Bloomberg Surveillance- Cam Dawson, CIO at NewEdge Wealth
- Claudio Irigoyen, Head: Global Economics Research at Bank of America Securities
- Libby Cantrill, Head of US Public Policy at PIMCO
- Sonal Desai, CIO: Fixed Income at Franklin Templeton
Cam Dawson, CIO at NewEdge Wealth, discusses the outlook for equities and whether rotation will continue out of US stocks. Bank of America's Claudio Irigoyen discusses how tariffs will impact the US and global economies. Libby Cantrill of PIMCO talks about whether traders could or should expect more policy clarity in the coming weeks leading up to April 2. Sonal Desai, CIO: Fixed Income at Franklin Templeton, on the signals about the US economy coming from the bond market.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and a Marie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. We begin this sour stock steady after notching one of the best days of the year so far. Cameron Dawston and new Weege Welsh writing, our key message to clients is get comfortable being uncomfortable. We see volatility continuing even as we bounce off of over sold low sentiment levels. Cameron joins us, Now from what camera's good to see you.
Good to see you.
Let's talk about your conversations with those clients. What they're telling you. Are they're freaking out? Are they bear us? What's the response?
Clients are still very common. We think it's because if you look at a seventy thirty portfolio of AQUI versus the IG you're still up about one percent for the years. So, yes, we have seen this weakness within US equities, But if you are a diversified investor, for the first time in a while, you actually feel good about having non US exposure, which has helped to dle some of the pain that you have seen within the concentrated US markets.
How far out are they willing to extrapolate that recent underperformance US versus Europe? Are they starting to wonder whether this could be a multi year game or is it a short term game.
We're certainly asking that question, meaning are we going to see a repeat of the two thousand to two thousand and seven period where it truly was a multi year period of non US underperformance versus the rest of the world. We think it really depends on two key factors. You have to see continued dollar weakness. You have to see much further downside in the dollar to suggest that capital will leave the US and go to the rest of the world. And you have to see it backed up by earnings. So if you look here to date, all of the outperformance of Europe has been driven by valuation expansion. It's gone from thirteen and a half times to fifteen times. Earning sestiments have actually gotten cut. So if you think that this is going to last more than just a couple of months or a couple of quarters, you have to believe in the earning story.
So how do you understand that multiple shift? How do you understand the idea that we've seen a weakening in the dollar and a sellof in the s and P five hundred for one of the longest periods that we have in the past few decades. If it isn't necessarily some fundamental shift, what is it.
We have to appreciate that we went into this year with a massive record dollar long position.
If you looked at.
Futures trading, you had a huge position where everybody was long to their eyeballs the dollar. That has now reversed and you actually see traders being slightly short the dollar. So we think that the dollar could actually find some stability here. Maybe in the short term you see some mean reversion in some of those trades. The last two days, Europe has been underperforming the US, So it's very alluring to try to ascribe a narrative to price action to say, inter view US exceptionalism, the US exceptional in story is over. We think it's actually a lot more about dollar positioning, at least in the short term.
Yeah, you've said this question in your notes, which I thought was great. Is at the end of US exceptionalist or just a positioning unwined? It seems like maybe it's a little bit of the latter. I am curious what this means going forward. Then if this gives a sense that not only the will there be stability to the dollar, but also say to the Magnificent seven, which have unwound at a disproportional pace.
Well, and we do think the weakness of the mag seven was a function of its strength at the end of the year. MAG seven outperforms so much in December that was not justified by the fundamentals earning sessments were getting cut.
It was all valuations. So this is all just these.
Positioning shifts moving around. We've now gotten to the point where positioning is a bit more balanced. You've gone from the ninety eighth percentile in US positioning to the twenty six percentile. That does set you up for a little bit of a relief rally. The question is Europe is still trading at fifteen times versus the US at twenty times. What's the driver to potentially see those multiples converge further.
You know, you said get used to being uncomfortable. There are a lot of people say I don't want to be uncomfortable. I want to have some sort of forward indicator to get an edge at a time where it seems like there's a lot of noise in nothing else. What are you looking for to change materially to get some conviction one way or another.
