This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week.
And we may not have an overall recession, we're having a rolling recession. Econe roll looks pretty strongly. It is when it comes to jobs.
The financial stories that shape our world.
Three major regional bank failures send shockwaves through the banking system. We're all trying to figure out what to make of generative AI.
Through the eyes of the most influential voices.
Welcome down, Doctor Paul Krugman, Ryan moynihan, a Bank of America, deebro Lair of the Paulson Institute, Len Hubbard of the Columbia Business School.
Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
A whole lot of stress in Moscow, in the banking sector, at what's left of credit series, and even in a surprisingly resilient economy. This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. This week Michael jay A Blackstone on where the economy is headed and what it means for his business.
Our business model is really made for times like this.
Former fdi C chair Shila Behar on what we learned from the FED stress tests.
I don't think we should take a lot of comfortable that there's a lot of work that needs to be done.
And Darren Walker of the Ford Foundation on what the Supreme Court ruling out a firm reaction means for us.
All the playing field tilts towards those who are already advantage.
Stress.
Measuring it and dealing with it was the order of the day this week in Global Wall Street. It all started in Moscow with a letter of Prutin backing down in the face of a mutiny. Raghi Drusian, Dear friends, today I address once again for all Russian citizens. I thank you for your endurance, solidarity and patriotism. At UBS in Switzerland, it wasn't so much an attempted mutiny as
it was cleaning house. With reports that more than half of the Credit SUITEZ team it inherited will be shown the door.
UBS is preparing to cut more than half of the credit Swee workforce that i ITT bought back.
In the United States, the Supreme Court raised the stress level for colleges and universities, trying to make sure they have diverse student bodies.
This essentially ends affirmative action as we know it.
US Bank's got a report card this week on their ability to withstand stress in the aftermath of the Silicon Valley bank failure.
All in all, all the banks had passed pretty clean read but for.
Those waiting for FED rate cuts, the stress level if anything went up as housing numbers came in surprisingly strong, and Chair Pale over at Central Portugal wouldn't rule out consecutive rate hikes yet to come.
But I wouldn't take moving at consecutive meetings off the table.
At all, while his counterpart at the ECB, Christine Legard, said she's not even considering a rage pause at this point.
If our baseline stands, then we also know that we will very likely hike again.
But for all the stress this week, the markets pretty much took it in stride. The S and P five hundred was up another two point three five percent end of the week at forty four to fifty, and that is way above the medium call of our Bloomberg elves who are saying by the end of the year she hit forty one hundred. The NASAC wasn't too far behind, of about two point two percent of the week, while the yield on the ten year was up nine basis points, finishing the week at three point eight three to take
us through what was driving the markets this week. We welcome net back Rebecca Patterson, who earlier served as chief market strategist at Bridgeway. Rebecca, always great to have you here. Thank you for being here. So as you look at all that happened, a lot happened this week. Actually, yeah, what do you think was driving the markets? Because for the stock market sure liked whatever they saw.
Well, I think there's still a sense out there that there's a reasonable probability of a soft landing that the FED maybe have to hike one or two more times max, but that's largely discounted now, and that the everything is going to line up perfectly, a moderation and growth but not too much, and a quick moderation and inflation that it would allow the FED to ease significantly next year. I think that hope, and you get some data that supports it, some that doesn't, is what's really leading the
stocks higher. Largely. Obviously there's structural issues with AI and how that could help tech stocks in particular and ancillary businesses through new sources of revenue. But I think the macro picture is really these hopes for a soft landing, which I still personally think are premature.
So we're about halfway through the year now, exactly halfway through the year. Did you expect that's what this is where we'd be when January one came around.
You know, the beginning of the year, we had the China reopening, and everyone was very excited about that. It happened faster, it was sort of a big bang reopening. I have been a little surprised with the degree of how quickly it's moderated. You know, the fact that we have youth unemployment in China at over twenty percent. Manufacturing in China is contracting out right now. Services is positive, but just barely so. China is going to need to do more stimulus, and we have the poll up Euro
meeting coming up in July. I think if they do something, it'll be then. But if we don't see something bigger than the incremental steps they've taken so far, and something really aimed at the consumer, building consumer confidence, getting companies to bring people back to work, I think that one keeps moderating. I think the other thing that surprised me
so far this year was the strength and tech. I mean, I think everyone's been surprised by the strength and tech You've still had higher yields this year, you still had fed hikes, and normally those longer duration assets are going to be more sensitive to that. But I think what's driven it regardless has been the very strong underlying consumer because at the end of the day, there's still a
big consumer cyclical component to tech stocks. But in addition, again these structural hopes around AI and what that's going to bring.
