is combination. I mean we saw Anna Darko takeout and what Ox he's done in their over extension and Mr Buffet coming into play as well. Do you just see an industry roll up to get back to the size of revenues where they have scale to profit. Well, I think it is a scale game, and you're absolutely right there. But you know, the bid ask spreads are still so far apart and where I would have thought we would have seen more of a

wave of mergers and acquisitions. Balance sheets are under such pressure that it's difficult to get the capital to make a play um and it's difficult to see the consolidation that we need to see. However, you know there have been some moves, and there was Chevron's acquisition of Noble looks very very smart in this environment. Well, man, I was going to go to chevn but I really don't want to talk individual securities. I mean, they go after Noble and they got pushed out of Anna Darker. I

get all that. Does the big money come into his private equity come in and start acquiring value priced hydrocarbons? Do you see someone like black Stone, or even black Rock for that matter, playing. I think the pe firms have have done their bit in the last decade, especially in the two thousand, in the two thousand tens, and

most of them are actually trying pull out. Now, what I think will end up seeing is you'll see assets change hands because the assets still have underlying value, but the companies that are structured around them, with the debt and the equity portfolios that they have, look less attractive. So I think we're gonna have to see more restructuring, more debt consolidation, and then you'll see the assets shift, but maybe less the company logos shifting. Have we already

seen Regina peak oil demand. I don't think so, Lisa. There has been some that will say two thousand nineteen might have been peak demand. We still see projections that will take us up to a ten million barrels per day, which is still ten million barrels per day more than we consume uh in, and you'll still see that into the timeframe. We don't have a base of energy that will sustain all of our needs that does not include some element of hydrocarbon, at least in the foreseeable future.

Do you think the pandemic has accelerated the iift away from hydrocarbons or do you think that it's actually slowed it because of the subduing of the price of oil. I think it's accelerated the shift. We've demonstrated. You know what we can do for the environment and how we can reduce carbon simply by restricting our movements and not flying as much as we were from a business travel perspective, not commuting as much as we were, not going to

different shopping centers. That doesn't directly translate into a reduction of gasoline demand, but we've seen the positive impacts we can have on the carbon and most of the other countries, when you look at their stimulus packages, they include green stimulus. Notably absent. The US isn't focusing as much on green stimulus, meaning you know, new energy types of transitions. But globally, I believe the pandemic has accelerated the move toward the

energy transition. Regina, Thank you so much, Regina Mayor. Where there's the KPMG on this historic day, Exxon out of the Dow Jones industrial average right now and it is a great joy to speak to Terence Haynes. He's a Pengia policy writing a really grounded business centric policy note out of Washington, and he really sums it up nicely. Stuck doing just war duty, I say, out in western Maryland, folks,

this is not Baltimore, Baltimore and Baltimore. If you go out west of Maryland, pass Hagerstown, it is some of the most gorgeous country in this nation. And Mr Haynes joins us from western Maryland this morning. Terry. The distance from Hagerstown to Baltimore, from Cumberland to Baltimore is the space between the Republican and the Democratic Party. How how does Mr Trump stretch that space? How does he get east of Hagerstown more towards the suburb voters that he needs.

I think two ways, Tom one he and you're absolutely right about the chasm between Hagerstown and Baltimore. Um, the is it? In two ways? One? Uh? He? He excites his base. He tells a story. And you know, one of the great things about conventions is that they're they're rare opportunities for a candidate and a party to tell an unfiltered story. And that's what, of course the Democrats did last week. But the Republicans are doing this week. Um, he reminds people of kind of of of accomplishments, he

contextualizes that. But then that's the positive message, and then the negative message is, of course, he differentiates very strongly from from what Democrats, Uh, the Democrats might prefer, and to to reach beyond the base and get the independence is actually an opportunity for Trump right now. There was a recent recent poll that was highlighted by the Axios site that showed that only Independence had a positive view

of Biden. So that's, uh, that's fertile ground for Trump to really start hammering in that the economy is at stake, that the law and order is at stake, those sorts of things, and you appeal to people's most basic instincts and hopes and fears, and you know, you tell that story fairly free of new ones, and you know you can get there within this unique two thousand twenty. How is his law in order message different from Richard Nixon

a lifetime ago? It is? But yeah, frankly it's broadly similar. Uh, and you know, and it and it appealed to the most likely voters. And this is a this is this is an election that's already substantially tightened. I mean, this whole idea that Biden is running away with anything is uh last month's news you've got. You know, people like to talk about real player of politics. Average. The national average for Biden now is about seven and a half and in the battleground states, uh, it is about four.