We have to start from the basis that indicator economics and what used to work in prior cycles does not work in the post COVID world, which means that we can't look to things like the tend to curve of telling us if we're having a recession. We can't look at those sentiment indicators because they've been so misleading.
One of the things over the last two years that.
We've been saying is that watch what they do, not what they say, meaning that you cannot look at sentiment and soft data and extrapolate it into hard data. We think it's actually more important to look at what the equity market is saying about the consumer for example, So look at equal weight discretionary versus staples.
If discretionary is.
Underperforming staples, the equity market is sniffing out that there's trouble in River City with the consumer. If it continues to be in an up trend, then the equity market is telling you a message of it's okay, watch what.
They do, not what they say.
Are you also using that same logic when it comes to policy makers in Washington?
Not necessarily there has been followed through in what they've been saying. And I think that that was one of the follies going into this year, thinking that it was all just rhetoric coming out of DC and that we wouldn't see policy follow through. But we certainly are seeing it, at least to an extent. Yes, we have the flip flop and the ping pong about how much we're actually going to see tariffs enacted, but there are real policies being enacted, which is weighing on activity that we see today.
April second is increasingly difficult to understand. The Financial Times just put out this report that a president is considering a two step tariff regime on April second. According to people familiar with the matter among proposals, and I'm citing this story directly. Now his team has been discussing as a plan to launch so called Section three oh one investigations into trading partners, so that's unfair trading practices, while simultaneously using ready invoked emergency powers to apply immediate tariffs in the interim.
So you could see a.
Couple of phases of this, which is a reason why the people like Max Counter of HSBC or worried that this uncertainty will linger beyond April second. And I'm Marie, this is something you've talked about repeatedly. There are things you can do on day one and April second, there are other things you'll have to wait.
To execute on right If you want to use Section three three eight or IEPO, you can maybe use national security lever and you can have a tariff that day in an executive order. If you want to look at something that is more long term, if you need public feedback, then you would take weeks or months. But what the Financial Times is saying, and it's something I think makes sense for how Trump likes to enact policy. You might see both on that day come out with something really sharp because he wants to deliver, but then at the same time it's a little bit more nuanced when it comes to maybe specific countries or sectors.
Camera This makes April second really tough because is it going to be a clearing event maximum uncertainty, move beyond it, move on by stocks, or will it just get more confusing.
I think that Peter Cheer earlier this week was really wise in saying that if we get clarity, is that actually a bad thing in the sense that the current EPs estimates do not contemplate the kind of tariff regime that's even the tariff light that is being presented, which means that we do think that there is downside to earning sestments if we get the clarity that people could actually start putting it into numbers. We see this arrested development and decision making. It's the if you choose not to decide, you are still making a choice. Businesses are sitting on their hands and not making decisions, and that could result, we think, in lower earnings estiments, which we think challenges the valuations of equities even further.
Bad thing for who and bad for witch aquacies the United States or the outperformance we've seen in Europe and elsewhere in China.
I don't think that the European rally has been pricing in the risk of tariffs being escalated, which just means that you're seeing all of this strength and rerating, which is more of a positioning flip than necessarily thinking that Europe is going to do better because of the tariffs. So if we actually see them enacted, we think it's more of money leaving global act versus shifting from one place to another.
I'm with you.
I love the piece from p over the weekend. Careful what you wish for if you get the clarity, you get the certainty is that when we start to fully appreciate the kind of damage it could do to the economy. And I'm not talking about the United States, I'm talking about the rest of the world, which.
Is something that people were pricing in at the end of last year and everybody seemed to ignore because they were all benumbed by the idea of Germans spending money and that seemed to take everyone's idea of what tariffs would do to the rest of the world out of the mines.
Cameron, good to see you as always. Great to catch up. Cameron Dawson, their Avenue Edge, twelve Banks for America cunning their growth out looks for the United States and the World. Rights and the Growth Revision seek to capture the impact of the policy uncertainty shock on spending in CAPEX in the coming months, as well as a more hawkish tarist stance. Claudia Irigozan of Bank of America joins us now for more.
Cladia. Good to see you, sir, Thank you.
First question, hardest question on earth to put out a forecast in this environment? How difficult is that?