As you say, China right now seems to be disappointing, if anything, a bit. We'll see how it plays out the rest of the year. What's the knock on effect of that? For example in the United States. I mean, China has traditionally been the source of a lot of growth globally. It looks like it's not going to be play that same role for the United States economy.
Well, it's so interesting. I think the US could actually be a small net beneficiary when it comes to stock market. So again, think back to November, December, January, when we had the speculation and then actual reopening in China. You saw economies that are more sensitive to China, that have stronger trade relationships business relationships benefit even more than the US did. So Germany, for example, fifty percent of their
GDPs exports. China is a huge trade partner Italy a lot of the emerging Asian economies commodity prices, so all the capital was going to these more cheaply valued, attractively
valued stocks overseas that would benefit from China. Now with China sputtering and people saying where do I want to allocate for the second half of the year, even though certain parts of the US equity market could be seemed very pricey, especially some of those tech names, the US economy still looks more resilient than a lot of places overseas. So one thing that could be a surprise for the second half of the year is that the US outperforms again.
You know, it's amazing to say that with the tech stocks valued where they are today, and I think that has to slow at some point soon, especially with the FED continuing to raise rates. But if the US is the best house on the block, and I think it will be in the second half of the year, most likely, that might keep capital coming in here, which means a stronger dollar, and so certain US stocks will benefit more than others.
We all pay so much attention to the central banks, not just the FED with the center banks. We heard from them this week. It's CenTra over in Portugal, and certainly we heard a message from j Powell, from the feder Reserve, from Christine Lagarden, even from mister Bailey that if anything's indicated we're going to have higher for longer. How does that affect the market?
You know, I think that's really going to be an end of the year and early next year story. So again, right now, the market is pricing in higher for longer for this year, especially compared to January. January, we're still thinking we could get rate cuts during this year. That's largely been removed, but we're still looking at a market discounting significant easing next year.
Now.
J Powell himself has said that for inflation to get back to two percent their target, it's probably not happening until twenty twenty five. So are they actually going to be easing a year ahead of that? If inflation's above target? Maybe, if there's a huge crisis, or if the jobless claims and the payroll numbers deteriorate very materially. But if they don't,
it's hard for me to see that easing coming. So I think that is going to be a headwind for equities in the US and globally probably as we get towards later in the year, and the FED is signaling that we're not there yet.
As a recovering lawyer, I have to ask one quick one about the Supreme Court. We had several controversial decisions come down. Do they have any economic effect you think?
You know, the one decision that we got about the student loan forgiveness that that that's not going to go forward. You the decision itself is not as economically important, But there is a relative to this, which is that student loans have been Forbaard right, they haven't had to pay them since March twenty twenty, and that ends this fall. The Bureau of Economic Analysis is saying thirty eight billion annual rate of disposable income they had from not paying
those loans. That goes away. So I think when we think about what could hurt GDP at the end of the year, Q four, Q one, this could be a material hit for the consumer.
Interesting.
I'm not sure we'd figure that out yet. Thank you so much, re Becca, it's really great to have you with us. That's Rebecca Patterson, formerly with Bridgewater. Coming up we go over the results of the first bank stress tests since all those bank failures back in March, with former FDIIC chair Sheila Beher. That's next time Wall Street Week on Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
This is Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. This week, the Federal Reserve is at least the results of their stress tests and all twenty three banks pass. I would say, with flying colors, to take us through what we learned, and maybe it is important what we may not have learned from these tests. Were welcome now, Shila Beer she of course served as the chair of the fdi C, so she'l thanks so much for being back with us. What did these trust tests tell us about the state of the banking industry.
