May 29, 2025 • 24 mins
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has urged the government to strike a deeper trade deal with the European Union to improve growth and “minimize negative effects” of Brexit. He welcomed the recent agreement with Brussels to reduce border checks on food, and rejoin the EU’s electricity market and emissions trading system in exchange for 12 years of access to UK fisheries, and called on officials to go further.
The government expects the EU deal to add 0.2% to the level of GDP by 2040 but the boost pales against the 4% overall hit to the UK economy from Brexit, as estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility. He spoke at a fireside chat at the Irish Association of Investment Managers Event with Francine Lacqua
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Bailey for taking a
couple of questions.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I mean I should say that our conversation had moved
on to the much more important subject of rugby.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
But we'll get back to.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
The you know, we will talk rugby, you know what
will end with rugby.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
But before we.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
Get to rugby rugby, we can talk trade, right, Okay,
So you've urged the government basically to strike in your
speech earlier, to strike a deeper trade deal with the
European Union to improve growth and minimize negative effects of Brexit.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Where would you start?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Where would you go first? Well? I would say I
think the government, you know, has made some important steps
and I think that's helpful. I mean, as I said,
I don't take a view on brexitfasly. What I do
say is, you know, we should take it do everything
we can to ensure that the trading relationship you know, redeveloped,
if you like. I think there's important things we can
(00:57):
do together in financial services, and I think by the wait, look,
I think the recent obviously market volatility of recent weeks
and months illustrates why it's important that we do work
closely together and when we do by the way we do,
and that's that's true also in the financial stability board.
You know, we have we have many common interests. There
are many things that are common to our markets that
(01:18):
are happening, and so we can do that. Plus I say,
I think that there's a natural common interest between UK
and Ireland and the UK and EU on these things.
So I hope we can, you know, very much hope
now we can take that forward away.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
From financial services or there are areas that you want
the other areas that you think that the government should
focus on without overstepping any of the red lines that
they've put in place.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Well, I think that I start often, as I said
in the remarks I made, I start from the point
that trade is an important underpinning for growth, It's an
important underpinning for activity in the economy. There are lessons
to learn from from recent years which we you know,
which we can put into effect. But there's no question
that you know, open economies are important. And let me
(02:03):
put this into an important perspective, and this is the
story on growth. I mean, you know, the UK is
not a loneliness respect by any means. So this is
not a it's a UK story, but it's not a
uniquely UK story. We have had a lower potential growth
rate in the UK for the last well really since
it's a financial crisis by the way. I'm not sure
that's causal, by the way, but it happens to coincide,
(02:27):
so that you know.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
The point I always make is that if you go back.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Before the financial crisis, the potential growth rate in the
UK was probably around two two and a half percent
a Yet since then it's been one to one and
a half percent, and most of the difference is to
do with productivity and to do with investments. And you know,
you look at the job we have with monetary policy,
which is balancing supply and demand. You look at the
obviously the job that you know, fiscal policy has. It
(02:53):
is harder to run macroeconomic policy when you've got a
lower growth rate. I mean, history tells us this.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
So raising the.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Potential growth rates is critical. And say the UK is
not alone in this respect.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
How much more necessary is it because of the trade
war also that we're seeing.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
I mean, I think it underlines.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
The importance of it because the trade situation will you know,
if the world economy fragments, that will also have an
impact on growth, you know point I made. I mean
it impacts on things like knowledge transfer packs, impacts on
supply chains, so it will have an effect.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yes, Is it world fragmenting for real? Or are these
just digitters that then will settle?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, I hope, I hope we can get past the
sort of disruption we're going through. It's why, as I
said in my remans, I do think it's critically important
that we focus on ensuring that what I call the
multilateral system is you know, is.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Rebuilt and is robust.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And you know, I include the World Trade Organization actually
the IMF, because they are are absolutely important fundamental sort
of parts of the system.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
But does the current I guess trade turmoil make it
more necessary, yes, for the UK and you to get
together one hundred percent?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, I think I think it does emphasize the need
to do it. Yeah, because it puts you know, puts
all of us in a situation where we've got another
risk to activity in the economy. So I think, you know,
doing everything we can to rebuild that relationship in this situation.
But of coaurse, we also don't by the way, Look,
we don't want to lose the relationship with the US.
I mean, we really want to under you know, get
(04:31):
to the issues that are underlying this and help to
solve them. It's it's not something we want to sort
of wish away.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Is there more uncertainty because of the trade turmoil than
there was after Brexit?
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Oh, that's a that's a hard thing. I think.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Well, I think post breaksit. I mean, there was obviously
there was no question what the decision was. The uncertainty
was of course, it was around how it was going
to be put into effect, and that went on for
quite you know, you think about it, That went on
for quite a long time. I think the the challenge
we have at the moment is that we don't actually
know what the outcome is here. I mean, this is
one of the problems we have in you know, obviously
in market policy is you know, I would say, when
(05:08):
we take our decisions on interest rates, so you have
to sort of stop the music, as it were, and say, okay,
we'll take this read of what's going on, what's going
on in the economy and in the world economy, and
then apply it into our monetary policy decision. But obviously,
when I say that, however, you're making decisions on a
forward basis, because marketary policy has its effect looking forward.