It's extremely difficult. But and to be honest, some times, uncertainty it's worse than bad news because that impacts the decision of companies, irreversible decisions to invest or not. So the optional value of waiting is higher when you don't know what's going to happen and you can see the Fed. The FED is exactly in the same position. They cannot move the needle until they figured out what's going to happen.
So, without of mind, how bad key one going to be?
Actually it's not going to be that bad. Generally data was bad. February data was much better. So probably generally was a one off. We mark to market the first quarter, we expect probably something between one and a half and two percent, So the first half is going to be around one and a half one point seven and the second half is going to be around two percent, which is to try and grow. It's not that bad really.
At the same time, I think what a lot of people are worried about is that tariffs are going to keep the inflation picture a little bit stickier than otherwise.
Than otherwise was on track for Atlanta.
FED President Rafael Biostik yesterday speaking with our Michael McKee, saying that he moved to one rate cut projected for this year because he thinks that the path of this inflation is going to be very bumpy and not moved dramatically and in a clear way to the two percent target. Do you agree that that now seems further out of reach.
Yeah. We had the view that the inflation was sticky and was going to continue to remain sticky even before the title shock, and we expect the PC inflation around three percent, which is too high for the FED to feel comfortable cuddion rates. With all that uncertainty, that is basically upside risk to inflation. So we have the call that the FED will remain a whole for the foreseeable future and inflation will remain sticky. Absolutely.
So it raises this question when you talk about a growth slow down. A muhammadal Area and was on this program and he asked this question.
And I've given a.
Lot of thought to it slowing to what if it's not recession. If growth slows to a certain place, does it become really difficult for the United States to sustain the deficit that it has and continue with the growth that it has. If you have inflation that is sticky, it's not stiflation, but it doesn't feel great.
It's a staflationary flavor. Let me put it away. If you have the level of uncertainty that you have over the last three weeks for another three months, that will have a permanent effect on investment decisions and on consumption. So this administration can change the way communicates to the market. Because the market has no political color. They just price what they see and the correction in the market is the market telling we don't like these policies or we don't understand this policy. So at least communication could be more transparent for the market to understand that if this is a short and pain for learning game. Usually markets rally when the net present value of a project is positive. So communication is going to be key. And I notice in the last three or four days that communication is more careful at least well.
Trump has talked about being flexible at least when it comes to terrorists. When it comes to your inflation forecast, it's very hawkish. Do you use some of these tariffs driven.
For you to have a sense if you have an increase of one percent in effected tatifs, that gives you between seven, maybe ten or more than ten basis points increasing PC. So tariffs the twenty percent is from China, that gives you two and a half points of increasing effective tittifs, So that gives you already twenty points or so on PC. And then if you do reciprocity, you can have another half a point in increasing in effected tititis. So you can have a sense the things get more heity when you say, okay, I'm going to also take into account when I do reciprocity VAT then it's a completely different discussion.
And digital services, tax and currency exchanges. They're looking at everything across the that's the executive order called for. What I'm hearing from you is it's not so much the tariffs, it's the uncertainty.
Can we have an uncertainty driven recession?
Well, you really really have to keep this uncertainty letter for a while. Three weeks easy enough for showing up in the soft data. As we were discussing before, Still consumption data remains strong. Our cregit card data shows that the consumption is resilient. You had massive wealth effects over the last year and a half. Consumers heah their interest rate exposure big time when interstrate collapsed, the refinance their mortgages. So the balance sheet of the private sector is fine. The balance sheet of the public sector is not fine, and that remains to be seeing how it's going to be addressed.
It's interesting listening to the administration the last twenty four houns when they talk about challenges to the economy, they kind of brush to a side the terror story. They will accept, though the doge and the rebalance of the economy away from government spending towards the private sector could be damaging. And we heard that from Stephen Merron, the chair the Council of Economic Advices, just yesterday speaking to blimp Back News. I don't think there's going to be a material short term pain from the tariffs. I think the short term pain is coming from the re orientation of the economy from the government to the private sector. How do you even the THA think about DOGE and what it could do to your outlook.
