Bloomberg Wall Street Week March 17th, 2023

the US economy really is. Through the eyes of the most influential voices Larry Summers, the former Treachery Secretary, Katherine Keening, CEO of ny Moen, Samzel Sherman and founder of Equatic Group Investment in Bloomberg wool Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. An irresistible force meets an immovable object as inflation fever continues, but the central bank remedy to bring it down shakes Global Wall Street to its core.

This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston, this week's special contributor. Larry Summers on reacting to the bank crisis without giving up the fight against inflation. I think it's appropriate, at least on current facts, to raise rates by twenty five basis points. The economists Danny Bettos on whether we should have seen it coming, well, I think we are seeing a realization that the banks are more

fragile than people thought they were. And Joshua Friedman of Kenyon Valley Partners on what it all means for credit and for private equity. Any other week we'd be talking about the ECB decision on Thursday to raise rates. Despite all the uncertainty surrounding the banks, the Governing Council today decided to increase the three key ECB interest rates by fifty basis points and a Russian fighter jet forcing down

a US drone over the Black Sea. This incident demonstrates a lack of competence in addition to being unsafe and unprofessional, and China is lowering its growth target to achieve and around five percent growth. It's not an easy task. It's going to require redoubled efforts. But this week we watched as the foundations of the banking sector trembled in the face of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. There's never just one cop roach like we've seen several banks here

fault end of Signature Bank. It was the second largest bank failure in US history, followed by the third largest bank failure in US history when Signature Bank was taken over its wealth. And if that weren't enough, the systemically important Credit Suite Teacher as it first announced material weaknesses in its financial reporting controls, even as its chairman Uric Kerner reassured Bloomberg's Francine Laque that it was not seeing fund outflows material good influence. Yesterday still I had a

Climb meeting which was very positive from that one. So so far it's come, but I think it's only days

TiAl goodness. But by the end of the week, the Swiss National Bank had to step in with guarantees of liquidity as pressure built for some strategic resolution for Switzerland's second largest bank, and the hits just kept on coming as First Republic Bank came under siege, prompting Secretary Yelling to put together a group of banks to inject thirty billion dollars in depots posits into the bank, which as of Friday's clothes did not appear to have stopped the doubts.

And as we head into the weekend now markets are reacting to reports of UBS possibly stepping in to help with problems at Credit Suite. Through it, all equities held up reasonably well. The SMP five hundred ended up the week up one point four percent. Then Azek was up

four point four percent. Investors flocked to the relative safety of bonds, taking the yield on the ten year down three DP basis points, ending the week just over three point four percent, and the yield on the two year fell over seven basis points to wind up just over three point eight percent. Take us through it all. We welcome now Peter Krauss. He's chairman and CEO of Aperture Investors,

So welcome back, Peter. Great to have you here. Did here, David? So, as we sit here, it's hard to know exactly what to address because it's moving. It's moving on both sides of the Atlantic with credit suis ubs maybe over there, we've still got new Republican and other issue here. So as an investor, what do you do in these circumstances? Yeah, Look, it's very difficult. Investing is alway to challenge, but in

these markets it's even more difficult. Risk is hard to take right now because if we really don't know where to take the risk, it's very difficult to put the risk on. So I think right now, in today's markets, probably investors shouldn't be committing more to a particular risk position. I'm not sure they should reduce their risk, because it's hard to know where to reduce the risk. None of us thought the two year was going to rally a

hundred basis points in less than seven days. That's a dramatic, dramatic move, and none of us had any thought that, in fact, these banks were as unstable as they are. So I think at the present time, if I was investing incremental dollars, I'd probably have it in cash. So as a practical matter, what we saw was silicon value. Back in other places, it seemed to be a mismatch, a mismatch with respect to duration and respect to liquidity. As you had long term treasuries and other securities matched

up against deposits, people could withdraw right away. Where might there be similar mismatches? Do you think in the system, either in the banking system or beyond the banking system. Now,