(05:29):
So then you've got the challenge as we had, you know,
three weeks ago, what exactly is going to.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Be the end point of all of this.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
I mean, you know, if we've been having this conversation
twenty four hours ago, we might have had a different
you know, we'd have a different facts around this for
the moment. So that you know, that introduces you know,
we we're sort of classic as central backs and talking
about uncertainty constantly. We've also introduced the word unpredictability because
I think that's a slightly different thing.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
I mean, I know investment managers, you know in Europe,
are really around the world, are again trying to figure
out the turmoil. I think someone's come up with the
term the taco trade, which is Trump always chickens out
when it comes to imposing ruthy tariff, getting like a
slightly nervous laugh. But how you know, if you're thinking,
(06:17):
because I know you think about trade wars, like how
should investment managers think about the trade wars?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Like what do we know?
Speaker 1 (06:21):
What do we not know? At every decision?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
How do you look at it?
Speaker 3 (06:24):
How do you look at probability.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Well, I think there's a number of things that we
have to think about. Well, let me take one in
the real economy and then we'll come on to markets maybe.
I think the one in the real economy that we
have to think about is if there is a negative
effect on activity, is it going to be a demand
effect or is it going to be a demand and
(06:47):
supply side effect. And this is important because obviously we
saw with we COVID and Ukraine this problem of having
repeated supply side.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Shocks going on.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
I mean, I think it's quite interesting and I observe
quite all of the commentators that and this tends to
happen that they immediately assume that it's a demand shock,
and obviously that from uncy policy. If you if you
stop there as it were, then you think, well, that's
actually negative for inflation. But of course, if it's actually
turns out and this does happen that there is a
supply shock element to it, and if that's say on
(07:20):
supply chains, and if that turned out to be persistent,
then that would not the effect on inflation would be
quite different. Now, reading that is very hard at the moment,
So we have to keep coming back to that. It's
why we keep using as you know, we could, we
keep using these terms gradual and careful in the approach
on markets. I think, you know, the issue is that
(07:40):
I think is this. We've seen very big changes in
what I call the sort of structure of core financial
markets in recent in the last five years ten years,
big shift from the sort of traditional sort of bank
dealer model to a non bank model. And before any
of this happened, we were already, you know, spending a
(08:02):
lot of time saying, well, what is the sort of
pattern that you know, what shocks can that can happen
and how would they sort of push and go through
that system.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And of course it's even more acute.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Now in terms of understanding you know, where the fragilities
are in a world of volatile markets with that structure
of bond markets for instance. So it's a thing we
spend a lot of time on.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
But how close have markets come to this financial doom
loop spiral similar to what happened in the LDI crisis.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, the good news is is that I don't think, yeah,
we didn't get near to that point. And by the way,
I think that's you know, that's important for a number
of reasons. One is that it does suggest and this
is where I do somewhat push back on the sort
of the you know, the deregulation agenda, which is not
because I think our rules and regulations are all perfect.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
They're not.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
But there isn't a trade off between financial stability and growth,
and there isn't a trade off between financeidability and sort
of macroeconomic stability.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
And that's important.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I think what we should you know, what we have
seen so far is that the system has stood up
in that sense. Now so far, of course, you know,
you know, we've got to keep a very careful eye
on this, and we've then got to know we'll have
to come back and you know, as we always do,
sort of go over the entrails of what's happened and
sort of you know, look look look under the bonnet
and say, well what, you know, what can we learn
(09:24):
from this? And we will, know, doubt learn a lot
we always do. So far, I would say the system
has stood up, but you know, but there has been
straining in there.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I mean it's clearly been straining in markets.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I mean, so far, this doesn't feel anyone with confidence,
how big of a risk is.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
It Now you think, well, well, you know that there's
a lot of unpredictability and uncertainty out there, so we
have to watch it very carefully. What I would say
is that I think we've you know, all of us
have now developed tools you know, to handle that.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
We've got more.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Tools to handle it. So that was one of the
things that you know, we we built out of the
ld I issue, for instance. It's not just about having
resilience in the sense of more protection, it's also you know,
my view is, look, these are what I call sort
of tailor the distribution risk events. There comes a point
where holding sort of permanent resilience for very very extreme
(10:17):
events is not the right answers. You know, there is
a there is a world where it's actually more cost
effective for the central bank to come in and.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Deal with it.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
That's why we've you know, we're moving towards having these
you know, non bank emergency lending facilities which we can
we can trigger more easily. They're not standing facilities, because
that's the world of banks and money, but because we've
had this shift to the non bank world so much
in our markets, we've got to have these tools at
our disposal.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
But I know you were.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
I mean, you're paid to worry really about inflation, about grows,
about everything. But do you worry more about a market
event than anything else.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Well, look, we're paid to do both. I mean, we
worry about monetary policy because that's crucial to you know,
to the well being of the economy. It's crucial to
the value of money, to real value of money. And
you know, I sometimes hear people saying central banks are
taking their eye off it.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
No, we haven't at all. But you know we have to.
We have to do both.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
You know, these things don't they can't exist in a
separate universe. That's the mistake that was made before the
financial crisis, certainly in the UK. So we have to
spend a lot of time on financial stability, and we
do because that is equally about the resilience of markets.
It's about the nominal value of money. And you know,
I say to people, Look, the last few months would
(11:31):
have been wholly worse if we've been dealing with a
fragile financial system at the same time that we're having
these shots gone. You know, we've had that experience, We've
dealt with it. That's wholly worse.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Governor, you have said that trade wars are bad and
that imbalances in the global economy need to be managed
by multinational institutions or multilateral issudes like the IMF, But
actually their scope is very limited. So it is you know,
is President Trump not right to try something different?