I think it's too early to tell. There are a lot of things that the administrations say we're going to do it, and it's not easy to implement. The execution risks are still high. But dogs is another example in which uncertainty. It's not enough to characterize this economy. You have to add to to uncertain the confusion. So we can agree that tardies will be two twenty percent higher or not in April. Second, we can agree on the probority distribution of that random event, but we can disagree and people disagree a lot on the effect of that on the economy.
When it comes to doughg is your concern and the effect of the economy on the labor market and potentially the business contracts that you have the private sector doing with the US government.
It's still when you quantify it, it's still relatively minor and very concentrated on some geographical areas the DC et cetera. But it's going to impact on sentiments, right, so it creates uncertainty of where we are going. So if you have a master plan that has different pars energy, immigration, physical consolidation chart, if you got to put it together and explain to the market, this is what we have in mind. If you do it piecemeal, you create confusion.
Well, they have a master plan, but they're doing a piecemeal in the sense that they're dressing tariffs first. By the end of the year, they want an extension of TCGA and they want deregulation along the way. If you take the Trump administration's economic policy together, do you think it's a fair outcome?
What we have in our forecast is an economy that eventually will continue running the wrong potential. I think policies can have the right the thea would be great, but implementation rates are very high. If you impose studies in the morning and removing in the afternoon, even if you end up with at the end, that transition doesn't help.
It's difficult to plan with that bad job.
That's for Claudia. It's good to see.
It's good to catch up and get your thoughts from the team over.
A Bank of America.
Claudia Rigo isn't there to extend the conversation joining us around the table here in New York. Let me control the pimp cod Let's be good to see you.
Good to see you.
Attempting to read the tea leaves in Washington is a dangerous game, but we're going to play it just quickly. Do you think maybe, based on the comments in the last twenty four hours, the President in this White House are realizing some of the legal constraints around what they can and can't do on aight Pril second.
Yeah, And what we know about his trade advisors, jameson Greer in particular, who's his US trade presentative. He is particularly focused on the legality and the durability of these terriff actions. We remember that April second was the first sort of the date that was set out in the executive order in the first week of the administration that really was supposed to clarify kind of the trade agenda. It was before the Canada Mexico terriffs, before the Columbia threats, before the aluminum steel tariffs. So I think in some ways this should, I think provide some coherence in terms of the trade agenda. But again, the legality I think is very crucial here. One thing that we were talking to clients about is is this just an announcement of future tariffs. Is this sort of forward guidance, if you will, for tariffs or is this actually an announcement that tariffs are rolling on on April second? And I think that actually has to interplay with the legality. If this is being used under AEPA, then he can do this day one. If this is more of a broader investigation, then that will take several months.
Well, the ft is saying it's both. There's going to be two tiers.
Potentially we get some pars day one and then longer term they're going to look into some trade and balances. I love that you talk about mind numbing process because I actually think it's important whether or not they use AIPA, whether or not they use three thirty eight. Can you walk us through what they potentially have a menu of to enact on April second.
Yeah, I mean, as we've discussed before, the executive branch just has wide discretion in terms of what they can do on tariffs.
You know, latterly.
So of course they don't need to go through Congress for any of these things. These are authorities that they already have, but they do depend in terms of timing. So Section three oh one, for instance, that's an investigation that usually looks into a country as specific country's practices. That investigation can take months.
This is the.
Authority that they that the Trump one point zero put tariffs on China. So if it's an announcement of a three oho one investigation, then again you're kind of giving the market some for guidance about what to expect. If they use IIPA, if they use section three three eight the of the ter EFFACTA from nineteen thirty.
Then just up to fifty percent, then those can go on day one.
So I think this is where Jamison Grier, though, who is a trade attorney by background again US trade representative, I think he's going to be very focused on the legality of all of this, the durability, and the fact that he doesn't want to be fighting this in courts, right, he wants this to stay. This is supposed to be part of a broader kind of either national security and economic agenda.
And again he's going to be focused on.
So you're outlining how they may be able to get there legally.
What countries do you think they're going to go after?