I think that's an excellent point. I think one of the challenges that the world has, this is not just a US issue, is that for ten plus years, interest rates have been very benign, inflation benign, volatility benign, and people have gotten comfortable with that, and so they've invested more money than they probably would historically into private assets, into public private equity, into private credit, and places in which they don't have liquidity, and now that interest rates

are much much higher in the front end, that cost of that liquidity is actually significant. And what we're seeing is the disintermediation of cash moving to where you can get five percent in short rates, whereas before you were getting zero. So, yes, it's happening in the banking system. It's happening any place that is actually benefited from very

low rates and low volatility. It's happening in the insurance business where actually people who have insurance policies are saying, well, if I actually terminate my insurance policy and buy a new one, or actually buy a public security like a bond, I might get a better return. So we're going to see this continue to roll through the economic environment, and it's not over yet and it's going to continue. Part

of the problem is marketing to market. We haven't had it, and obviously we've now learned the banking sector when it comes to some of these long term treasures. You've been on Wall Street week before talking about in some of the private markets, private credit, private equity, and things like that, how does that work its way through the system, because sooner or later, if it's less worth less, we have

to recognize that. Yeah, I think that that's right. Look, what we sort of don't want is we don't want people with private assets to be forced to sell because they're not liquid. They ultimately will be sold at significant discounts, and the buyers of them are going to charge the lat for little liquidity. So it would be better if people who had those assets could hold them. But you're right, they're valued at rates or levels that are probably higher than what their actual value is, and so we have

to sort of engineer a change over time. So foundations, endowments, pension plans, any investor that has a sizeable amount of private equity or private capital is going to have to figure out where to take their incremental dollars and invest them in public securities. And I think another issue that people have is they spend out of these foundations turn endowments.

So if your private equity investment is not actually selling companies and producing cash, then you're gonna have to take that cash from the public side, which is going to put more pressure on that unequal or imbalanced ratio. So I think this is again not going to get solved over the short run, and it could create some acute cases in which people have to sell these assets. Where does this TELEFED. We've got a FED meeting coming up

next week. We had the ECP this week say the course as it was anticipated with the fifty basis point increase, What does it say to the FED? Does the FED need to be worried about financial stability? At this point?

FED is worried about financial stability. They've proved that over the weekend they did exactly what they should have done, which was to stabilize the two bankings situations that the FDIC took over and the transaction that you discussed earlier where large US New York banks put money into the end of First Republic. Having said that, inflation is still very high, and we have to think about the fact that inflation affects the broad economy, not just the banks.

And if we don't continue to fight inflation, then the bill we're gonna have to pay at the end it's going to be even bigger. So I think that the liquidity that was created by the bank actions over the weekend created space for the FED to actually continue to take rates up by twenty five basis points. Will they continue to watch the banking situation more carefully, Of course

they will. That could change in the future if a systemic bank fails, that may actually change the Fed's position, But for right now, I think the FED probably moves twenty five basis points. Would you expect going forward investors would be a little less so willing to put it in private and maybe you stick on the public market.

I do think the cost of liquidity has now gone up antically and where it was kind of a no brainer to put money in private assets given what you would get in public assets or certainly in short data public assets, that's changed dramatically, and so I do think on the margin for two reasons. One the rebalancing issue we discussed, and two is the relative attractiveness of the

yields of public securities versus private securities. I also think that there is going to be a reckoning in the private capital or the private credit world, where the loans that have been made have been made over the last ten years in a very benign credit environment. People look at the credit history of those assets and see very few losses and feel comfortable with that. That could change.

And if people then begin to understand well, those populations of loans are not quite as free from credit risk as I thought. That will also make people think a little bit more about putting money in the public side versus the private side. What does this mean for if I can call it this the real economy, I mean, for example, to be very direct with you, is a

recession more likely today than it was a week ago. Yes, to be very direct with you, I think that the FED has been saying again since it started raising rates, they want to restrict financial conditions. If you restrict financial conditions, by definition, you have to slow growth. Of course, the FED is trying to slow growth without creating a recession.