Well, they told us that in a severe stress scenario, as if it has defined it, they would survive quite well and still have plenty of capital to keep blending. But I think there are a lot of problems with the scenario and the assumptions that underpin the stress tests, so I don't think we should take a lot of comfort from it. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, and to us credit, the Fed acknowledge that there are a lot of different potential risks out
there that may not be reflected. So I do think we should not take a lot of a lot of comfort in this. The big issue obviously is they don't stress high interest rates. That is the issue confronting the
bank banking industry right now. And ironically, if you assume, as their stress test does, that rates go back to zero in a severe recession, that actually helps banks that have a lot of unrealized losses in their on their books because when you take rates back to zero, those loll yielding assets regain value quickly, So in a way, they're rewarding banks for not managing their indust rate ris
very well, and that's a big problem. The other issue is that again related interest rates, is what happens if we have a protracted period where the yield curve is inverted, meaning that short term borrowing rates are higher than long term rates, which is a situation we've had for a
while now. That leads you into a situation which we're already seeing where banks cost of funding what they have to pay on deposits or borrowing will exceed what they can get on their loans, and that's going to be a real challenge for banks, and those are the kinds of issues the FAD really needs to be thinking about
and putting banks through. Not this kind of artificial assumption that if we have a recession, rates go back to zero and we start the party all over again and their assets are inflated and they don't have to pay anything on the deposits anymore. That's just not realistic.
Surely, your reference to the interest rate risk takes me back to one of the reasons why we were particularly eager to see these results in the wake of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and other banks that were interest rate risks. Are there things that could be done with the stress tests that would have kicked out that problem or is it not a stress test or capital issue at all?
It is, so I don't think it's I don't think it's realistic, to be honest with you, it's it's not the kind of scenario we should be worried about. And so yes they should be. Assuming that interest rates stay high, inflation stays high, interest rates have to stay high. We still have you know, we don't we have a hard landing we don't have a soft landing and that the yield curd remains inverted for some period of time. That's the worst case, nightmare scenario that we need to prepare for.
I hope it doesn't happen, but it certainly could. And I think, you know, keeping interest rates high even if we have an economic slow down to recession I think is a much more likely. And this idea that the FED is going to go back to zero again, that's completely inconsistent with the FED itself has been saying about, you know, keeping great tie until inflation is defeated. So that's really what they need to be working back. And now we have real life examples with these recent regional
bank failures. That's exactly what took them down. They're unrealized they had deposit runs, they had a lot of underwater securities which they had to start selling to meet deposit redemptions. That caused losses. That's what brought them down. So you're seeing that in real life right now. And these are very poorly managed banks. I think most banks are managing these risks well. But this is the scenario that the FED needs to take the banking system through.
How does liquidity figure out because one of the issues obviously on lots of banks affails, they just didn't have the equalities, so they had to sell the securities. As you pointed out, does liquidity factor in the stress as should it?
It does not. Really There are separate tests on liquidity. They're not public, but they probably should be public, and that liquidity risk needs to be integrated into the capital stress testing because you cannot separate these out. A bank that is perceived to be weak by the market will likely have deposit runs or you know, accelerated deposit withdrawals. That means that they might have to sell securities they weren't planning on selling so called hold maturity securities, which
will have a big impact on capital. So these need to be integrated together. You can't just have a clean separation. And again that's that's part of the broader interstrate scenario, is liquidity risks as they impact capital that the FED should be running these banks through.
We're talking about the banking sector. They're regulated banking sector right now. There's a lot of transactions being done outside of that, as you know so well, and if anything has that has been growing dramatically ironically, perhaps in part because of the difficulties the banks are having, so they're getting out of some of the business the private credit is stepping into. Is there an effective way to take into account the possible systemic risk from the non bank banks.
So it's a huge issue because in my experience, you know, we had a non bank lending during the Great Financial Crisis. They were doing the line share of the mortgage limiting, right. The big banks were doing thesecuritizations that fed the beast, but they were doing the line's share, and they still do frankly. But those sources of credit dry up very quickly if you get into distressed market situations. The banks that have stable to pass the ones that keep blending.
So if you keep squeezing the banks, and if we overreact, especially with the smaller banks, the regional community banks, two recent failures you're going to have, you're going to even push even more of that into the private sector. You're going to constrain their ability in the non bank sector, You're going to constrain their ability to lend. That's going to make the system even more fragile. There's also not a lot of transparency between the intersection of the regulated
banks and the non bank sector. Again, this was a huge problem during the Great Financial Crisis. Most of the mortgage lendings was that the non banks, but it certainly flowed back into the banks when troubles emerged.