Yeah, I mean if you just look at the trade deficit and this president, people may agree with him or may disagree with him, and he's been incredibly consistent about his focus on the goods trade deficit in particular. And if you look at those countries with the biggest goods trade deficit, it's China, it's the European Union, it's Mexico, and it is Canada. And then he's also going to be looking at the tariff rates. And this is where I think it does get a little bit complicated. I think that reciprocity broadly in terms of the administration, they agree on this with this idea of reciprocal tariffs, but how do you calculate that tariff? Does that include things like the value add attacks in Europe, in which case that reciprocal tariff that we would impose on Europe be much higher than what the stated tariff level is. So I think there are a lot of obviously a lot of open questions about what this actually means, but I do think we will get some clarity next Wednesday. I think the big question is does the market like that clarity?
Well, the market seems to like the lack of clarity or just tea leaves that they've been getting over the past couple of days. Have we gotten any further clarity or any more of a sense of what the framework looks like over the different speeches that we've heard over the past few days, kind of in tandem with what the market sniffing out.
Yeah, and again, is this intentional kind of a softening or walking away from some maybe the more draconian measures, or is this maybe just a byproduct of the fact that this was supposed to be really the big reveal, if you will, of the sort of administration's trade policy, and it wasn't supposed to be necessarily sort of so DRACONI I don't think. I think it was supposed to be part of a broader economic strategy, and so I think some of that we're just sort of seeing that kind of fleshed out.
How much do you think the sequencing of this matters, where they want to get this out of the way and then pencil in certain revenues from these tariff plans to then bring to the tax discussion that is very much going to come to the four in the remaining months of the year.
And we've been using this framework with our clients, the vegetables and the dessert and we knew that the Trump issue with that depends on what you read steam vegetables and desserts and ice cream sundays.
How that, thank you.
But we've had a lot of steam vegetables right without salt, and we have not had a lot of the ice cream Sundays. And so I do think this is and this was sort of what we expected that there was going to be this kind of push and pull in terms of economic policy, but in terms of the market, they've had a much more vegetables than dessert to use the.
Labor the metaphor.
So I do think there's going to be a quick pivot to what are the things that they can do from a growth agenda perspective. And then I think the big question, I think for the markets and for bond holders is what is the deficit impact, because I you know, I'm I'm skeptical that a lot of these sort of spending cuts that have been penciled into the kind of framework that is being proposed in the House in particular, will actually be enacted into a law. I think that those things are very difficult, easy to said to do, easy, you know, easier said to do than actually to do.
You call DOGE douts, what happens with.
Does you know I do have door shouts? Now this is an active discussion within the walls of him go. So this is my more my personal view. But if you actually look at and this is again my numbing process, but actually quite important, anything that is the commerce is already appropriated, it's spending that that they've already appropriated that gets then kind of cutter are paired back by DOGE, that does not go to the Treasury General account, that does not go to pay off the deficit that by law goes with basically a checking account within that agency and has to sit there for five years. This I don't think necessarily the market you know, understands that means that again these make goods sort of sexy headlines, if you will, But in terms of actual deficit reduction, you know, we haven't we don't haven't seen that yet, and you have to get that enacted by Congress and.
Codified into le me.
It's good to see you it's always great to catch up. Let me cancel there of Pincoke breaking things down on both the trade front and the tax front. President Trump reiterating his call for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, Sonald Desire, Franklin Sempleton sticking with her call for at most one rate cup this year rising. While tariffs and immigration have come up front, concrete action on deregulation and tax policy is expected to follow, and these are the two elements that should help tilt growth and conveying inflation. Son I'll joined us now for more, so now good to see you. That's a more constructive view on US growth, a lift to growth at the end of the year potentially well, I don't.
Know whether we wait until the end of the year, but a slightly more constructive view than perhaps some in the market have taken. At the end of the day, we've had a couple of months of definitely freezing up as everyone looks at the sequencing being exactly the opposite of what they would have liked to have seen, which was the nice stuff first, and we didn't get it, and we all expected it, and instead we got the complications, the uncertainty, the changes by the Fridays to the Mondays on what policy would be, which is which gives very little visibility and markets aren't like that.
And yeah, even with that, bondio's to north of four percent across the curve. Yes, so where will they be as we work our way through the rest of twenty twenty five.