That is a very hard thing to do. With the banking crisis, you're probably also seeing financial conditions both loosen as a result of the Fed's action, but also tighten as a result of regional banks husbanding their cash and not lending as aggressively and wearing more about credit risk

and therefore on the margin, probably not lending. So I suspect on the real economy, by the end of the year there will be a significant slowing, potential recession, and that's what we need, because we're not going to get inflation down unless that happens. Peters, so great to have your here again. That's Peter Krauss of Aperture Investments coming up. Economists editor in chief Zanni Bedos joins us about yet another banking crisis. Well, we may risk by counting the

government to make it all go away. This is 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. It has been quite a week in the markets, and particularly triggered by some crises in several banks. But now it's time to take a step back and maybe think about broader consequences of what we have seen this week and help us do that. We're welcome to

Zanny Minton Batto. She is editor in chief of the Economist. So, Zannie, welcome back. It's great to have you here. Thank you for having me. It's great to be back here. So you had you were covering the two eight two thousand and nine great great financial crisis. Do you have PTSD? I certainly have a sense of I'm as You're right. I lived in Washington throughout that crisis, and I'm here. I was here in the US this last weekend when the whole news broke about Silicon Valley Bank, and there

was definitely a sense of daja. It's not on the scale yet, but it's also I think more systemic than people thought even a week ago. So I think we are seeing a realization that the banks are more fragile than people thought they were. Because after the twenty eight financial crisism, we can we can talk about this, but there was a huge amount of regulation and recapitalization and focus on strengthening the banks. But two things kind of

we've now realized happens since then. One is that some of that regulatory framework was rolled back in twenty seventeen and eighteen, and so Silicon Valley Bank would have been required to have much more rigorous supervision and to have had a kind of what's called a plan for its own demise, which the systemically important big banks have to have. And the original rules were that any bank bigger than without it's more than fifty billion would have to do that.

That was raised to two hundred and fifty billion, and so Silicon Valley Bank and others didn't were no longer subject to that. Rigger had they been subject to it, this might not have happened. Secondly, and more importantly, the whole reorganization after two thousand and two thousand and nine was designed to focus on problems of credit because that was the cause of the financial crisis. Inflation was loan

that people worried about deflation. No one worried about duration risk, no one worried about what happened to the value of treasuries on banks balance sheets when interest rates rose very sharply. That wasn't sund part of the thinking in two and nine,

two ten, when these regularly reforms were done. And now we're in an environment where we've had obviously the fastest interest rate rise in decades, and we're seeing the consequences that actually these large holdings of government bonds, which would deem to be part of making banks safer, are less safer than you thought because the banks have effectively, if you marking to market, they have big losses on them. At the same time, we do have the Sunday announcement

that basically said everything's gonna be fine. We'll back up all the pleasant no matter why everything seems super systemic. The government steps in makes it all better. We did have that, and that's the I think when we look back at this episode, that is going to be the extraordinary development that on Sunday, not only were all depositors in those two banks bailed out, and of course there was an FDIC limit of two hundred and fifty thousand,

that's you know, exemption made all depositors bailed out. But in addition, the FED instituted for one year supposedly a facility that banks could get liquidity at the par value of any treasuries and any government bonds that they hold. And the idea of a lender of last resort is to lend freely, quickly against good collateral and out of

punitive rate. But what we've seen really in the last few years, a few decades actually has been an expansion of the Federal reserves kind of definition of what being a lender of last resort is, lending against much more collateral, lending more freely, becoming After two thousand and eight two thousand nine, people talked of the FED as a market

maker of last resort much broader. And what happen and Las Sunday was a very big shift because in effect, it wasn't imposing any haircut on the bank's ability to borrow. They can borrow a POW, which meant in effect they're getting subsidized by the Federal for their liquidity. And it's supposed to be a one year facility. I don't know. Those kind of one year facilities have a habit of changing, and that's a big shift in what the Fed does. Ny, it's so great to have you back on Walsteran. Thank

you so much for being here. That that's any Minton Bettos of The Economist. Welcome now Dave Gitlin, he's chairman and CEO of Carrier Global Corporation and he joins us. Now, thank you so much for being here with us on Wall Street week. So we've had a busy week in the markets. A lot has gone on, triggered really by the sort of banking crisis started with Silicon Valley Bank. I wonder for you, who runs a company that actually makes things, sells things in the real world, what effect

does it hell on you. Well, first, the good news is that we have known material exposure to the regional banks. The banks involved particularly they're more broadly the regional banks, so we're protected there. Our relationships are with the bulgh bracket franks. So rates are lower, but do you see any tightening of credit? Do you see any reluctance to extend credit at this point? Is that picking up at all or do you have to anticipate that possibility. We

have to anticipate anticipate that possibility. We haven't seen that yet. But rates coming down is over a positive thing for our market because you know, we look at some of the rates going up has had a delling effect on the new housing market. So we should see some benefit in housing as rates start to come down, and our larger customers on the property side, as rates come down, that'll be a positive thing for commercial construction as well.