You refer to regional banks and also community banks and their role overall in the ecosystem. That's certainly come to the forefront. How concerned should we be about the role of the community banks, the regional banks versus the big money center banks, And is there something we could do to really ensure their strength because they do provide a lot of the lending and the credit to some of the smaller businesses across the country.
I do, and those are the engines of job growth. So yes, I've been saying for some time now we need at least to have a temporary guarantee for transaction to positive accounts that these smaller banks have with their business customers and other institutions like local governments, nonprofits. These are accounts that are used by their customers to pay bills, to make payroll, to bring revenues in, pay expenses. They're operational, they don't move easily, but they're almost always above the
insured deposit limits. Because you got a lot of money flowing in and out to pay expenses, payroll, and other bills, so we provided a temporary guarantee for them. During the Great Financial Crisis, we were seeing depositive stability. Then with the smaller banks, those deposits were migrating to the so called two big defail banks. You want to stop that. We've had enough consolidation already, So providing reinstituting at least on a temporary basis this guarantee again, I think would
be hugely stabilizing to those regional and community banks. Unfortunately, in Dodd Frank for whatever reason, it took the authority away from the FDI see using what's called the systemic Risk Exception, to which is an extraordinary procedure to reinstate that. Now there's a fast track approval process in the Hill. It needs to be required. The President has to ask for it. The President, for whatever reason, has not asked for it. But I do think there's insufficient focus on
stabilizing liquidity for these community and regional banks. The more they have to, you know, pay really high rates on deposits or borrow from the Federal Homeland Bank, it's this really expensive borrowing, the more that is going to distress them and constrain their ability to win. We need to stabilize those accounts, especially transaction accounts, with a much higher, if not unlimited, guarantee, at least on this temporary basis.
So this is very helpful. Thank you so much for joining us on again. Shila bet She is the former chair of the FDI. See coming up the world of private equity today from the perspective of one of the biggest players, we talk with Blackstone CFO Michael J. That's next on Wall Street Week on Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Well Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
This is Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. Investors these days faced a number of real uncertainties about where the economy is going, as well as what the FED is likely to do in response to that. One of the ways to look at what those uncertainties really tell us and what we should do about it is through the lens of alternative investing. And we welcome to somebody who is at one of the biggest most successful term investment houses that there is. It is Blackstone. He's the chief
financial officer there. He is Michael J. So Michael, welcome to Wall Street. We great to have you.
David is great to be here, Thanks for having me.
So let's start with a macro here if we could, what is the Blackstone view the operating thesis right now abo where we are in the economy and where it's headed on inflation, on whether we're going to have a big downturn or not.
Sure well on the macro, which obviously affects everything. We do benefit from having the lens of a really big portfolio of investments. So we have stakes and over two hundred companies that together have over two hundred million of revenues and aggregate. We have a real estate portfolio with over twelve thousand individual assets. We have a very big private credit portfolio. So that's a very sort of rich sample,
and I'd start with the good news. So the good news first, I think is we pretty definitively, definitively see inflation trending down. You know, if you look at the inflation prints, the standard metrics, and you adjust for shelter which sort of lagged on the way up and is now lagging on the way down. If you look, for example, at core CPI, a very important metric x shelter that's
running in the mid threes. And if you look at CPI by itself X shelter, it actually hit about two percent last month, so we definitely see the direction of travel being down. Other good news is the performance of the and resilience of the economy and of many companies to date. So in our own portfolio, we talked about this publicly in the first quarter, our private equity portfolio companies grew with double digit revenues in the first quarter,
with stable resilient margins. We see in our portfolio, you know, clear signs that costs have peaked in the last few quarters, including with respect to wages very importantly. So there's some good news on both those fronts. Now, against that, of course, is the challenge of the cost of capital and the availability of capital. And there I think you see the confluence of three really big things. First, obviously the escalation and short rates over the last fourteen months or so
five hundred basis points. I think the FED has basically achieved its goal of achieving positive real rates for the first time in this country in many years. And we're going to take the FED at its word and plan for higher for longer short rates. Second, quantitative tightening, you know, as you and I know, I think a few years ago we sort of couldn't stop talking about QT, and now I think we don't talk about it enough. And so pre COVID. The FED balance sheet, as you know,
is four trillion or so. It more than doubled in the subsequent couple of years. And now they're embarking on a balance sheet reduction program where they're basically, through runoff of assets, shrinking that balance sheet by about a trillion annual run rate a year. So that's going to have significant effects over time, and we already see some of the impact in certain markets and how they're behaving, like
agency mortgages. And then third, as a result of the banking challenges, especially the regional banking challenges of earlier in this year, we do think you'll see credit contraction from that over time. So those are three big forces, and I think the result of all that is the FED is basically going to deliver what it intended, which is a slowdown in the economy. And I think, you know, you should expect to see deceleration in the economy, you know, in the coming months.