So I'm not actually changing my call for fair value on the tenure to be between four seventy five and five here, and that is because I would anticipate that we aren't actually at the point of an actual recession. We're seeing a freezing up of growth, which and then there's likely to be a catch up if we actually see the tax cuts and deregulations which were promised to us, because those are growth positive. Now we can discuss the long term impact on debt sustainability, et cetera, et cetera of expanding tax cuts. But from the market's perspective and this year, next year, it's positive before we get that.
What you're saying right now explains to me why yesterday, on a day of maybe relief that there wasn't necessarily another terraf anoalynced to potential softening in some of the terms. We saw the biggest one day rally in high held bonds going back to August of last year. It speaks to the exactly what you're talking about, that people are betting that we are not going to get a recession and that risk your credit will do better.
I think essentially that is correct, because every time I see the headlines on imminent recession, I look at those fixed income risk assets, and as far as I'm concerned, there's cognitive dissonance. Nobody's throwing out their risk assets on the back of a recession, which if it were coming, you would not see high yield spreads where they are.
You just couldn't.
And the fact is that the market participants are betting on someone coming in an easing pressure on that tenure yield, which I think is probably not appropriate. The Fed can't do it, and despite discussions from Scott Lessened, there's an absolute limit as to what he can do unless that deficit comes in.
Okay, let's talk about that.
He actually came out and he had made a lot of noise before he became Treasurer Secretary about Jennet Yellen and her issuing war on the front end as being a liability and not turning it out.
Then he came out and he said that he was going to.
Keep that schedule of issuance in The market rallied because there was a sense that he was sensitive to how issuance would end up affecting bond yields. Why do you think that's not enough at a time when that seemed to be the biggest concern for.
People, Well, I think it shouldn't be the biggest concern for people. That's number one, because actually what should be the biggest concern for people is the sheer quantum of the US fiscal deficit, which is enormous. And if we get any piece of the additional tax cuts which Trump promised President Trump promised Trump campaign, true, that deficit is set to expand further. And I see so little appetite for doing anything on what needs to be done to constrain that deficit, which would be on significant pieces of expenditure. And I'm not talking about doci, I'm talking about the stuff entitlements.
That's the bottom line.
We're looking at twice the level of expenditure here in the US that in terms of the deficit that we had pre COVID, and most of that's coming from entitlement spending. So no, I don't think that it was purely a supply issue which was driving those yields up and down.
Given the deficit.
As a restraint, do you think that we only get an extension of TCJA then, and none of the extras that Trump did promise on the campaign trail.
That's a really tough call because he hasn't talked as much on taxes as he's spoken on everything else, which we wish you wouldn't keep speaking about in terms of tariffs and so on and so forth, but he hasn't spoken as much. However, just I think a week or ten days ago, he did and raise the idea of a full depreciation of capex within the first year. Now, clearly that is unlikely to happen, but even a further reduction in the amount of time that capex can be depreciated, I think would be viewed as a positive, in part because nobody would see it as truly permanent, so you could see an immediate reaction of firms stepping in to do planned capex. It happened last time around, because there's no true belief that under a different administration some of these benefits wouldn't be taken away. So yeah, I think some of them directionally probably have to happen beyond that main piece.
Some people have been surprised by these sacred thing They might also have been surprised by how other countries have responded to this, specifically Germany, Germany and Europe robatico want a spending spray, an unexpected spending spray. How has that changed your outlet for fixed income?
So here's the thing.
I think maybe a dozen years from now, we're all going to look back and say, okay, so the last fiscal non reprobate standing was pushed down and we all cheered. Germany was literally the only country amongst the developed advanced economies which wasn't spending as if it was going out of style.
Here's the thing.
Mechanically, yes, growth goes up, but the multiplier attached to defense spending is incredibly small.
So it's not as if this is going.
To trigger a wave of structural reform innovation which puts Germany onto this incredibly better growth path into the I don't know, indefinite future, which is what you'd want to see. The last thing is I think it's highly unlikely that we're going to see it just actually being able to absorb those funds into the German economy or any other economy. It's not the it's not the flick of a switch. You can't suddenly ask Porsche to start making thanks. It doesn't happened that quickly, is all.
I just think these things take time.
So some of what we've seen in the reaction of the market seems to be somewhat over.
We don't want Porsche building tags son, I'll desire Franklin several sent not buying the happy talk out of Germany. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, antient politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.