We have the Federal Reserve meeting next week and there's a lot of debate about what they're likely to do. Talk about the other side of this equation. We're seeing the situation with the banks. We'll need to support them. At the same time, we do have inflation. We're still getting inflation numbers on how does that affect carrier's business. Well, if you're a company that has the ability to raise price and keep price but also reduced costs, that spread

can be very beneficial. So we look over the last eighteen months and many of our businesses we've raised price six times, so we've been coming off very significant price increases. We raise price over billion and a half dollars last year on a base of twenty billions, so we realized last year over seven and a half percent of price increases. While we have been experiencing inflation, we look at this

year inflation is not over. We came out with new price increases in January to kind of keep pace with the inflationary pressures that we see. But at the same time, we will be brutally tenacious on taking costs out of the business. We reduced GNA from nine percent to seven percent. We're going very aggressively after working with our supply chain partners to really partner with suppliers that want to be

on the journey with us to take costs out. We're going back after the basics of getting productivity in our factories, so maintain increased price as appropriate and then aggressively reduce costs. Are you facing much pressure on the labor side. We are.

We are. It's mostly acute in the United States. We don't have as many you know, we have about fifty five thousand people eighty percent of them are outside the United States, and most of the labor pressures we see still are in the United States, but we're starting to see some loosening there. Where are the customers right now, maybe are they moving to How is your business changing?

We look both geographically and bi vertically. Geographically, you know, it does look like slower growth in the United States and Europe. But I will tell you I was just in Saudi last week. The opportunity for infrastructure spend in Saudi Arabia is tremendous. It's a once in a generation opportunity. But we met with the PIF that has more than seven hundred billion dollars that they're investing and with the

Giga projects that they're investing in. They're going to invest more than seven hundred billion dollars in Nielm in erosian A housing projects. So we want to be front and center as they build out significant infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. India looks very encouraging right now, so we want to invest very strongly in India. And I think China's going to surprise to the upside. There is this geopolitical cloud

between the United States and Europe and China. But I will tell you that if you get beyond the cloud and you look in the trenches, there is really strong opportunity in China. And what we've done in China is shift our focus from property and real estate over to the industrial and infrastructure side. It was seventy thirty one way now it's seventy percent I and I infrastructure and industrial. So we see a positive opportunity in China. And then

we look by vertical. We just got a shift for where there's more opportunities, so Data Center strong, the Chips Act is bringing more investment into infrastructure and industrials. In the United States, we look at low end certain parts of real estate look very encouraging. So we have an ability to shift some of our focus and we're landing some very encouraging deals here in the United States. You

mentioned sustainability earlier. Tell us about the Inflation Reduction Acts some of the other issues, such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. What is that doing to your business? It's significant, you know, you look at the Inflation Reduction Acts. Three hundred and seventy billion is going to be spent on clean energy, and we expect to be a big recipient, there's going to be a two thousand dollars incentive to go to heatpumps. Heatpumps is a very significant trend of the United States.

Thirty five percent of all of our split systems that we sell for air conditioning for homes today are heatpumps. So if you can use that two thousand dollars and have to shift from not only cooling only to a heat pump, but use it to shift to a variable speed, more energy efficient heat pump, that will have a very significant impact. Dave, thank you so much for being a Wall Street We're really glad to have you here. As Dave Gitlin, he is the chairman and CEO of Carrier

Global Corporation. Coming up, we wrap up a wild week with our special contributor Larry Summers of Harvard. That's next on Wall Street Week on Bloomberg. This is Wall Street Week. I'm David Western. We're joined once again now by our very special contributor here on Wall Street Week. He is

Larry Summers, of course of Harvard. So, Larry, there are so many things to cover, it's hard to know where to start, but let's go through a few of them and how you would be looking at it if you were sitting in one of those policymaking decisions positions that you've had in the past. First of all, at the very end of the week on Friday, we had SVB Financial, as the parent company of Silicon Valley Bank, declare bankruptcy here in New York City, and the bonds, as I understand,

initially went up. What do you make of that? Bankruptcy seems like the right thing for a company that's insolvent and the government is resolving. It. Worried me to see those bonds go up. I don't understand why whatever money is going to the bondholders that the bondholders are looking at isn't instead being committed to defray the government's liability

for depositors. I hope somebody's looked carefully at all the executive compensation arrangements and that any deferred compensation has been wiped out for SVB executives, whether it's coming from the bank or it's coming from the holding company wherever it's

coming out. That was the president's clear commitment, and I'd be a little concerned based on what I'm seeing, But obviously after respect the rule of law, and I don't know all the legal details, Larry, You've been concerned about contagion.