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Well, I think, I mean, you're right about the scope.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
But the scope is the scope.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
And the effectiveness of these institutions is what we, as
the sort of the member countries, enable them to be.
You know, I don't think we can expect you know,
I work for a moment and I spend a lot
of time with the IMF. I don't think we can
expect the IMF to go around waiving a magic wand
solving every problem that comes our way.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
What they can do.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
And I think this is crucial and it's been you know,
it's deeply embedded in the Breton Woods system. Is you know,
if you look at the articles of the of the IMF,
trade is right up there from a macro perspective, and
we have to then as the as the participant countries,
as as we are as you know, as a as
a permanent member of the board, as one of the
(12:42):
big shareholders. You know, we have to enable them to
you know, to help us in that sense and to
provide the you know, the evidence and the analysis and
the you know, the sort of the framework for them saying, look,
we've got to rebuild policy. I'm not so closely involved
or not closely involved in the w t A, but
I do see, you know, as we see them a
lot in the context of the IMF I talked to
(13:04):
and goes see a lot.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
And again, I think.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
We've got to say, look, if it isn't working, we
can't just abandon it, you know, We've got to get
together and say what does it take to bring it
back to where where it can play the role that
we need it to play. We can't say sorry, that's
you know, that's no more. What do you think is
needed to bring well? I think I think I said
(13:26):
in my remarks, I mean, I think we've got to
sort of look at the question of to what extent well.
First of all, I think, just because this is where
the macrolamac comes in, I think we've got to come
to an agreed view on what is a persistent imbalance,
because it isn't any imbalance clearly, what is a persistent imbalance.
What's the meaning of a persistent imbalance? And then what
(13:47):
do we do about it? And then I think allied
to that is this question of what you might have
loosely called industrial policy, which is, to what extent is
that being in the sense contributed to by industrial And
then's got to be a more robust framework in which
those things can be sort of in a sense hammered out.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Do you think the rest of the world is decoupling
from America but pulling tighter somewhere else, or is it
just decoupling full stop?
Speaker 3 (14:14):
I don't think.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
I don't don't think frankly, the whole process is that advanced. Really,
First of all, I don't really believe that. I think
it doesn't. It's not useful or really right to talk
about this sort of you know, is the dollar going
to be a reserve currency? The dollar is still the
most used currency and is going to go on being
the most because there's so much infrastructure built around it
that you know, that's a long way off. We may
(14:39):
see some rebalancing of sort of activity, but I don't
think we're anywhere near that, and I don't think we
should want to be anywhere, know that. Frankly, I don't
think really there's a you know, there's a great sort
of move to sort of let's get together and sort
of fight the US together. I don't think that's the case.
I think there's still a lot of you know, what,
(15:00):
what are we going to how are we going to
deal with this? And I think we want to come together,
and we want to come together with the US and say, look,
you know, we we've got these multilateral forums. We've got
to make these things work together to deliver you know,
sensible outcomes.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
I guess the.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Question could be, you know, is there can it come
back to what it was? Or is the world splintering,
you know, irrevocably.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Well, look, I think we have to we have to
put all our effort into doing that. I mean, I'm,
you know, as you know you said earlier, I'm you know,
I'm taking over the chair of the FSB of Fantanctability Board.
I mean, I you know, fortunately we haven't seen those
tensions in the FSB, but we have to be very
acutely aware of it.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
And I certainly am.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
So it isn't it isn't fracturing. I think, look, I
think the world economy has come under strain. I mean,
let's be honest, you know, the Russia Ukraine situation has
created a lot of strain in what a my called
sort of world economic policy and world em for it.
So if you go to the G twenty for instance,
you know it's you know, it is having an effect
(16:06):
on those institutions. They're not able to do the job
that we need them to do.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
But how much do you worry about bond markets in
general when you look at financial stability, right? I mean,
I think the IMF was saying that guild market has vulnerabilities,
that management office targeting sales at the short end of
the curve where the demand is pension funds have pulled back.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I mean, there's just a lot going on.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Something could go wrong.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Yes, I mean, obviously we're not responsible for that management policy.
It's the debt management office. I mean, I think that
they've said they're looking at this because the UK course
has had a history of actually.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Issuing more at the long end.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
And look, there's a lot of sense to that, a
lot of sense to that, but the curve has deepened
a lot, and I think you know they're rightly now
looking at well, what does that tell us about going
forwards about the market government.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
We have five minutes left and by poor Man, I
think we'll talk a little bit about UK monetary policy
and wage and inflation growth since the Mayor decision and
some recent CPI and wage data markets slashing their bets
on radcuts to just one this year. Does that sound
about right?
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Well, you're welcome, yes, yes, yes, or no? Hands up.
There's a there's a there's a lot of uncertainty around
at the moment. You know, it's three weeks since obviously
since I think we were last sitting talking to another
(17:34):
discussing this the day we took the decision to be
honest with you on the UK front. I think the
evidence that we've seen since really it's been pretty much
in line with what we were expecting to see and
it really underlines the big decisions and the big questions.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
That we have to keep coming back to.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
So we we we've been predicting this, this hump up
and inflation for some time. It was basically sort of
give or take under NAT point one what we expected
it to be. It's not in what I call the
sort of the pieces of the parts of the economy.
We tell you much about supply and demand. Unfortunately it's
it's in the sort of so called administered prices. But
the big issue for us is it going to call
(18:13):
second round effects in the labor market.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
I think.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
The aroound of data that we've had since we're pretty
much in line with.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
What we thought.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
But the big question, and I think Hugh pull has
put this story well, is you know, have we seen
some change and the sort of structure of the labor
market which is causing for instance, you know, the pay
increases to be higher than it's consistent with the target.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Is that going to be persisting or are.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
We seeing this very gradual sort of movement back to
a position which is which which is going to sort
of bring us back to the sort of the target framework.
And we have to keep coming back to that. And
you know by the way that you know we we
obviously you know, we convoke different ways as we do.
I mean, you know, if I describe the difference between
probably my position and somebody who you know didn't vote
(19:00):
for a cut last time, it's not because we have
a really different, different analytical framework. I'm probably sort of
I see slightly probably more evidence that I think we
are going back, But I have to keep coming back
to this judgment every time. Now, I would say, and
I think you know we've discussed this before that I
think you know, certainly in our case, All okay, all
(19:21):
the news is coming out of tarifs and trade and
obviously they can have a very big impact, but I
think still the fundamental drivers of what's going to sort
of influence inflation in the UK is UK issues.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Yeah, and given that, you know, you were just talking
about that crucial payrolls data for April, how does it
impact your thinking on where interest rates should go?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Well, it was pretty much in line with what eye
slash we were expecting.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
So you weren't surprised that it held up.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
No, I wasn't surprised.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
I mean it was basically very much in line with
what our staff had been telling it it would be.
In terms of the lad market data that we had
a couple of weeks ago. I spent a lot of
time talking to firms. I was in Norman, Ireland, just say,
talking to firms and about what they're seeing.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
You know, we've got it.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
We've got essentially got a profile that brings you know,
pay increases down to you know, somewhere like three three
point seven percent later this year. I think we're still
broadly seeing that pattern intact, but we have to keep
coming back to it. It's not something where we can assume, well, will.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Just happen on inflation.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
I have two final questions on inflation. The print overshot
your projections, especially in services. Why do you think what?
What do you think is driving there?
Speaker 3 (20:39):
So?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I think I think services inflation is interesting because it
really has two parts to it. There's a volatile part
and a sort of a non volatile part. So the
volatile part is in the sort of the transport, hotels,
you know, what have you that that part it is
quite volatile. It may have got a bit more volatile.
We had a stronger number in the in the data
(21:01):
release we've just had. You know, was it because easter
had a different time. I don't know, to be honest
with your time. Time will tell. We'll have another set
of data before we take the final decision next time
in three weeks time. The non volatile the less volatile paths. Again,
it's sort of gradually grinding down, but very slowly.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
You look at other parts of the picture.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Good surprice inflation was a bit weaker, but food we're
seeing some you know, we're seeing strengthening and food inflation.
But I think that's we're not alone in that respect.
I mean, I think we see other countries. Other governors
told me they're seeing somewhat similar things. But of course,
you know, the thing about food is that it does
have a very big director. You know, it's what people
perceive inflation to be. Can be heavily influenced, particularly by
(21:48):
food and energy. I'm governor.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Final question, bringing it back to trade. Since the boes
May forecasts, the UK government has actually secured trade agreements
with the US.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
And the EU.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
So how big of a boost to growth do you
think that will be?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Well, look, I think it's a good thing. You know,
obviously it's a good thing in the circumstances. And I
say that I'm not criticizing the UK government. Look, I
think they would say the same thing. The circumstances are
of course that you know, even with this agreement, we're
still going to have tariffs that are higher than they
were before all of the started. So you know, that's
something that we have to bear in mind. And the
second thing we have to bear in mind, and it
(22:24):
goes back to the points I made about you know,
economies like the UK and Ireland being as open as
they are, is that, of course the UK US Trade
Agreement is important, but what the rest of the world
does is as important to our economy because our economy
is so open, So we have a very strong interest
in what the rest of the world does alongside the
(22:46):
UK and the UK the UK Trade Agreement doesn't sort
of settle it across the board in that sense.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
It can't do obviously.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Maybe one final question, because I get asked that a lot.
How do you get briefed on the leaders to just
trade news? I mean, do you you know, are you
scrolling through I don't know, a Bloomberg website or do
you get you know, hourly updates from.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Your spare Well, you get up in the morning and
you say, oh my god, what's happened overnight this today?
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Well, I mean if you do, I still look at
we have staff, We spend a lot of time following it,
you know, we have obviously I talked to I talked
to other central banks, we talked to the market a lot. Obviously,
we talked to your authorities, and we then have to
try and piece the story together really and particularly obviously.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
How is it.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
I mean, trade data also are inherently quite volatile. You know,
they're not the most stable data necessarily ever to look
at it in that sense, and that's not a criticize the
fact of life. So for instance, trying to you know,
taking the data that have been released in the last
month or so and saying, well, let's sort of spot
the impact, you know, it's it's not easy to often
(23:59):
to do that. I think you can probably see more
of it in the US data because obviously they've had
quite a big so as I can see quite a
big obviously anticipation, you know, stuff being taken into the
US and anticipation which was why you've got slightly negative
GDP but positive domestic demand going on. It's a negative
net trade effect. But our data it's it's it's not
as it's not not yet as easy to see.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Governor, Thank you so much for your time. That was
Andrew Bailey. Everyone before you get
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Bailey for taking a
couple of questions.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I mean I should say that our conversation had moved
on to the much more important subject of rugby.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
But we'll get back to.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
The you know, we will talk rugby, you know what
will end with rugby.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
But before we.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
Get to rugby rugby, we can talk trade, right, Okay,
So you've urged the government basically to strike in your
speech earlier, to strike a deeper trade deal with the
European Union to improve growth and minimize negative effects of Brexit.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Where would you start?
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Where would you go first? Well? I would say I
think the government, you know, has made some important steps
and I think that's helpful. I mean, as I said,
I don't take a view on brexitfasly. What I do
say is, you know, we should take it do everything
we can to ensure that the trading relationship you know, redeveloped,
if you like. I think there's important things we can
(00:57):
do together in financial services, and I think by the wait, look,
I think the recent obviously market volatility of recent weeks
and months illustrates why it's important that we do work
closely together and when we do by the way we do,
and that's that's true also in the financial stability board.
You know, we have we have many common interests. There
are many things that are common to our markets that
(01:18):
are happening, and so we can do that. Plus I say,
I think that there's a natural common interest between UK
and Ireland and the UK and EU on these things.
So I hope we can, you know, very much hope
now we can take that forward away.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
From financial services or there are areas that you want
the other areas that you think that the government should
focus on without overstepping any of the red lines that
they've put in place.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Well, I think that I start often, as I said
in the remarks I made, I start from the point
that trade is an important underpinning for growth, It's an
important underpinning for activity in the economy. There are lessons
to learn from from recent years which we you know,
which we can put into effect. But there's no question
that you know, open economies are important. And let me
(02:03):
put this into an important perspective, and this is the
story on growth. I mean, you know, the UK is
not a loneliness respect by any means. So this is
not a it's a UK story, but it's not a
uniquely UK story. We have had a lower potential growth
rate in the UK for the last well really since
it's a financial crisis by the way. I'm not sure
that's causal, by the way, but it happens to coincide,
(02:27):
so that you know.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
The point I always make is that if you go back.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Before the financial crisis, the potential growth rate in the
UK was probably around two two and a half percent
a Yet since then it's been one to one and
a half percent, and most of the difference is to
do with productivity and to do with investments. And you know,
you look at the job we have with monetary policy,
which is balancing supply and demand. You look at the
obviously the job that you know, fiscal policy has. It
(02:53):
is harder to run macroeconomic policy when you've got a
lower growth rate. I mean, history tells us this.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
So raising the.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Potential growth rates is critical. And say the UK is
not alone in this respect.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
How much more necessary is it because of the trade
war also that we're seeing.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
I mean, I think it underlines.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
The importance of it because the trade situation will you know,
if the world economy fragments, that will also have an
impact on growth, you know point I made. I mean
it impacts on things like knowledge transfer packs, impacts on
supply chains, so it will have an effect.
Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yes, Is it world fragmenting for real? Or are these
just digitters that then will settle?
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Well, I hope, I hope we can get past the
sort of disruption we're going through. It's why, as I
said in my remans, I do think it's critically important
that we focus on ensuring that what I call the
multilateral system is you know, is.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Rebuilt and is robust.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
And you know, I include the World Trade Organization actually
the IMF, because they are are absolutely important fundamental sort
of parts of the system.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
But does the current I guess trade turmoil make it
more necessary, yes, for the UK and you to get
together one hundred percent?
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, I think I think it does emphasize the need
to do it. Yeah, because it puts you know, puts
all of us in a situation where we've got another
risk to activity in the economy. So I think, you know,
doing everything we can to rebuild that relationship in this situation.
But of coaurse, we also don't by the way, Look,
we don't want to lose the relationship with the US.
I mean, we really want to under you know, get
(04:31):
to the issues that are underlying this and help to
solve them. It's it's not something we want to sort
of wish away.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Is there more uncertainty because of the trade turmoil than
there was after Brexit?
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Oh, that's a that's a hard thing. I think.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Well, I think post breaksit. I mean, there was obviously
there was no question what the decision was. The uncertainty
was of course, it was around how it was going
to be put into effect, and that went on for
quite you know, you think about it, That went on
for quite a long time. I think the the challenge
we have at the moment is that we don't actually
know what the outcome is here. I mean, this is
one of the problems we have in you know, obviously
in market policy is you know, I would say, when
(05:08):
we take our decisions on interest rates, so you have
to sort of stop the music, as it were, and say, okay,
we'll take this read of what's going on, what's going
on in the economy and in the world economy, and
then apply it into our monetary policy decision. But obviously,
when I say that, however, you're making decisions on a
forward basis, because marketary policy has its effect looking forward.
(05:29):
So then you've got the challenge as we had, you know,
three weeks ago, what exactly is going to.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Be the end point of all of this.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
I mean, you know, if we've been having this conversation
twenty four hours ago, we might have had a different
you know, we'd have a different facts around this for
the moment. So that you know, that introduces you know,
we we're sort of classic as central backs and talking
about uncertainty constantly. We've also introduced the word unpredictability because
I think that's a slightly different thing.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
I mean, I know investment managers, you know in Europe,
are really around the world, are again trying to figure
out the turmoil. I think someone's come up with the
term the taco trade, which is Trump always chickens out
when it comes to imposing ruthy tariff, getting like a
slightly nervous laugh. But how you know, if you're thinking,
(06:17):
because I know you think about trade wars, like how
should investment managers think about the trade wars?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
Like what do we know?
Speaker 1 (06:21):
What do we not know? At every decision?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
How do you look at it?
Speaker 3 (06:24):
How do you look at probability.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Well, I think there's a number of things that we
have to think about. Well, let me take one in
the real economy and then we'll come on to markets maybe.
I think the one in the real economy that we
have to think about is if there is a negative
effect on activity, is it going to be a demand
effect or is it going to be a demand and
(06:47):
supply side effect. And this is important because obviously we
saw with we COVID and Ukraine this problem of having
repeated supply side.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Shocks going on.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
I mean, I think it's quite interesting and I observe
quite all of the commentators that and this tends to
happen that they immediately assume that it's a demand shock,
and obviously that from uncy policy. If you if you
stop there as it were, then you think, well, that's
actually negative for inflation. But of course, if it's actually
turns out and this does happen that there is a
supply shock element to it, and if that's say on
(07:20):
supply chains, and if that turned out to be persistent,
then that would not the effect on inflation would be
quite different. Now, reading that is very hard at the moment,
So we have to keep coming back to that. It's
why we keep using as you know, we could, we
keep using these terms gradual and careful in the approach
on markets. I think, you know, the issue is that
(07:40):
I think is this. We've seen very big changes in
what I call the sort of structure of core financial
markets in recent in the last five years ten years,
big shift from the sort of traditional sort of bank
dealer model to a non bank model. And before any
of this happened, we were already, you know, spending a
(08:02):
lot of time saying, well, what is the sort of
pattern that you know, what shocks can that can happen
and how would they sort of push and go through
that system.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
And of course it's even more acute.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
Now in terms of understanding you know, where the fragilities
are in a world of volatile markets with that structure
of bond markets for instance. So it's a thing we
spend a lot of time on.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
But how close have markets come to this financial doom
loop spiral similar to what happened in the LDI crisis.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, the good news is is that I don't think, yeah,
we didn't get near to that point. And by the way,
I think that's you know, that's important for a number
of reasons. One is that it does suggest and this
is where I do somewhat push back on the sort
of the you know, the deregulation agenda, which is not
because I think our rules and regulations are all perfect.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
They're not.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
But there isn't a trade off between financial stability and growth,
and there isn't a trade off between financeidability and sort
of macroeconomic stability.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
And that's important.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I think what we should you know, what we have
seen so far is that the system has stood up
in that sense. Now so far, of course, you know,
you know, we've got to keep a very careful eye
on this, and we've then got to know we'll have
to come back and you know, as we always do,
sort of go over the entrails of what's happened and
sort of you know, look look look under the bonnet
and say, well what, you know, what can we learn
(09:24):
from this? And we will, know, doubt learn a lot
we always do. So far, I would say the system
has stood up, but you know, but there has been
straining in there.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I mean it's clearly been straining in markets.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
I mean, so far, this doesn't feel anyone with confidence,
how big of a risk is.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
It Now you think, well, well, you know that there's
a lot of unpredictability and uncertainty out there, so we
have to watch it very carefully. What I would say
is that I think we've you know, all of us
have now developed tools you know, to handle that.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
We've got more.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Tools to handle it. So that was one of the
things that you know, we we built out of the
ld I issue, for instance. It's not just about having
resilience in the sense of more protection, it's also you know,
my view is, look, these are what I call sort
of tailor the distribution risk events. There comes a point
where holding sort of permanent resilience for very very extreme
(10:17):
events is not the right answers. You know, there is
a there is a world where it's actually more cost
effective for the central bank to come in and.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Deal with it.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
That's why we've you know, we're moving towards having these
you know, non bank emergency lending facilities which we can
we can trigger more easily. They're not standing facilities, because
that's the world of banks and money, but because we've
had this shift to the non bank world so much
in our markets, we've got to have these tools at
our disposal.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
But I know you were.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
I mean, you're paid to worry really about inflation, about grows,
about everything. But do you worry more about a market
event than anything else.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
Well, look, we're paid to do both. I mean, we
worry about monetary policy because that's crucial to you know,
to the well being of the economy. It's crucial to
the value of money, to real value of money. And
you know, I sometimes hear people saying central banks are
taking their eye off it.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
No, we haven't at all. But you know we have to.
We have to do both.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
You know, these things don't they can't exist in a
separate universe. That's the mistake that was made before the
financial crisis, certainly in the UK. So we have to
spend a lot of time on financial stability, and we
do because that is equally about the resilience of markets.
It's about the nominal value of money. And you know,
I say to people, Look, the last few months would
(11:31):
have been wholly worse if we've been dealing with a
fragile financial system at the same time that we're having
these shots gone. You know, we've had that experience, We've
dealt with it. That's wholly worse.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Governor, you have said that trade wars are bad and
that imbalances in the global economy need to be managed
by multinational institutions or multilateral issudes like the IMF, But
actually their scope is very limited. So it is you know,
is President Trump not right to try something different?
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Well, I think, I mean, you're right about the scope.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
But the scope is the scope.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
And the effectiveness of these institutions is what we, as
the sort of the member countries, enable them to be.
You know, I don't think we can expect you know,
I work for a moment and I spend a lot
of time with the IMF. I don't think we can
expect the IMF to go around waiving a magic wand
solving every problem that comes our way.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
What they can do.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
And I think this is crucial and it's been you know,
it's deeply embedded in the Breton Woods system. Is you know,
if you look at the articles of the of the IMF,
trade is right up there from a macro perspective, and
we have to then as the as the participant countries,
as as we are as you know, as a as
a permanent member of the board, as one of the
(12:42):
big shareholders. You know, we have to enable them to
you know, to help us in that sense and to
provide the you know, the evidence and the analysis and
the you know, the sort of the framework for them saying, look,
we've got to rebuild policy. I'm not so closely involved
or not closely involved in the w t A, but
I do see, you know, as we see them a
lot in the context of the IMF I talked to
(13:04):
and goes see a lot.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
And again, I think.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
We've got to say, look, if it isn't working, we
can't just abandon it, you know, We've got to get
together and say what does it take to bring it
back to where where it can play the role that
we need it to play. We can't say sorry, that's
you know, that's no more. What do you think is
needed to bring well? I think I think I said
(13:26):
in my remarks, I mean, I think we've got to
sort of look at the question of to what extent well.
First of all, I think, just because this is where
the macrolamac comes in, I think we've got to come
to an agreed view on what is a persistent imbalance,
because it isn't any imbalance clearly, what is a persistent imbalance.
What's the meaning of a persistent imbalance? And then what
(13:47):
do we do about it? And then I think allied
to that is this question of what you might have
loosely called industrial policy, which is, to what extent is
that being in the sense contributed to by industrial And
then's got to be a more robust framework in which
those things can be sort of in a sense hammered out.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Do you think the rest of the world is decoupling
from America but pulling tighter somewhere else, or is it
just decoupling full stop?
Speaker 3 (14:14):
I don't think.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
I don't don't think frankly, the whole process is that advanced. Really,
First of all, I don't really believe that. I think
it doesn't. It's not useful or really right to talk
about this sort of you know, is the dollar going
to be a reserve currency? The dollar is still the
most used currency and is going to go on being
the most because there's so much infrastructure built around it
that you know, that's a long way off. We may
(14:39):
see some rebalancing of sort of activity, but I don't
think we're anywhere near that, and I don't think we
should want to be anywhere, know that. Frankly, I don't
think really there's a you know, there's a great sort
of move to sort of let's get together and sort
of fight the US together. I don't think that's the case.
I think there's still a lot of you know, what,
(15:00):
what are we going to how are we going to
deal with this? And I think we want to come together,
and we want to come together with the US and say, look,
you know, we we've got these multilateral forums. We've got
to make these things work together to deliver you know,
sensible outcomes.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
I guess the.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Question could be, you know, is there can it come
back to what it was? Or is the world splintering,
you know, irrevocably.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Well, look, I think we have to we have to
put all our effort into doing that. I mean, I'm,
you know, as you know you said earlier, I'm you know,
I'm taking over the chair of the FSB of Fantanctability Board.
I mean, I you know, fortunately we haven't seen those
tensions in the FSB, but we have to be very
acutely aware of it.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
And I certainly am.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
So it isn't it isn't fracturing. I think, look, I
think the world economy has come under strain. I mean,
let's be honest, you know, the Russia Ukraine situation has
created a lot of strain in what a my called
sort of world economic policy and world em for it.
So if you go to the G twenty for instance,
you know it's you know, it is having an effect
(16:06):
on those institutions. They're not able to do the job
that we need them to do.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
But how much do you worry about bond markets in
general when you look at financial stability, right? I mean,
I think the IMF was saying that guild market has vulnerabilities,
that management office targeting sales at the short end of
the curve where the demand is pension funds have pulled back.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
I mean, there's just a lot going on.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Something could go wrong.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
Yes, I mean, obviously we're not responsible for that management policy.
It's the debt management office. I mean, I think that
they've said they're looking at this because the UK course
has had a history of actually.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Issuing more at the long end.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
And look, there's a lot of sense to that, a
lot of sense to that, but the curve has deepened
a lot, and I think you know they're rightly now
looking at well, what does that tell us about going
forwards about the market government.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
We have five minutes left and by poor Man, I
think we'll talk a little bit about UK monetary policy
and wage and inflation growth since the Mayor decision and
some recent CPI and wage data markets slashing their bets
on radcuts to just one this year. Does that sound
about right?
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Well, you're welcome, yes, yes, yes, or no? Hands up.
There's a there's a there's a lot of uncertainty around
at the moment. You know, it's three weeks since obviously
since I think we were last sitting talking to another
(17:34):
discussing this the day we took the decision to be
honest with you on the UK front. I think the
evidence that we've seen since really it's been pretty much
in line with what we were expecting to see and
it really underlines the big decisions and the big questions.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
That we have to keep coming back to.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
So we we we've been predicting this, this hump up
and inflation for some time. It was basically sort of
give or take under NAT point one what we expected
it to be. It's not in what I call the
sort of the pieces of the parts of the economy.
We tell you much about supply and demand. Unfortunately it's
it's in the sort of so called administered prices. But
the big issue for us is it going to call
(18:13):
second round effects in the labor market.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
I think.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
The aroound of data that we've had since we're pretty
much in line with.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
What we thought.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
But the big question, and I think Hugh pull has
put this story well, is you know, have we seen
some change and the sort of structure of the labor
market which is causing for instance, you know, the pay
increases to be higher than it's consistent with the target.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
Is that going to be persisting or are.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
We seeing this very gradual sort of movement back to
a position which is which which is going to sort
of bring us back to the sort of the target framework.
And we have to keep coming back to that. And
you know by the way that you know we we
obviously you know, we convoke different ways as we do.
I mean, you know, if I describe the difference between
probably my position and somebody who you know didn't vote
(19:00):
for a cut last time, it's not because we have
a really different, different analytical framework. I'm probably sort of
I see slightly probably more evidence that I think we
are going back, But I have to keep coming back
to this judgment every time. Now, I would say, and
I think you know we've discussed this before that I
think you know, certainly in our case, All okay, all
(19:21):
the news is coming out of tarifs and trade and
obviously they can have a very big impact, but I
think still the fundamental drivers of what's going to sort
of influence inflation in the UK is UK issues.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
Yeah, and given that, you know, you were just talking
about that crucial payrolls data for April, how does it
impact your thinking on where interest rates should go?
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Well, it was pretty much in line with what eye
slash we were expecting.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
So you weren't surprised that it held up.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
No, I wasn't surprised.
Speaker 2 (19:51):
I mean it was basically very much in line with
what our staff had been telling it it would be.
In terms of the lad market data that we had
a couple of weeks ago. I spent a lot of
time talking to firms. I was in Norman, Ireland, just say,
talking to firms and about what they're seeing.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
You know, we've got it.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
We've got essentially got a profile that brings you know,
pay increases down to you know, somewhere like three three
point seven percent later this year. I think we're still
broadly seeing that pattern intact, but we have to keep
coming back to it. It's not something where we can assume, well, will.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Just happen on inflation.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
I have two final questions on inflation. The print overshot
your projections, especially in services. Why do you think what?
What do you think is driving there?
Speaker 3 (20:39):
So?
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I think I think services inflation is interesting because it
really has two parts to it. There's a volatile part
and a sort of a non volatile part. So the
volatile part is in the sort of the transport, hotels,
you know, what have you that that part it is
quite volatile. It may have got a bit more volatile.
We had a stronger number in the in the data
(21:01):
release we've just had. You know, was it because easter
had a different time. I don't know, to be honest
with your time. Time will tell. We'll have another set
of data before we take the final decision next time
in three weeks time. The non volatile the less volatile paths. Again,
it's sort of gradually grinding down, but very slowly.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
You look at other parts of the picture.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Good surprice inflation was a bit weaker, but food we're
seeing some you know, we're seeing strengthening and food inflation.
But I think that's we're not alone in that respect.
I mean, I think we see other countries. Other governors
told me they're seeing somewhat similar things. But of course,
you know, the thing about food is that it does
have a very big director. You know, it's what people
perceive inflation to be. Can be heavily influenced, particularly by
(21:48):
food and energy. I'm governor.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Final question, bringing it back to trade. Since the boes
May forecasts, the UK government has actually secured trade agreements
with the US.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
And the EU.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
So how big of a boost to growth do you
think that will be?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
Well, look, I think it's a good thing. You know,
obviously it's a good thing in the circumstances. And I
say that I'm not criticizing the UK government. Look, I
think they would say the same thing. The circumstances are
of course that you know, even with this agreement, we're
still going to have tariffs that are higher than they
were before all of the started. So you know, that's
something that we have to bear in mind. And the
second thing we have to bear in mind, and it
(22:24):
goes back to the points I made about you know,
economies like the UK and Ireland being as open as
they are, is that, of course the UK US Trade
Agreement is important, but what the rest of the world
does is as important to our economy because our economy
is so open, So we have a very strong interest
in what the rest of the world does alongside the
(22:46):
UK and the UK the UK Trade Agreement doesn't sort
of settle it across the board in that sense.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
It can't do obviously.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
Maybe one final question, because I get asked that a lot.
How do you get briefed on the leaders to just
trade news? I mean, do you you know, are you
scrolling through I don't know, a Bloomberg website or do
you get you know, hourly updates from.
Speaker 2 (23:06):
Your spare Well, you get up in the morning and
you say, oh my god, what's happened overnight this today?
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (23:16):
Well, I mean if you do, I still look at
we have staff, We spend a lot of time following it,
you know, we have obviously I talked to I talked
to other central banks, we talked to the market a lot. Obviously,
we talked to your authorities, and we then have to
try and piece the story together really and particularly obviously.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
How is it.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
I mean, trade data also are inherently quite volatile. You know,
they're not the most stable data necessarily ever to look
at it in that sense, and that's not a criticize the
fact of life. So for instance, trying to you know,
taking the data that have been released in the last
month or so and saying, well, let's sort of spot
the impact, you know, it's it's not easy to often
(23:59):
to do that. I think you can probably see more
of it in the US data because obviously they've had
quite a big so as I can see quite a
big obviously anticipation, you know, stuff being taken into the
US and anticipation which was why you've got slightly negative
GDP but positive domestic demand going on. It's a negative
net trade effect. But our data it's it's it's not
as it's not not yet as easy to see.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Governor, Thank you so much for your time. That was
Andrew Bailey. Everyone before you get
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com