So take all that together, a complex and nuanced view, strengthen the economy at the same time reductional liquidity, some uncertainty. What does that mean for dealmaking?
I think we're seeing the overall M and A cycle playing out probably as we more or less expected even a year ago, which is, you had this really big rate shock again, the five hundred zero to five hundred basically in fourteen or fifteen months, and during that time period, M and A activity essentially froze. We are now seeing on the ground some thawing of that freeze, and I think the reasons for that, you know, having seen these cycles before, are you know that seller expectations need to
be recalibrated and that takes time. And then in this particular circumstance, I think market participants are now you know, seeing that we're nearing the end of this dramatic rate increased cycle and therefore feeling like there's a little less uncertainty,
a little more certainty, and are readier to transact. And so if you look at our own business, you know, just in this month of June, we've been busy people, and so in the last couple of weeks, you know, we announced things like a two billion dollar investment in one of the country's fastest growing utilities in almost billion dollar additional investment in the country's largest private developer, renewables. In the legitistics area real estate, which we're big fans of,
we've been selling and buying. We announced the sale of over three billion dollars of logistics assets to a public company earlier this week, and we also acquired three different portfolios of logistics assets in both the US and Europe. So I think those probably constitute green shoots or potential
green shoots. I think you'll be hearing that that term will be more in fashion this summer, I think among Wall Street types, but really for us, in terms of our business, our business model is really made for times like this. At its core, you know, we're all about long term, locked up committed capital through fund structures, and what that allows us to be is patient, and it allows us obviously to have capital and time when capital
is short. And indeed, we have nearly two hundred billion dollars of dry powder to invest opportunistically in the coming time period. And our history has shown that those couple of years coming out of a cycle are some of the best times to invest. So We're excited about what the future will bring.
As you see that thaw, and if I can draw the analogy the green shoots coming up through the ice. More or less is the nature of the deals changing. We saw a piece in the Wall Street Journal this week, actually Blackstone has mentioned it, the suggestive private equity is doing more smaller deals, maybe because of the uncertainty of the price of financing, even regulatory overhang. You are you seeing smaller deals than you did before?
I think, well, we have our own particular perspective. We scale is one of our big advantages in our private allows us to do things others can't do. In our private equity business. You know, we've successfully in the last couple of years been able to engineer a couple of really large deals of partnership with Emerson in the climate technologies area. Copeland is the name of the business, recently a five billion dollar take private of a business called Seavent.
So we do think that's one of our edges. And so you can't paint with the broad brush that the deals are getting smaller. I do think that the development of the direct lending market, which there's been a lot of focus on in the private credit area, you know, has in this cycle, and I think secularly allows for deal making to continue, including at relative scale, in a way that maybe five ten years ago is less less doable.
As you look at the landscape out there, where are the investment opportunities and how dependent on the assumptions that were done or close to done with the hiking of the rate.
Sure, well, it's a multifaceted answer, and we have a broad business and so we have sort of a balanced attack and aren't relying on one single strategy. But I think for sure on the credit side, lending money right now in this environment is a very compelling thing to do with very good risk reward, probably some of the best risk reward we've seen in a long time in
the credit area. So in things like direct lending, you know, you can generate double digit returns given where base rates are and spreads for being in the very senior most part of the capital structure with a lot of equity beneath you. So that is very attractive. In other forms of private credit, whether it's asset back credit or real estate credit, similarly, it's a very good time to invest
from a risk award standpoint. So that's one big theme and then on the equity side a little bit apropos what I talked about when I went through the deals we're doing, I'd say, we're still applying some of our same key themes around sort of the sectors and areas we want to invest in, but now we think we'll do it in a more interesting environment, maybe somewhat more dislocated environment to find value. So that's really how we're approaching it.