One way to look at that is it's barely above the margin of error or two months away from the election. Uh. So you know, he can hammer on that and uh and appeal to people's feel to people's pocketbooks and their fit and their most basic desires and fears about security. Um, and he can continue to to to eat into what remains of a Biden lead. You know, it was interesting to me when I was looking at your notes, Terry, that you think that President Trump has a sixty percent

chance of re election. That does not seem to be the consensus. How much pushback do you get that? Oh? I get pushback about that all the time. Lisa, and I would say two things one three things, but one of which I've already said, the race is already tightening, kind of moving in that direction. Secondly, the last thing that polls are aren't predictive and any any polster would

tell you that. Thirdly, these polls look at the wrong things. Frankly, no disrespect anybody that's doing them, but they're looking at the by and large national the national snapshots of registered voters. What you will then, and they're already tightening, and what you'll start to see is more attention page to state by state races of likely voters, and there's a huge disparity between registers and the likeliest. That will mean that

the race tightens even further. The Trump wins, uh, you know, and you know turnout here is going to make all the difference. And frankly, you know Trump counts an enthusiasm advantage, but that enthusiasm advantages is real and uh, and it's gonna be hard for Democrats to make that up. Well, when you talk about who's going to win the Democrat the the presidential race, it's unclear what the market effect

will be. It is clear that if there is an increase intentions between the US and China, that is broadly viewed as a market negative. What is President Trump's policy that we may hear from Secretary State Mike Compeo tonight, especially given the easing and some of the tensions of late between the US and China. Uh. Let me say

two things about that. One, what Pompeo is likely to say is, uh, look, you know, only you know, we wasted two decades on hoping China would would grow up and become a mature member of the Community of Nations and you know, and take the w t O obligations and others. Seriously, We're clearly past that. And you know, but only Trump could stood up to that. Obama and Biden were responsible for a decade of that that sort

of thing. Um. The other thing I would say is that markets, I think markets, uh the mids to some extent that they tend to think that one bad thing is happening with between the United States and China, that means that all bad things are are increased. I don't think that's true. It remains in the mutual interests of the U. S and China to continue to trade and continue to say positive things about Phase one even as tensions are on the rise between the two nations and

other geo political matters. Uh. It was the former British Prime Minister that noted that the you know, great nations have only interests, not friends. It remains in the mutual interests of these two countries to trade. They'll continue to do that, and they'll continue to say positive things about Phase one, which I think is a market But Terry Hynes, thank you so much. What we thought we'd do right now. Usually you know, it's economic data eight thirty and all

that is. They have the definitive conversation of the day on what we're gonna hear from Chairman Paul. We can do that with James Sweeney. He is at Credit sweezy. He has been there all of twenty years, which UH shocksby as well. But James Sweeney has absolutely turned cautious here. I was stunned in his last visit with us how cautious he was on the American economic experiment. And we get a brief on what Mr Powell needs to do

James Sweeney. This is always an important speech that's widely understood. Inflation will be the topic. How does the Central Bank manufacture inflation? Well, I mean they know that they need to continue to supply stimulus to the economy and they've been moving towards this Framework review, which is likely to

to signal a tolerance for overshooting inflation. Meaning you know, somewhere north of two inflation would not trigger immediate interest rate responses from the Fed, sometimes several years in the future. So that's really what we expect from them today. In general, though, the short term caution is about the lack of a stimulus bill, persistent high unemployment, risks of of inflation staying lower for longer, and I think the FED is very focused on all of these risks, and I think some

people in financial markets are not. But we will see as we go through what's set to be a pretty turbulent autumn, whether you know, market and economic data could trigger more than just talk from the FED more action. I give immense credit folks Olivier Blanchard as tour of duty at the i m F now at the Peterson Institute for jump starting this discussion. But change what the

magnitude difference here is different. Olivia Blanchard created a firestorm of controversy talking about a goosing of three and even four percent inflation. I'm not hearing that from the Fed. What are they talking about nudging it up to two point oh five or two point one percent inflation? Yeah, I think it's in the tens of basis points that they would tolerate. I don't think we're talking about three

core inflation or anything like that. And I mean, the difference between headline and core is important because energy prices can throw the headline inflation numbers around a lot. But I don't think that we're going to see three percent core inflation with you know, the set short rate that had close to zero um anytime in the future. But but what they're saying is that immediately drifting above two

is not going to prompt immediate interest rate increases. James, We've getting We're we've been getting inflation pretty some some pretty serious inflation. I'm speechless, uh, tongue tied over how much asset prices have inflated, and the fact that we hear less and less about this from Federal Reserve officials who dismissed that as just a part of how to

get to a more stable economy. But at what point does a fet have to take a look at just how much asset prices have increased and the lack of any gains that we're seeing necessarily in the economy from the regime that led to those higher asset prices. Well, that's right, I mean it's it's the lack of attractive yields on fixed income assets has squeezed investors into higher risk assets like like equities, and you've ended up with some strong equity performance and some and some high valuations.

