This Has Been a Shakespearean Market, Sinche Says

These are all proposals. We're putting it out for comment there at least two months before any actions are taken. China, by the way, did not enact the tariffs. It's not a trade war. It's a negotiating position. But since joining us in the studio Amherst Peer Point Securities Global strategist, Bob, why did we need Larry Cutlow to tell us that? Wasn't it obvious this time yesterday morning? I would have

thought so. But you know it, uh, I think the international community probably reacts to these things more than we do here in the US. And look, this whole scenario of taking extreme position and then and then work it back is not unique. I mean, we're at a point right now where NAFTA six months ago. Uh, there are many people who thought NAFTA was going to be the

risk of two thousand and eighteen. And now we have the President pushing for an agreement, you know, compromising auto content and parts content and pushing toward an agreement by a you know, an America's conference in mid April. So so suddenly we've gone from you know, we're gonna tear it up. Uh, this this migration that's coming towards the US suddenly towards a compromised position, which looks like maybe it will come to fruition. So what should the plant

book be for an investor? Because clearly investors are having a pretty tough time in the equity market, at least because the other asset classes yesterday morning seemed to have got the picture that this was a proposal and negotiation and not the end of the world. What an equity investors need to get right next time around fundamentals? Fundamentals, fundamentals. I think that that investors really need to look at

what's happening in terms of individual companies. Um, you know, I think if you look at a broader picture, what we're seeing as a US economy that's performing quite well UM in the early part of two thousand and eighteen. I was looking yesterday, you know that we look at the manufacturing and the services indexes from the I s M. They actually have a blended index, which is an all economy p M. I waited uh p M I. The three month average UM just hit a twenty year high.

It's the highest since it was introduced. The series was introduced in So the economy is doing very well, and I think part of that is a reaction to the weaker dollar over the last year. We we normally say there's about a twelve to eighteen month lag between movements and the dollar and its economic impact, and guests, what twelve months out from the peak and the dollar, We're seeing US manufacturing start to outperform. We're seeing Eurozone manufacturing

underperforming during the first quarter. I think the part of this UH, this adjustment process to the dollar is now taking hold, and I think it actually boilds pretty well for the U s economy as we go forward. So it raises the question why we're failing to recognize the decent fundamentals that you observe, and something that marked our fund manager on the West Coast said last year is really stuck with me, and I think it continues to

be something we need to think about this market. A lot of people are struggling to divorce their political biases from their real analysis, whether it's economic analysis or market analysis.

Why are we still struggling to do that? Quite clearly yesterday, people's views about what is happening with trade or what isn't happening with trade is shaped by almost exclusively their distaste of the President of the United States, and that is actually really sort of warping their view of what is actually happening in terms of the negotiations of a

trite and the fundamentals of the U. S. Economy. You know, I can't disagree the way I've described it is we need to listen to the message and not the messenger, right and so, Um, you know, as we know that the president is not experienced in politics, UM, I think he probably doesn't want to become experienced in politics. He

he wants to take his own road. Um. He put stakes out what he thinks are rational, somewhat extreme positions and then gets brought back within the construct of how the government operates, how the Post Office operates how trade negotiations operate, but in general he is pushing in a direction um that I think, you know, makes some sense

for the economy. And I you know, having having worked with Larry Cutlow for forty years, UM, I still believe Larry is very much a free trader UM and I think he believes that the way this hopefully works out is we expand US markets into China, that that trade and tariff and non tariff barriers come down, and then in fact we expand the pie not contracted by you

are a cross asset. I wanted to take you away from your hyper detailed notes at the embers Pierrepont, your elegant charts, and I just want you to speak to the listener whose whipsode by this every day. The only solution is to expand your X axis, and that the person that was investing for seven weeks has to start thinking seven months, and the person that was investing for eighteen months has to really start with a three or

four year view. That's the only solution, isn't it. I think it is, and I think that you know, as I've described, this has been a bit of a in the last couple of months, a bit of a Shakespearean market full of sound and fury signifying nothing. You know, you look at the year to date. You know, you can put up w E I what's the year to day performance of the S and P. I think it's down one percent year to date. So you kind of look at the first quarter you say, what are we

getting so excited about? But in fact, we've had daily movements that dwarf the year to date movements, which is exactly the opposite of what we had last year. So we're going through an adjustment process. I think the things that we would focus on, our earnings momentum is still good in the US. We'll see how much of a response we get in terms of capital formation as a result of the tax adjustments, and deal with the fact that interest rates are probably going higher, both at the

short and the long end of the yield curve. But I think it's really important to point out that this isn't abnormal. What this is is it's goetting back to normal. Last year was abnormal. This is kind of normal. And the idea that the trait that worked, which was just short vol and long momentum, is broken down over the last couple of months. That's what we're seeing. And I guess I assume, Bob, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. That's why we're seeing it isolated to one region,

the United States, and one class US equities. Would that be right? Yes, I think so, and I think that that. UM. You know, part this is to a global liquidity environment which has been extremely accommodative. Remember the beginning of the year, the ECB cut their rate of asset purchases in half, from sixty billion euros to thirty billion euros a month. The b o J has shifted their target. It looks

like they're buying fewer assets as they go forward. UM. The Fed is beginning to normalize interest rates, though UM, I would argue that they still have a long way to go. At the front end of the yelkerve, the real FED funds rate is just barely creeping into positive territory. So UM, Yes, you have uncertainty about the global growth environment UM coming through. And I think again, particularly in Europe,

and you have a less aggressive liquidity environment UM. And the two of those create a new level of volatility, which which many people talked about being a characteristic of two thousand eighteen. So, Bob, coming forward from here, I assume there's going to be more days like yesterday, and they're going to present a lot of opportunities for our listeners.

And can you give us a sense an idea of how you should best take advantage of those opportunities on days like yesterday if we want to see more as the year progresses. You know, it's hard to to uh. You know, I think about what I'm doing myself right as an investor, and I think this is a year where equity returns probably are going to be somewhere in the five to eight percent range um. You know, if you're up five percent year to date, it's probably time

to take some some risk off the table. Conversely, if you get to be down five percent year to day, that probably gives you a pretty good opportunity to increase some risk exposure. So I think it's it's leaning against this extreme volatility. You know, there are times where you can take advantage of of of volatility, but I think you have to be very disciplined about it and and and react to the volatility in a disciplined way as

opposed to being frightened by it. Thank you so much with the amorous Pierpine greatly shoot that uh this morning, Richard Greenfield with us. Now you could talk for two hours. There's so much going on in the world of media, but let us start with I guess John Chryl Sandberg to speak to Bloomberg today in the three o'clock hour

three pm Eastern time. Looking forward to that conversation. The good news, the good news for investors at least, is that Facebook is saying the recent data crisis over the last couple of weeks hasn't hurt the business. The bad news is that dates from most of its two bid in news as could have been accessing properly. I want to bring in rich Greenfeld boot t i G Media and technology analyst. It's the good and the bad. Um,

what do you take more notice of? Rich? I mean, look, at the end of the day, there's no doubt that Facebook didn't have the proper controls in place, and certainly didn't didn't give consumers probably all the information that they clearly needed to have, or even the controls they needed to have to manage their privacy. That being said, I don't see users abandoning Facebook or Instagram or What's App and I think that's the key point, right is users

aren't abandoning, advertisers aren't abandoning. Facebook's gotta gotta fix things. I mean, look, Google head its own issues. Remember, you know, isis videos being next to you know, you know, kind of professional content in the US like a lot of the Internet. I mean, the Internet is a pretty scary place. There's a lot that these companies have to quote unquote grow up and you know better deal with their platforms

and how they interact with consumers. But I think the key for your listeners is these are the two dominant platforms. If you're an advertiser, first of if you're a consumer, what's your alternative in terms of a service. It's not like there's an alternative to Instagram that's sitting out there that you're switching to and from an advertising their standpoint, and I think Facebook did twelve billion dollars of advertising last quarter. It's not like you can take twelve billion

dollars of advertising and just move it someplace else. The world is moving to mobile. These are the two dominant platforms. They are certainly committing to getting better and improving and fixing their mistakes, But I just don't. I think at the end of the day, the pressure on the stock is overdone because at the end of the day, these are the platforms people want to use. These are the platforms advertisers want to advertise on, and that's going to

make for a good stock. So in a material way rich so far, the consumer hasn't voted with their feet by moving away from the platform. To your point, there is an optimistic view about the advertising base not having anywhere to go. But Congress and the government is still going to go after Mark Zuckerberg and grill him hard next week. What is the area of weakness that you see in the CEO of Facebook that leaves him quite vulnerable as he goes in front of Congress next week.

You know, Look, I think if you listen to you know, I listened to market an interview on Vox the other day, and I think he was pretty pragmatic about being honest and open about the mistakes made and how difficult it is to fix some of the challenges. You know, talk about fake news and the impact on elections, and these are not easy things to handle for any company. Um. Look, I'm sure they're gonna grill him. There's no doubt about it.

I think that is a given. I think the reality is the threat and the pressure you're seeing on the stock has been fear of regulation, and the question is, I mean, look, we can't get anything done in this country. I think you know, the real view that there's gonna be some heavy handed internet regulation I find very hard

to believe. But but even so, even if you believe that there's gonna be even greater walls that go up around data and privacy, that's probably far more negative for all of Netflix, sorry, all of Facebook and Google's competitors than it is for Facebook and Google. The two companies that are the strongest are actually probably gonna get stronger

if you put up high walls around data. Rich You were courageous advantage years ago it was a busted I p O. You lead with responsible coverage of the disaster known advantage. Your note on Spotify was brilliant. How hard was it to value Spotify? And what should the street learn from this unique transaction? You know, look, I think we're still trying to figure out. You know, there's been a lot of trading volatility out of the out of the box around Spotify. Um, you know, no one's ever

done a direct listing before. But I think what is fascinating about Spotify is that there really aren't a lot of global scaled platforms. Mobile platforms, I think is the

critical piece here. You know, if you if you were to draw a circle around things that are on people's home screen, meaning on mobile views, on mobile home screen, worthy that you love using, that have a credit card billing relationship on a monthly basis that you like paying for, that list of companies would be an incredibly small list. But Spotify is one of them. They hit all of or check all of those boxes. And I think the question that investors are struggling with is is music in

and of itself enough? Like can they really get scale in music? You know, Netflix has proven that exclusive content that they can differentiate themselves from HBO from network television. If you want to watch Stranger Things, the only place

to do it on Netflix. Okay, Rich Greenfield, we gotta leave it there, Sorry to to short today, Rich Greenfield would b T. I G we didn't even get a chance to get the Disney and what's going on with Sky and of course Time Warner A T and T. Let's talk about China, The White Houses National Economic Council Director Larry Cudlow saying on Bloomberg having to do with the China's response to US proposed tariffs and the sell off in the stock market yesterday. Remember, none of the

tariffs have been put in place yet, he said. He emphasized that it would take at least two months before any action is taken on what are still only proposals. Well, maybe this is the way Mr Cutlo sees it, it may not be the way that the Chinese see it. Here to tell us more, is Miranda car High Tongue Securities, head of China Thematic Research, joining us from London. Miranda, thank you very much for being with us. So is this really just part of a negotiating tactic that is

really leading to a confrontation over intellectual property? Or is it really a trade war? Um? I think this is the starting um, starting round in a much wider negotiation. Um. You've obviously had the US coming out, but then the China came out very quickly afterwards, Um, and and quite aggressively in order to set a sort of fairly hard tone for the seat your negotiations. Will you say, come

out very aggressively? What do you mean by that, well, it came out straight away with immediate tariffs, um, you know, saying that it wouldn't go into negotiating on America's terms, but it wanted to impose immediately its own tasks in response. So so this means that, you know, if you compare to how the US tackled Japan back in the es UM, then China's arguably trying to play a stronger position here

um and not give so much ground. I I look at this and I want to know how all the festivities of the last forty eight hours plays in Shanghai and in China. You're in London, But what does your take on how this place? I mean, I understand the government angle and that if Pim and I were having a beverage of our choice at the jazz bar of the Fair Amount Peace Hotel on the Bond, what would the people next to us say? Well, they obviously they're concerned about what the the US. It's going to hit

their markets um pretty badly. Um. But the thing is it's it's about It's not just about dominance in the trade um or or just about the surplus. This is about sort of the Chinese competing on a global basis with US manufacturers. And this is why we call it sort of more of an intellectual property war. It's it's about who's going to dominate the next five to twenty years in terms of things like you know, telecommunications, five g AI and the future sort of technology race UM.

And now China wants to be a leading part of that is you know, hence why the US targets are made in China twenty five sectors and not things like widgets and some of the sort of lower end textiles and the lower and goods. China manufacturers and are also a key part of them the China's trade surplus. So China knows it's in a it's in a long term war um in terms of mobal dominance. It's not just it's not just a little bit of arguments about you know,

soybeans and and and textiles anymore. This is a much bigger picture, Miranda car based on your conversations with people in China over the last several months, do you sense a difference in the way they perceive President Donald Trump versus former President Barack Obama. Is there a level of response and perspective that is different now than it was

two three years ago. Well, most definitely. I mean, the the way that Trump is dealing with China is very, very different, and it's it's a much more adversary adversarial

to the Chinese respect hardball and what they do. But they also in some ways taking it slightly cynically because if you think of where instead of sort of hitting directly back at some of the um UM the key imports that would would affect the US, they're going after the places where they know that the voters, the Trump voters, will be particularly badly hit, so particularly sort of the agricultural UM sector and the sort of the sect in

the rural area. So it's it's a it's a fairly cynical um negotiating tactic because, to be honest, UM is they limit um imports of soybeans. It's going to badly affect China more than it does the US. They can't get soybeans from anywhere else. It raises food prices UM and and it's something they lack. So this is a

fairly sort of cynical negotiating tactic. It's not a it's not a real a real threat, but obviously that they don't see UM you know, we're now into a stage where it's much more umu competitive and in terms of because what's changed, it's not just the Trump administration's change, but obviously she's vision for China has changed significantly as well, and saying that China is going to reclaim it some you know, rightful state in the global affairs means that

they're taking a much more aggressive stunt as well. So it's changes on both sides. You have to leave with their Miranda car thank you so much. With high Ton Securities in London. The strength of Bloomberg Surveillance is our effort to go out across this nation and actually find people that know what they're talking about other than what Pim Fox and I put up with seven and three zip codes in New York City, and maybe we can drag l A or San Francisco into it. Here's what

you need to know about Ames Iowa. The world ended on February when Iowa claboard Iowa State in wrestling. That's all that matters out in Iowa. Is Iowa crushed Iowa State in wrestling thirty five six except for soybeans. That's actually worse right now in wrestling, joining US truly one of the nation's experts on the dynamics of Iowa agriculture and soybeans. Chat Heart is at Iowa State University. Chad, wonderful to have you with us. What will a given

farmer do eighties seven miles south of Ames, Iowa? What would have given farmer do eighty seven miles south of me? And aims here? Well, you're talking about their south of Des Moines as well, and so what they're probably doing right now is trying to figure out when is it going to get warm enough to plant well within the weather and the dynamic of planning. I read the Des Moines Register. I believe it was yesterday, I can't remember exactly.

Which is the China tariff angle takes seven dollars a pig off that pig Can you do that marginal math to know what the various threats will cost the nation or that farmer eighty seven miles south of Domine names Well, what we've been working on here is we've already seen within the lean hag futures market that with the announcement of the Chinese tariffs there we saw those markets back off by about six dollars per hundredweight or per hundred pounds.

They recovered about a dollar and a half that so they're still down four dollars and fifty cents per hundred pounds. We've also seen the soybean market react to the announced you know, potential tariffs there. They backed off about twenty cents from where they were pre announcement there. So we're already watching these impacts hitting the various crops and livestock markets where the tariffs are being announced, and it's translating

directly into the prices that producers are receiving for their products. Today, Chad hart I was looking at the Des Moines Register and there's a quote from the president of the American Soybean Association and he says Mr Historfers. Dorfers says, farmers are feeling a real pin. If we can't get these commodity prices up, we are going to start losing farmers and there's no way of getting around it. Is that accurate?

That is accurate. Actually what we've seen over the past five years, and we've seen a dramatic decline in net farm income for our nation's farmers. The pinch has been on for some time. If you will this most recent news just adds to the pressure that some of our farmers facing. And I would describe, you know, the farming community in this way. It's sort of like a double humped camel, if you will. In the first hump, we've

got our very successful farmers. They're doing still rather well even with relatively low prices because they've been able to control their cost structure. But we do have a significant segment of farmers that have struggled over the last few years, and these low prices are beginning to drag down their net worth and basically reduce their cash flow to next to nothing. Do the farmers and the people that you speak with, do they believe that the Agricultural Secretary Sonny

Perdue is doing an They believe he's trying. And when we're looking here, everything that's coming out of Secretary Purdue and the higher ups at U S d A says that they're they're talking up at least. But you know, I would say both the positive and negative aspects for agricultural trade. But when we're looking here, for the most part, US agriculture definitely is export dependent. When you look roughly of our production across the entire agricultural complex is exported

out of the US. I look chead heard all of this, and I go back to a wonderful The Atlantic article which was on Iowa, and it was on the dynamic twenty and thirty years ago and President g is a minor Chinese official, visited Musketine. I believe it is slept in a in a house in Musketine to bond with Iowa from where you sit in the agricultural capital of the Midwest, aims Iowa, what's that linkage of China to

your state. Well, there's a very strong linkage. As you mentioned, President, she was here thirty some years ago, came back to visit this just just a couple of years ago. Since then, what he found on both trips was, you know, he went to, if you will, the same farmhouse, found the same farm family, and found that also Iowa had the same governor, who is now, of course the ambassador to China. And so when you look here, there is a very strong linkage there. But that linkage does not prevent or

you know, preserve necessarily any relationship. This continues to evolve. An Ambassador brand Stead advised the President on a best practice for Midwest agriculture arguably he already is. And so when we look at, you know, the President Trump's moves here, I assume that he's listening to not only his agricultural advisors, but across the entire spectrum when we look at our general economy. And so that's got to be part of

the conversation. We're speaking with Chad Hart. He is Associate professor of economics crop market specialist at the Iowa State University. And it's had one other point about what's going on with US farmers. If they're being hit by this level of uncertainty and declining income, what does that mean about unneeded equipment on the farm restructuring debt. It's got to have a knock on effect, doesn't it. It does have a knock on effect, and we have been seeing that

build over the past couple of years. As you mentioned, the idea is that you know, news machinery, that that market took a hit. We did see land values back off a couple of years ago as the incomes declined, and so we have seeing the agricultural economy shrinking even though the general economy has been growing over the past couple of years. Biggest issue right now politically for Iowa

is what these tariffs. These tariffs would be a front and center as we look here, just because they hit so hard and so fast in terms of the pricing for the commodity today. For example, with soybeans. You even though you know it's an announced tariff has not come into place yet, it already is having market impacts for our producers, not only in what they're selling today, but if you will, what they're planning to sell over the

next year to two years. Professor, Before we let you go, we have a we have a global audience at coast to coast audience. We mentioned they'll pass our Texas earlier this morning, but the fact is the large portion of our audience is in saran wrap stores, buying perfectly agriculture worldwide and taking advantage of it every day. If you had one message from the trenches for Americans about our

agricultural product and our food product, what would it be. Well, it's in this case when you think about agriculture, as you mentioned, we are used to being able to go to the grocery store, find whatever we want, you know, on proper packaging, and be able to carry it home and do what What's what we want, But the idea is that hasn't been that way for that long, and

we don't pay that much for our food. When you think about that dollar you spend at the grocery store, roughly fifteen cents of it goes back to the farmer to pay for the product that acts. If you will create professor out of time Chad Hart, Iowa State aims Iowa. Always with Douglas Cass of Seabreeze Partners, you rip up the script and you really go to the news flow.

There are two items we need to talk about, and one is the sheer excitement for our global audience in the American sport of baseball, and that would be a Red Sox team. It seems to be pretty good. But the absolute unique characteristics Doug cast of your New York Yankees. I had goose bumps yesterday. You you and I did not live. But what's going on with the Yankees this year is goose bump worthy for everybody that loves baseball.

They're jut I your producer asked me if I could get Sandy on the phone um in the next interview, and I told him yes. He says, do you mind if you step off the phone. Well, we we would be honored Mr Kofax, as you brought us Jim Palmer last year, who was shockingly pressing on the Houston Astros.

As we look at the things to talk about, Doug, I want to have a cogent and constructive conversation about the humility in the business and of course with the end or funds leaving Pershing UH Square Capital are Scott Duvau publishing that on the year end note Blackstone, JP, Morgan, Chase and others exited millions of dollars? Was was Mr Ackman Bill Ackman with herbal life and all was he

was the undiversified where the bets too big UM. He ran an extraordinarily concentrated portfolio and book UM, something that Warren Buffett has um consistently cautioned about UM that coupled with his public persona and unfortunately a large share of EU briss have contributed to his disappointing results. But I would also add unrelatedly that market conditions also contributed UM,

not only to Persian Squares poor results. Mr General, the fun community and you know some brilliant people like David Einhorn or I consider a friend, has done disappointingly poorly as well. Um, you know, we we have this, We've entered something I've discussed with you repeatedly, and I think you used it as a promo. Um, we're in this new volatility regime. We're in a market with which virtually

has no memory from day to day. So the construction of permanent or buy and hold long term portfolios grow increasingly more difficult in the environment. I mean, let's just look at yesterday, um, which is a constant reminder that either I'm an idiot or that there's an endless supply of idiots out there. Well, maybe the two are mutually exclusive. Um. The SMP is now rallied by a hundred SMP points, the Dow Jones by eight hundred points from the pre

market lows yesterday. And you know, we all try to search for reasons. Managing money in that sort of voluable environment is really dangerous, problematic. So I like to say that we're all traders now. I like that idea. Let me bring the boat earlier, but let me just challenge a little bit Doug cast because he used the word brilliant people. And you know, when the stock market continues to move higher and there's no volatility, everybody looks like

a hero. How come now that we have volatility, and now that everybody has to prove their chops, you end up with a situation where no one can explain accurately why other investors have been dumping stocks because you never hear anybody telling you that they're selling their own stocks.

And having said that, doesn't that call into question the very quote brilliance that you describe and does It's a great question, and it would probably take four hours of conversation, but I would say to you then that, um, the market has changed dramatically in the last decades. I mean investors have changed the dominant investor group. You know, when I graduate a business school Warden, in the early seventies, it was bank trust departments that were the dominant factors

in the market. Then we had the proliferation of mutual funds, and then tenactin years later we had the proliferation of hedge funds. Now machines and algies dominique trading these days and there, as you saw yesterday, they were triggered off the fifth I can't count successful retest, So I'm sorry. You know what I've talked about this before, and this

is the heart of the matter. For Global Wall Street hedge funds are structured on two and twenty two fee plus of the take, and that worked in a high yield, high nomenal, high real yield environment where you had some wiggle room. You have some squishiness that's gone. How can you garner that fee structure in make the gain given where we are in terms of rates and total return potential. The math's not the same as it was ten years ago.

It's really difficult in a low as you said, structurally, in a low interest rate in environment, and in the low maybe even substandard return environment too in twenty simply doesn't work the vague as we would say in a baseball exactly. I mean, Pim Fox, this is something you understand. Doug cass and I having an overpriced cup of coffee at the Four Seasons over on fifty ninth Street, the math worked. I see, I'm still buying my coffee on the on the corner with the guy at the cart,

and I'm trying to understand, you know. And I think you said something interesting, Dug there about the dominant forces in the market. The traders now are machines. Does this then offer an opportunity to human beings to find companies that they believe have value and to stick with their opinions and their perceptions in a way that machines cannot. Great question again, if you have it's to me, it's a function of time frames and the patients of your

investor base. If your invest investor base is impatient and once returns quickly, you're screwed, stated simply right. But don't you you want a long term investor base. I mean, aren't those the ideal clients because traders, they're going to leave? You know when what's happening to Persian square? Persian square in the article I forwarded to Tom, he's losing a large portion of his investors through redemptions. So it's easier

said than getting a large investor base. And a lot of the hedge funds have moved from being active investors to passive investors. Machine derives strategies and products. So you know, we see what happens when everyone gets on the same side of the boat in early February, and that's going to occur with greater frequency, and the market will be we'll have greater unpredictability on top of the fact that we have more uncertainty today in the economy, in the markets,

and the political of political backdrops. So what are you doing right We got one minute left, Doug cast tell us, please, what you're doing right now? Given this historic volatility? Um I. I believe that the real influence in the last half of this year will be the administration. And I think that Trump, with a healthy dose of the machines and the out goals we describe, is going to make market volatility and economic uncertainty great again. So I am fearful

that his policy will result in mistakes. Basically, we have an untethered president who is conflating politics with economic policy, and you can't have hastily crafted economic policy without deep analysis, um in in a flat, networked and interconnected world which just doesn't worry you. Gotta leave it there, Duck Cass, thank you so much. Show up next time as you can with the giant of the game. Mr Kofax of Los Angeles Duck Cass Partners. 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.