You mentioned real estate. Obviously, Blackstone has a very substantial presence in real estate. It's been a lot in the news, there's a lot of report of the challenges for commercial real estate. What is your perspective on that. Are we headed toward a real, substantial downturn in real estate?
Well, it's interesting, I think. You know, when you see the acronym CRE in a newspaper article, you can be sure it's probably going to portray the sector and paint it with a broad brush. The reality is there's real bifurcation in terms of the dynamics in real estate as an industry. It's a big industry. You have one sector traditional off especially in the US, that really does a fundamental challenges in vacancy, levels of twenty percent plus and
so forth. That happens to be a very small portion of our portfolio, less than two percent of our global real estate equity portfolio. And then you have a number of sectors where fortunately we're concentrated through I think some good sector selection decisions, where the fundamentals are really quite good vacancies, and many of those sectors are at two to five percent, which is almost at or just above the frictional level of vacancy. It really matters where you
invest in the portfolio construction. I think our firm is created in real estate over the last decade or really some of our finest work.
Is a firm.
Michael, thank you so much for being wellser really great to have you here. That's Michael Jay. He's the chief financial.
Officer of Blackstone.
Coming up, the Supreme Court rocks the nation once again with its decision on a pron of action. We'll talk with the head of the Ford Foundation, Darren Walker, on what it could mean for all of us. That's next on Wall Street Week. I'm Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.
This is Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. The Supreme Court rocks the nation once again with its decision on a pirn of action, and to take us through what exactly the Supreme Court's ruling this week might mean for talent in this country. Welcome now, Darren Walker. He is the head of the Ford Foundation. Darren, thank you so much for being back with us. You've written an op ed piece in the New York Times, a very profound one questioning some of the fundamentals of the Supreme Court's decision.
And let me ask you, because you go through your personal experience and how that informs your view on this what do you think that the Chief Justice Roberts and the other five members of what do you think they don't understand about America today?
Well, I think what they have not taken into account is the reality that our great history in this country also has some regrettable dimensions. The race that has regrettably been a part of our country's history, the vestiges of that remain with us. We are still a highly segregated society and our educational system, our workplaces, our criminal justice system,
and other systems in this country. And to simply say, in order to stop discriminating, we must stop discriminating creates a false moral equivalency between those who historically sought to keep the Jim Crow hierarchy, the racial hierarchy that characterize this country for most of our history. Those people are doing the same thing as those of us who have sought to bring about more justice and redress the history the vestiges of racism that unfortunately remain with us today.
Have we made real progress with what is called by some affirmative action, I mean we can go back. It's been around for a long time now, go back to the Bakhi decision in nineteen seventy eighth. That's a long time ago.
Now.
Did having affirmative action help us make progress in resrection? We should be making.
Progress well, David, I would not be here with you today were it not for affirmative action. There is no doubt that an entire generation of African Americans and Latinos in this country have been propelled forward in part because
of affirmative action. I'm a proud affirmative action baby. I benefited from living in a country that believed in my potential, and even though I was a poor kid living in a rural community, America cheered me on this country wanted me to win and succeed, and that manifest in the ways in which my public educational grants, graduating from college without any debt. All of this made it possible for me to get on the mobility escalator and write it as far as I could and my talent would bring me.
But there had to be a sense understanding of racial consciousness. And what the Supreme Court and others seemed to be saying is that it is time for us to move
beyond having any consciousness of race. We're not saying I don't profess to believe that race has to be the deciding factor, but to say that it is unconstitutional to have any consciousness of race and the legacy of racism that remains with us, I think is not good for our democracy, the multiracial, multicultural democracy, this great experiment called America won't work if we simply wash away an erase the history, the reality today of our countries racism and
the bias that unfortunately remains.
Darren, thank you so much on being on Wall Street Week. That is Jarren Walker. He is the president of the Ford Foundation that does it for this edition of Bloomberg Wall Street Week. If you missed any part of today's program, You can listen on demand with our Wall Street Week podcast. Find that on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you get your podcasts. I'm David Weston. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now