And as long as you think that inflation risks are to the downside, then the set is going to continue to continue to signal low rates, which which is supported

for for equities. Um. But if you look farther route, you know, maybe a day will come where financial stability risks are triggered by these strong risky assets, or maybe a day will come where equities go up so much that you know, some economic of triggers a sharp reversal in the opposite direction, and then you've got real troubles if you've got below average inflation and now you have an unfriendly equity market instead of a friendly one. So that the FED is really on thin ice here, um.

Given given where the economy is, and there's another way of looking at this story, which is can low yield and even lower yields from here create more jobs? What's the FED actually doing with improving the labor backdrop? Well? I think that if you look at the housing data, right now I think there's a clear channel for job creation from low rates. It runs through low mortgage rates,

high housing starts. UM. We have seen some resilience in the housing sector, and historically housing has been a sector that is quite correlated to to FED decisions and where

interest rates are. So the FED is helping, but the economy has a lot of issues, and a lot of sectors are not as directly correlated with with interest rates and financial conditions as housing and UM and and and because of that, you know, we still have a very very high unemployment rate and it's likely not to be back down in the comfortable four to five range for several years at least. James Sweeney with this is credit sweets.

We will continue. We welcome all of you on Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Television worldwide as simulcast John Farrell, Lisa Bryan Witts, and Tom Keene. I do want to look at the data. Equities haven't moved, bonds of move futures up fourteen down, futures up one seventy six, and the yield really breaks out of four one point one and the thirty year bond that's a solid five basis point. Movies are higher yields and lower UH bill note and bond prices as well.

Dollar weakness this morning, and gold implodes negative eight dollars, down a ninety one the ounce as well. James Sweeney, I really want to talk about the caution that you had last time, and it's certainly something you mentioned the fetes watching as well. Where's the unemployment rate right now? And you mentioned we're never going to get back to four percent? Where are we heading? Well, I mean, I

think this is still pandemic unemployment. So I think there's a lot of businesses whose customers are not showing up yet at normal rates, and so the labor demand just isn't there. So I think, you know, we're well north of ten percent and unemployment. But I think when we get the vaccine, when the pandemic is under better control and people start returning to hotels and airlines and restaurants in in a more normal way, unemployment is going to

fall very sharply. Um. But I think there's a lot of damage done and I don't think it's going to fall all the way to five, say next year, even in a pretty good outcome for the pandemic. So it's going to take a while to heal this economy, and then to combine this, James, and you've been so good at this over the last fifteen years, you have to fold it into wage deflation, the great fear wage disinflation or wage inflation. What is your call on wages given

this crazy environment we're in. Well, I mean, high unemployment just can't be for wages um. But in the wage data, there's a lot going on at the moment. I mean, we've seen a lot of people into a lot of people actually taking wage cuts, which which normally doesn't happen during during the pandemic. So you've seen some wages actually ratchet lower um. In some industries, you may be desperate for workers that you can't find and wages may be rising.

And we're seeing this in consumer goods prices as well. UM a increase in variation in prices at the unit of a job or at the unit of a specific good, but an aggregate. If the economy is running at a very low level of demand with low GDP and high unemployment, you know the pressure on wages is going to is going to be down rather than rather than up. And same for for inflation. For a while, what do you see as the outlook for younger individuals entering the workforce.

This has been an increasing area of focus as this area has been particularly hard hit. Those entry level jobs just have been completely destroyed as people stay home. How much will that's this generation back in terms of wages, in terms of household creation? Is that factoring into any of your estimates right now? Well, I mean, on long on from a long term perspective, you have to look

at those things. I think some of the literature does suggest that, UM, losing opportunities in the very early stage of your career can be really harmful. So you hope that people are finding ways to invest in themselves and get some more education and and things like that to get them on a good track. But there's no doubt that the opportunity is available to new graduates this year are going to be abnormally abnormally weak because of the pandemic.