A lot of people have. All week long, we had the First Republic bank it situation, and then late Thursday, over night Thursday night, we had Secretary of Yellen apparently make an arrangement with Jamie Diamond of JP Morgan for an effusion of thirty billion dollars in deposits in the bank. What do you think about that? Well, it was JP Morgan and a number of other banks who were apparently corralled by the Secretary and by JP Morgan. I don't

know what to make of it. The government has committed to put money in there at par above the market value of securities for a year. The fact that the bank's made a commitment for one hundred and twenty days so they can get out well ahead of the government at a interest rate that we don't yet know what it is with what the understandings in the agreement with the Treasury are. I suppose the fact that everybody's acting will make people a little more confident, but it made

me nervous. This was not an objective private sector assessment to have confidence in First Republic, So I'm not sure what to what to make of it. It seemed a little corporatist and deal based between the government and big banks to me. But we'll have to see how it unfolds, and I hope there'll be total transparency on all the understandings. What does all this mean for the central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve as we look toward a decision next

week coming on the heels of the ECB. And when you saw it Madame Legarde did this week, I think Madame Legarde was terrific. She did three very important things. She showed that you can carry through necessary anti inflation monetary policy even when there are financial strains. She made very clear that with two different problems, inflation and financial stability, you can use two different instruments to respond to those

problems and not sacrifice on the inflation dimension. And she ended forward guidance, and I hope in many ways that will be a role model for the FED. Forward guidance has mostly since rates got off the zero floor, been an unfortunate model. I think we can use policy directed at standing behind depositors separately from monetary policy, and I think it's appropriate at least on current facts, and they're changing very quickly these days, but on current facts to

raise rates by twenty five basis points. So that's where I would be coming down. I do think that the FED should not allow financial dominance, but does of course need to recognize that slower credit is going to be the result of that and assess it into its macroeconomic forecast. But as I read the economic evidence, the slowing of credit is not nearly as much as the amount that the FED has that the market has taken out of its expectations of how the FED is going to tighten.

So I hope the FED can move forward twenty five basis points. So, Larry, I understand your point. I think about marketing dominance. We don't want to have that. At the same time, is it exactly right to believe, as Madame Regard does, that in fact, using one of those policy instruments does not affect the other. And what I'm

talking about is price stability and financial stability. It didn't even not see this week perhaps some evidence that when you go after price stability you actually can affect financial stability. You can. The way to deal with that is to adjust the other policy instrument by standing behind the affected institution. If I lose weight. It affects how well my clothes fit. But that's not an argument against losing weight. It's an

argument for going to the tailor. And that's the same principle as using policy instruments to respond to financial concerns. I think it will be very unfortunate if, out of solicitude for the banking system, the FED were to slow down its rate of interest rate increase beyond what is

appropriate given the credit contraction. It would raise inflation expectations on the one hand, and I suspect many people would feel that if the FED was scared, they should be as well, and so ironically it could both raise inflation expectations and contract the economy. Larry, what did this week

mean for financial regulation? And I really, I guess I'm asking two questions, how well we're doing it, because there are a lot of people are really questioning portunity to San Francisco Fed in its regulation its oversight of Silicon Valley Bank. But number two are confidence in the regulators. And you saw the report that reportedly at least Chair Powell delayed the announcement about what was being done with Silicon Valley Bank because he wanted to take out any

reference to problems with regulatory authorities. Look, it's a mistake to rush rush to judgment when you don't know all the facts, but it sure looks like this was an egregious failure supervision. We had hugely rapid growth in deposits, we had a obvious mismatch in duration, and it sure doesn't look like the supervisors at the San Francisco FED were on top of the situation. Again, we don't know everything yet, but clearly this needs to be a cause

for some soul searching within the federal reserve system. We have to be careful, David. The central irony of financial crisis is that it's caused by excessive lending, and it's resolved by more lending. And so we need to be careful at in the very short run, throwing the book at all the regional banks, because that may exacerbate a credit crunch that we don't want to have. For the longer term, I think we need to think very carefully about whether we want to have this idea of market

discipline from depositors. Should a five million dollars startup be in the position of trying to evaluate the credit worthiness of a bank where it just wants to hold cash so that it can meet its payroll. I think the answer to that question is no, and so I hope we move to over time a financial system in which basic cash deposits sit in treasury bills or sit in institutions that intermediate them into treasury bills, and we separate the risk taking function more securely than we do right

now from the liquidity provision function. But that's for the long run. It's going to take a huge amount of thought. But they're very profound con sceptual questions raised here. But right now it's looking to me like the idea of market discipline from depositors just isn't a very strong idea. Larry, thank you so much. Quite an important week to have you here on Walshret Week. Thank you. It's Larry Summers

of Harvard coming up. It was a week that cried out for leadership and we get a lesson on transformative leadership from former Bridgewater CEO Dave McCormick, who's seen it from the best. That's next on Wall Street Week on Bloomberg. Our one more thought this week comes from Dave McCormick, a man who's run for the Senate in Pennsylvania run Bridgewater, served with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson during the Great Financial Crisis,

and commanded troops in Operation Desert Storm. This week, Dave published his book on what he has learned and about the course direction he believes we need to make. The book is Superpower in Peril, a battle plan to renew America and in the end, it comes down to what Dave calls transformational leadership. One of the main themes of the book is transformational leadership, the need for transformational leadership.

You've gotten the opportunity to lead as well as observe leaders or your career at West Point, in Desert Storm, in the Treasure Department at Bridgewater, draw from that and give us an example or two of people who you thought were exceptional leaders or moments of exceptional leadership. Yeah. Well, you know, you talk about the transforming the country, and the motivation for the book was, you know, taking the

country in the right direction. And you could have all the great ideas in the world, but if you don't have leaders that first of all, can win elections. So if new leaders who can win elections and then take those ideas in our republic and make them reality. Then then you're not going to go anywhere. And so I talk about the kind of leadership we need. And you know, there's so many definitions of leadership, and despite having grown up in all these places and study leadership, it's an

amorphous concept. And so I tried to outline four things that I think are so critical to leadership. One's vision. You have to you have to have a sense of where your headed. Ronald Reagan was the best example of that. This simplicity, the clarity. And when we talk about courage, we talk about the courage to, you know, run up, run up the hill we're going to combat. We have so many courageous molitive but there's courage that goes well beyond that. It's the courage to stand alone in pursuit

of your your convictions. It's the courage to make tough decisions. The third is humility. And Benjamin Franklin wrote a lot about leadership, but humility was the area that he he spent a lot of time one and I think that one's critical because humility allows you to recognize you're often going to be wrong. It allows you to draw in others, it allows you to learn from and get better because

of your mistakes. And uh, and we see this too rarely among leaders, because you know, you start to be the leader and all of a sudden, people keep telling you how smart you are and they're laugh at your jokes. And keeping that humility through the course of your leadership journey is really critical. And then the final one, I talked about caring and uh, you know, I don't think we see enough of this today, but people sense when you're in it for something bigger than yourself and in

it for them and to bring them along. And those are the things in my career in terms of the humility. Hank Paulson sticks out in my mind because Hank I worked for him during the financial crisis and and he you know, we got a lot wrong. And you know, when you're in a crisis, you're going to try to do things and you learn from the feedback you get and you make mistakes, and your the ability to evolve quickly in the middle of a crisis, get feedback, respond

and not have your ego tied up into all. We decided to do this, therefore we're going to stick to it. I think really in many ways, save the country because he was adaptable and here. He is a you know, a bigger than life figure, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, the Asury Secretary, you know, a remarkable leader, but one who constantly asked himself whether he was wrong, and constantly made changes when he thought he was And he's one of the people that jumps out of my mind as

a gracious and successful leader. That was Dave McCormick, author of Superpower in Peril. That does it for this episode of Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. This is Bloomberg. See you next week.