It's just one of the many painful consequences of this. Do you see business investment, Um, it's a business investment is soft. Um, it's it's improving from you know, the shutdown period, but it's not it's not great. UM. We're seeing better results in residential investment, which is which is home home by and we're seeing a decent rebound in consumption and consumer spending, but business investment, businesses are going to be cautious while we're still in the pandemic. So

even though we have very low interest rates, et cetera. UM, I think businesses will wait for clarity and you hope that you're going to have a big pick up investment over the next twelve to eighteen months, but this is not the time for it yet, except for in a few special sectors. Wonderful James Sweeney, thank you so much. The credit sweet Chief economists christ Castman Joines is now head of economics for Mr Diamond and JP Morgan. Bruce Casman,

your note this weekend, I thought was exceptionally good. It was a two part note. Let's talk inflation. First. You partition between short term supply shock inflation in the medium term reality discuss. Okay, So I think what we're gonna see on inflation to some degree mirrors what we're going to see on growth. We had a horrible collapse and activity in the spring, and we're gonna have a surge as we go through the spring and summer, led by

goods producing industries. The combination of that with the supply chain disruptions which were already seeing in some place, we think it's going to lead to a particularly rapid move up in inflation, particularly in goods, and I think the US is going to be a big part of this, and we're starting to see it, and we think we'll

see it with the PC report on Friday. However, this is likely to be a temporary phenomenon, and as we settle into more stable growth, as the price increases for the supply side um shock fade, we end up with a world where we think we have an incomplete overall recovery.

We have slack, We have limited tools on the part of central banks to really add more stimulus, and we think we settle into something lower on inflation, with as in the growth side, to split between services and goods being particularly pronounced politically and with a collective memory of the sixties, Can a central bank, including the Powell Fed, can they ignore lumber prices in the short term surge and inflation you call for Oh, I think they can, and I think the Fed if you go back and

look at two thousand sant eleven, they did the same thing. They've lived through the last decade. Uh, they have faced persistent undershoots and inflation. They're committed to trying to get inflation off, and I think they're going to be very vigilant here in holding the line. However, if we do get the fallback, the problem is not that the FED can be patient in the face of higher inflation. What they can't do is provide much stimulus in the face

of disappointing low inflation. So, Bruce, when you talk about your temporary bump in inflation, give us a sense of how much of that is supply versus, you know, a real increase or rebound in demand. It's really hard to separate those um In fact, if you look at the recession, goods pricing did not go down as much food prices actually went up. It does feel, given how sharply activity felt in those sectors, that there was some supply disruption.

Supply chains weren't functioning, distributional line weren't working, so there was some supply effect. Now what's going to happen is those problems are not going away, and now we're getting a surge in demand. So I don't think it's easy

to separate those two I think they're both contributing. I think it's in the services sector where it's easier to say, while there are some supply side pressures, the weakness and demand, the slow recovery there is probably going to be the dominant factor in terms of limiting the underlying pickup and inflation. But both factors I think are quite important. We're looking for the fastest pace a good price inflation globally and over a decade. Over the second half of this year, well,

the second half. The second half of your note really is a beautiful exposition about how the economy is going to come back, but not come back to where we where we knew it. And as you know, I look at this almost as is graphically an asome tote. What are we coming back to a set lower potential g d P, A set lower just vibrancy nominal GDP. What are we coming back to? Well, I think the easy answer to that is we're coming back to a number

of challenges. Challenges that have to do with big dislocations in some key industries. Challenges have to do with the fact that you know, in our forecast where at least three or four million jobs short, a year and a half from now from where we work before the crisis. What's harder to see is the political response, uh the

economic responses. You know, after the global financial crisis, a lot of the problems we've faced were because of the reverberations politically, the early tightening in US fiscal policy, the European sovereign crisis, So lots will depend on how politics respond. A key call we have is we're just not confident that policy makers can respond to the challenges of the expansion, even though they responded very well to the challenges of

the crisis. So I think there's every reason to worry about potential growth, is every reason to worry about political pressures because of inequality and dislocations. But I think it's pretty hard to map those specifically, other than recognizing we're going to have a pretty incomplete recovery with a lot of challenges ahead. So first, do you expect any material help out of our friends in Washington, d C. In

terms of additional round of meaningful stimulus. Well, I'm not saying I'm confident, but we still have a view that will get something between a trillion and a trillion and a half package before the end of September, we already will have done some damage by the delay of passing it. But I think the key point about US fiscal policy is that whether we get a package in September or not,

the way we're implementing it. The crisis mode was effective in getting money in the hands of households, but this temporary stop and go type policy is going to be very difficult to be successful in terms of managing the early stages of the recovery. And I contrast Europe, where I think there's a much steadier hand in the way policy is being delivered, and that's a big contrast to what we saw in the last decade. Fascinating. Bruce Casmin, thank you so much for joining us in Shorts, is

chief economist at JP Morgan as well. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio