Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on Focar playing and broud Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Falls when you're live here on our Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio streaming live on YouTube as well YouTube, dot com search Bloomberg Podcast. Policy changes. A lot of folks are highlighting the financial services industry to benefit from a lot of policy changes. The absolute author on all of the Bloomberg Intelligence work on this is Nathan Dean, Senior policy ANALYSTO Bloomberg Intelligence. Nathan, I know you guys have gamed
this out. You've kind of looked at financial industry some of the regulations that are that it's dealing with now and that are still kind of on the table. What do you think you're with what we're seeing here with the elections.
Yeah, so, you know, with the fal services industry, it all came down to this rule called the Basel three endgame. You know, as outlined by the FED. You're talking about a nine percent increase for the GESIPS, the Bank America JP Morgan's of you will about three to four percent in terms of the regional banks. Now, with President Trump winning the Office of the Control of the Currency is likely going to flip on day one of next year.
So this rule is effectively indefinitely delayed. You know this, you would need to fed the OCC and the FDIC to move forward. Now we think at thirty percent chance of it being finalized by twenty twenty six. The reason why we're not down to zero is because there is potential out there that a Republican led regulator may try and move forth with it, but the idea is going to be completely different and they're going to essentially start
from scratch. So if you're talking about capital requirements on a global scale, remember the European banks have already implemented their version of this. There could be some questions here on if the Americans aren't going to do this, why should the Europeans on the same side. So certainly a lot to play here in terms of the you know, deregulatory efforts amongst the investment banks.
Nathan Dean, you are the consummate Washington insider. When I need to get my IF's answered about what's happening in Washington, I call you so I have a question here. What name should I be looking at more closely than others? Bill Lackman, Elon Musk's got Bess and Howard Lucknet. I mean, talk to us about what the potential for a Trump cabinet may very well look like.
Yeah.
So you know, obviously the big question is you going to get the Wall Street President Trump? Or are you going to get a populist President Trump? And that's the question that I don't think anybody really has an answer to because you know, for example, at the SEC, you know you have Commissioner Hester Purse, who I think would be a very popular SEC chair coming from more of the conservative wing the populist side of the party. But then there's also going to be folks like former J. Clayton.
You know, obviously his name's been in there for a Treasury, but you know, somebody like a disciple, if you will, a commissioner or chairman Clayton could be also a name at the SEC. So the question that we have, and we should find out about this more over the next few weeks, is are you going to get the populist Trump?
Are the Wall Street Trump, and I think you're probably going to get a combination of the both, where if President Trump cares about your issue in terms of he specifically wants to be involved, you'll get a populist Trump. If it's something where he's happy to delegate to other folks in Washington, then I think you may get a Wall Street Trump.
Only think it took a long time for Trump to pick his cabinet and his players back the first time around. Apparently he's much more prepared this time. Talk to us about timing around some of those selections. When can we appear, When can we expect to hear something there?
Yeah, so I think you're gonna hear it, probably before, probably within the next few weeks. I mean, to your point, you know they've been talking about this for some time. But I would also note that the Republicans have somewhere between fifty two potentially as much as fifty six seats in the Senate, and as a result, the Republican Senate is going to be able to confirm a lot of President Trump's appointees on a much quicker basis than if you were to have a Democrat controlled Senate or even
a fifty or fifty one. Now why do we care about this, Well, because the faster that those regulatory leaders come in place, the faster they can start these deregulatory efforts. You know, a regulatory leader, for the most part, can't just come in and say, right, this regulation, We're going to just completely roll it back on day one. It's gonna take nine months, twelve months, if not even two
years to move forth on that effort. So the quicker those regulatory leaders come in place, the quicker the de regulatory effort can take place.
Red headline crossing the Bloomberg terminal. Harris to deliver remarks at Howard University at four pm Eastern time, so we will have more reporting on that. Nathan is Brice president elect? I mean, is President elect Trump is see had Lamed Duck president? Is that a fair way to look at it? Now?
So generally, and I say this generally, in the second term of a presidential term, if you will think President Obama or President George W. Bush, you usually have about eighteen months to expend your political capital. First one hundred days of the presidency is critical. But as soon as Congress begins to think about their midterm elections, and then as the result when they come back, you know, why should they stick their necks out for the president who's
going to be gone. So what do presidents tend to do. They tend to go internationally, and they tend to travel because the power of the presidency it's more powerful there. So, you know, we do think President Trump is going to be spending a lot of time abroad Ukraine, Middle East, for example. There's a lot of stuff that he can do there. But I wouldn't call him a lame duck just yet, because again, the power of the presidency is more powerful there.
Nathan, it'sok till ten thirty two am Eastern Time this morning for China's Mystery of Foreign Affairs To congratulate President elect Donald Trump. You know that China tariffs are coming. You're betting man, what kind of tariff regime do you think we're entering into. Is it going to be that ten percent broad? Is it going to be sixty percent on China? What are you hearing?
So this is where I think the process of tariff is key. Now, remember, let's just say January twentieth, President comes in. You see a red line over the terminal. You say, President Trump signs an executive order saying tariffs are coming. In the language of that executive order, however, I think you'll see language that says the tariff is not coming for two hundred and seventy days or three hundred and sixty five days. Why, because tariffs are negotiation tools.
President Trump doesn't know what the reciprocal tariff on China from China would be, and President Trump wants to use this as a negotiation. So I think there's going to be language in there allowing flexibility, allowing President Trump to come back and say, eh, maybe not sixty percent, maybe we'll go to ten percent because gave us a win or something like that. So what we're saying is watch out for that headline risk in the first or second
quarter of next year. But then you're gonna get probably six months to actually truly understand what that tariff will look like before it goes into fruition.
All right, Nathan, as always, thank you very much for your analysis. Nathan Dean see your policy on US at Bloomberg Intelligence. You find all of Nathan's research at Big on the Terminal. He really boils down some of this very difficult policy minutia into something that like real people can you know that real people can understand and use.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on applecard Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Live here in our Bloomberg and Actor Brokers studio, streaming live on YouTube as well. All Right, we've got a Republican in the White House, got a Republican Senate in the houses yet to be determined. What does it mean for policy? Our next guest has got some thoughts here. Ed Mills, managing director in Washington, Policy analysts for Raymond James ed, Okay, it's kind of a red wave. The House is still to be determined. Now, what what policies should we expect from a second Trump administration?
So I think one of the questions we've been answering for folks here at Raymond James is what is different this year from twenty sixteen? So, first and foremost, Trump did not expect to win a twenty sixteen and didn't have a transition Cheam, that's not true.
This time.
He's going to have a lot more personnel to start off, a playbook that they've been developing to implement, and so I do anticipate a lot of robust policies to start off twenty twenty five. That's on taxes, on tariffs, on trade, on immigration. Now, to get taxes done, you probably need the House of Representatives. As we're speaking right now, it's starting to inch towards that complete sweep, and Republicans are slightly better positioned to have a majority in the House
than Democrats. But there's a big difference between having a majority and being able to govern ed mills.
I'm looking at the smp OR up two percent on the day, led by the financial sector, the banks four point seven percent on the day. We are up. Talk us about financial regulation under a Trump administration, I mean, is bar going to step down? Who's going to replace Powell at the FED? I mean, who's going to be controlling the Fed?
Here?
I mean, we know deregulation is good for the banking sector. What are your thoughts there?
Yeah, Damian, you mentioned the two people that probably are the only ones that stay with a Trump victory. Here, every single federal financial regulator will lose his or her job. This is the largest transition in US history. This has become some court cases in the last couple of administrations because of precedent. But we've been in what I've described
as a regulatory supersite. We've talked about higher capital standards for big banks following the bank crisis last year and the implementation of what's known as Basil three capital standards. The regulators came out with new restrictive merger guidance in September. Throw all of that out the window with the Trump victory,
and so that's what financials are reacting to. Not only are their capital standards not going to get higher, we could see significant regulatory relief because there is a deregulatory bent, and we're probably likely to see a considerable amount of consolidation in the bank space, which has been almost non existent, lower than it was during the financial crisis. So the financials are being viewed as a clear winner this morning.
Well, Paul and I are thinking about allocating the merger arbitrage. I mean, talk to us a little bit about anti trust regulation here in the US. I mean, can we expect that to lighten up under Trump administration.
This is where it gets a little bit more interesting. First and foremost, at the anti trust regulators. I look at the FTC and Cheerly con Well. Her term's actually already expired, but she gets to stay on as cheer or as a commissioner in a democratic majority until the president appoints in the Senate confirms her replacement. We'll be watching to see if she steps down and goes on to a different job. But in that case, it's still
only a two to two tie. So Donald Trump is going to have to nominate someone to replace her and elevate maybe one of the existing FTC commissioners to Cheer before we have that change. At the Department of Justice Anti Trust Division, Jonathan Canter will be gone on January twentieth at twelve oh one. How long does it take for Trump to make that change. That's something that we'll be watching. Who is his attorney general, That's something that we need to watch. That said, a lot of anti
trust activities started when Donald Trump was president. The lawsuit against Google that we've been talking about in recent weeks, that's finally gotten to the point where we might see some action by the court to implement remedies that was stuttered under Donald Trump. So populism is driving anti trust. Populism drove Donald Trump. We will see some changes, but it's not as clear cut of a change as we discussed with financials.
And markets have been looking to, for example, comments by Scott Besson x Soros of increasing domestic oil supplied by three million oil equivalent barrels per day. People are looking at Elon Musk. I mean, is Who's going to be in Trump's cabinet here? I mean, is Scott Bessont really a candidate for US Treasury Secretary? Is Elon Musk going to be running the Department of Transportation? I mean, talk to us a little bit about what we can expect in the weeks ahead on Trumps cabinet.
Yeah. So when I look at one of the bigger surprises of the election results was the size of the victory for Republicans in the Senate, and the more that Republicans pick up those seats, it could be a fifty five seat majority when all is said and done from Republicans. The higher that is, the more Trump is going to be able to get anyone that he wants. And we wouldn't have to worry about one or two senators denying that nomination. Scott Bessen absolutely could be Treasury Secretary. There's
others leading that role. I'm a little bit more skeptical as it comes to Elon Musk. To be a confirmed individual, you have to divest a lot from what you own. I just don't see that happening. The question I get a lot from Elon too, is is he going to drive all of these cuts? Call me skeptical of Congress actually passing significant budget cuts. We get asked that after every election, and our federal budget just continues to go up.
Ed, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate getting your perspectives. Ed Mills. He's a managing director and Washington policy analyst over there at Raymond James joining us from New York via a zoom.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on fo card Playing and broun Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand ever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Damian Sasauer sitting in for Alex deel On paulse When You're live, here in a Bloomberg Interactive Brokers studio streaming live on YouTube as well. Donald Trump was elected the forty seventh President of the United States, pulling off a political comeback in one of the most polarized contests for the White House in US history. While attending his supporters, he said, this will truly be the Golden age of America.
I will not rest until we have delivered the strong, safe, and prosperous America that our children deserve and that you deserve. This will truly be the golden age of America. This is a magnificent victory for the American people that will allow us to make America great again.
All Right?
That was President elect Donald Trump's addressing his supporters last evening. The question I think for the Democratic Party is where does it.
Go from here?
Let's check in with Wendy Schuler, Professor Brown University and interim director of the Watson Institute, joining us from Providence, Rhode Island via zoom. Wendy, we've had, you know, a few hours here to digest the news. If you're the Democratic Party, how deep do you really have to look inside the party to get a sense of what needs to be done?
Well, you have to ask yourself why, you know popular incumbent senators have been reelected before shared Brown, Tammy, Baldwin, Casey, and Pennsylvania could not withstand the red wave, and so you can attribute it to Trump charisma. The Trump followers. We can do that if we want to as observers. But you know, this ran deep, This reaction across voters, across different kinds of voters, from different backgrounds, different ages. This ran deep, and it was a signal that said,
we don't like the policies that you're enacting. So what can they do. I think it's curious to go back to or I'm sorry, not curious informative to go back to Obama. Obama had a much strict border policy than Joe Biden, and I think he did that because he sensed there wasn't enough support in America for something more liberal and more open. So you can say to yourselves, the Democrats close the border for too late. The Democrats didn't push hard enough to get those interest rates down.
The Democrats didn't pay attention to the price of eggs, and that's unusual for the Democrats, who usually care a lot about the price of eggs. So I think this is not necessarily a reboot completely, but they have got to meet the voter where the voter is, and last night the voter was not with the Democratic Party.
When do you mention the border? And let's look ahead here. Trump is about to embark on what many believed to be the largest deportation program in US history. How does he expect to round them all up? And where does he intend to send them?
Well, you know, Trump always surprises us in the sense that he'll sort of go off the ranch and then I'll kind of moderate. You know. The idea is how long does Trump want to be president? You know, he's constitutionally prohibited from electing, being elected, and serving, not from running, and so you know, does he want to last a long time? Maybe get rid of the twenty second Amendment.
I don't know what he plans, but I think he will scale this idea up back, especially since the border has been shut down and you know, undocumented migration has slowed so much. Does he really have to do this? Does he have to disrupt the country this way? You know, he could do some of it, but I don't think the pressure's on him to do all of it because Biden has already taken this step, and he'll keep that policy in place.
When do you mention the twenty second Amendment? You're not the first one today to talk about it, but you know what I'm most interested in, And John Tucker mentions it's the FED right. And Trump has made no secret about his intention to have a greater say and monetary policy here in the US. My question for you is what legal mechanisms can Trump take advantage of in order for the to give the Oval Office more control more saying monetary policy.
Well, I mean the Federal Reserve Act. I mean literally the Act creating Federal Reserve and all the bills that have come you know after that and reauthorizing it. You know, that's something that's been sort of a partnership with private monetary institutions BANG and the federal government. And the thing about Donald Trump is gonna need cash, right, You can't, you know, you can't crash the government and crash the
economy by the federal government running out of cash. So there is a symbiotic relationship between really big banks and the Federal Reserve itself and the success of a president. So there's going to have to be negotiations there. But I don't think the heads of big banks. You're just going to hand over the keys of the kingdom to the president of the United States and amount of who they are, and so that will be a negotiation, and Trump fancies himself as a very good negotiator.
Wendy, does Kamala Harris have a future as a leader of the Democratic Party. I'm thinking maybe in four years time.
I think, all things considered, she ran a good campaign what she was given, the time frame that she had to work within, and her balancing act of trying to separate from the Biden record and also present some sort of plan for the future and bringing in and solidifying particularly younger women, even older women. I think there's still a block and a constituency that she can tap if she wanted to run again. I just don't see this
as a Kamala Harris failed campaign. I see it as Trump being a former president and energizing their base and not making the same campaign mistakes they did in twenty twenty and the Biden record. You know those numbers from exit polls yesterday on the wrong track, Those were extraordinarily high numbers. And I don't know if anybody could have won in the face of those numbers.
Wendy, I wonder if you could shift your attention here to what's going on in Ukraine. Obviously, Zelenski was the firebrand who rejected Trump's request for information on Hunter Biden's dealings back during his first tenure. And look the battlefield's changing. Just yesterday, right, Ukrainian forces had their first run in with North Korean troops in the Kurk region. What comes next for the Ukraine, for Zelenski, for Central Europe, and for Russia under a Trump administration.
Well, I think Trump is a fan of Putin, and I think Trump has said before that he thinks there's a deal that can be reached. So my guess is Trump says, listen, we're not going to send you the same kind of weaponry, We're not going to support you the same way. Go to the table, cut a deal, up crimea I mean literally, these are the things that he'll say. And maybe we'll make sure that more of your people don't get chilled. I mean, I think that's
what we'll do. And in the Middle East, you know, I think people who think that he'll be a diehard suborner of Israel, maybe, but he may go to the saudiast and say, what kind of deal do you want to cut to get this thing over with against Iran. I mean, he wants to make deals and be the hero. And that's something we've seen before and we'll see again. So whatever whoever's dealing with him has to be able to give him some sort of victory he can walk away with.
Wendy, thank you so much. We appreciate that.
As always.
Wendy Schilder, Professor Brown University and Interim Director of the Watson Institute. Joining us from Providence, Rhode Island.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on applecar Play and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business Act. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just say Alexa, play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
He Bloomberg Interactive, Brooker Studio, or streaming live over YouTube as well as to check that out Over there, the world is reacting, trying to make sense of kind of the political elections we held here last evening in the United States, new president, new Senate, and still to be determined, a House of Representatives, so we're trying to talk to some smart people around the world about kind of the views of what might change going forward. Our next guest Mukunda.
He's a professor, a lecturer of management practice at the Yale School of Management. So gotam a big surprise for a lot of people waking up this morning to find out that Donald Trump is the president elect and that the Republicans have retaken the Senate. Here, what was your takeaway? What do you hear when you when you talk to people.
Hi, Paul, So, first one is if you were surprised, that kind of means weren't paying attention, right, the polling was very clear this could go either way that right, You know, maybe you're surprised by the magnitude of Trump's victory, but this was a fifty to fifty election going in. Then fifty fifty elections have to get resolved one way or the other. For what's going to happen next, I think there's some things you can kind of bet on.
It looks at this point increasingly likely that Republicans are going to take the House of Representatives too. If you have Republicans in the House, the Senate, and the presidency, you can expect the tax cut. It'll be a realm almost certainly a deficit finance tax cut, because that's what always happens. Second, I think Trump has committed himself to tariffs in a way that I suspect he's not likely
to back off from right away. But once he does that, you're going to see economic impacts within the United States, going to see retaliatory tariffs. Like the way in which that trade struggle escalates is going to shape the political dynamic going forward in ways that we can't predict right now because we just don't know what the reactions are going to be. That's all domestic domestic policy. On foreign policy, I think we can pretty quickly get some insight, and
there I would be really concerned. If I were the Ukrainians, I would just I'm not sure Ukraine's position is tenable anymore. They will essentially have to rely on Western Europe to supply them for their defense. I just don't know that that's within Western Europe's industrial capacity, and I, you know, for my friends in Ukraine, I don't know what to say to them right now. And Second, the basic underpinning of international politics since the Second World War has been
in a lot of different countries. We're willing to bet their survival on the reliability of the United States as an ally. That is not an overstatement. South Korea has North Korea, but that has nuclear weapons, and they do not have nuclear weapons. Japan has China not too far away, that has nuclear weapons. They do not have nuclear weapons. They had said that we trust the United States so much to protect us that we are willing to risk
our national survival all that. If you are a defense that you know you are part of the defense statism in South Korea Japan, I don't see how you make that bet anymore. I don't see how you could possibly do that given Trump's express beliefs about alliances, and in that situation, I would suspect both significant increase in defense spending. And you know, right now, I'm sure they're having meetings about whether they need to acquire a nuclear and Drumman, if.
You could talk to us a little bit about the timeline between now and when Trump is expected to announce some of his cabinet picks, I mean any color air.
So we'll find out a lot more because the cabinet picks will determine, you know, a huge amount of what happens next. Democrats were obviously deeply concerned by rumors that, you know, Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn and Stephen Miller would have very very senior roles in the Trump administration and shaping its policy. But it's also possible that we'll get the second term version of Steve Mnuchen and Jem
Mattison people like that. And I know when you talk to people, you know, very sect people in the financial sector, their expectation is that some of their peers will go into this administration and act in the same way that they did in the last one. Which one of those happens is entirely up to Trump. And my guess is what we'll start to see is if we look at the people around him, the way I would say is they're all ambitious and they don't play well with others.
That would be a characteristic describe to a lot of these people, and so I think we're likely to see some really intensive what you might call court politics. I was just telling a bunch of students earlier today that if you want to understand what's going to happen next,
you need to go back and read histories. The Byzantine Empire, because that's kind of what we're thinking about, is lots and lots of different people struggling to capture the ear of the king and to get his support for what they want to do and for their own strength and power.
And given what we've seen about Trump and Trump and how fast he goes through staff, we might see that shifting for a moment to moment, because if you look at sort of what Stephen Miller wants to do and what say Elon Musk wants to do, there's not a lot of overlap between those two.
Gotham talk to us about the idea of checks and balances here, Trump and the White House, Republican Senate, perhaps a Republican led a House. Is it up to the Supreme Court to act as a final check on a presidency? Is because there are some concerns that how the Supreme Court has evolved over the last several years that even that may not be an effective check.
Well, I think that's right. I mean, it'll be the super because there's not it. There's no one else, especially if Republicans take the House, that right, that that'll just pit for the next two years. There will be no center of power significant enough to stand up to the
White House. And I agree with you. The Supreme Court has made a series of rulings that no significant, no major legal scholar would have predicted, giving sort of the Trump presidency and levels of authority that are unprecedented in American history. But the other half of that, I'll say is is two years is not that long, and American
politics is deeply reactive. Political scientists referred to it as thermostatic. Basically, whatever the president does, the average Americans starts to oppose it, and so we might, you know, ten years later, maybe the support at the classic example that is Obamacare, where when Barack Obama passed it, it cost him an enormous landslide defeat in the next set of elections, but ten
years later it's actually quite popular. So what we could expect is whatever Trump does, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, everything we know about political science says that the average American is going to disapprove because that's just how big America free responder chain. If that is strong enough, then you'll see the House switch sides again in twenty twenty six, and then you'll might start
to see some real checks and balances. But for the next for the next twenty four months, I expect them to have essentially a free hand.
All right, Gotham, thank you so much. We appreciate that. Gotham mccondac Professor, Lecturer of Management Practice at the Yale School of Management up in New Haven.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at ten am Eastern on applecar Play and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Let's see about policy, because a lot of changes to be expected from a global policy here in a Trump administration, particularly one where it also has a Republican in the Senate as well in the leadership roles. Monica guerre joins US executive director and head US Policy from Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Monica, thanks so much for joining us here. Uh, I say, huge political news over last evening and into
this morning. How do you frame that out for your Morgan Stanley Wealth Management customers as it relates to their portfolios?
Yeah, no, that's that's a great question, you know, one of the things that you know, we are really focusing on is, you know, what does the president have control over, especially since we don't have the full outcome on Congress. So that's what we're talking about right now. And what we see is trade tariffs and energy policy really being
the most sensitive to President along Trump's second term. So for example, you know, you can have higher tariffs on China and a potential universal tariff and those could you know, potentially negatively drag on growth and boost inflation in the short term. But you know, we're also focusing on some of the other you know, fact winners that could come out of you know, his executive branch.
True Baby Drill, I mean, Monica talk to us a little bit about what we're seeing in the commodity complex here. I mean, I see it off one and a half percent year to date. It was just up a few weeks ago. You would think maybe perhaps with some of the policies that Trump is floating here on the energy sector, are certainly you know, minerals that are hard to get et cetera, that we would see something bounce back here. But it seems like things are kind of rolling over.
Curious to hear your thoughts there.
Yeah, and you know, the partment of energy. That's a great example of you know where Trump has a lot of control to acting the laterally on the on the drilling side, and we don't see that really impacting the market positively because you know, more supply could put pressure on pricing as you're thinking about from the from the
market's perspective, that set. If we're thinking about energy broadly inclusive of a clean energy agenda, there's a real risk there to clean energy from my policy perspective, from a you know, rollback and potential inflation reduct Reduction Act tax credits. But one of the things we want to highlight here on energy is that even though you could have sort of a deconstructive approach to tax credits, clean energy policy, et cetera, what you're really focusing on here is rates
the rate environment. Clean energy is an industry functions like growth stocks, and so when rates are low and markets right now are currently pricing in four cuts through the end of twenty twenty six, essentially energy clean energy can outperform. And so that's that's what we're focusing on in the energy sector, is that while from a policy perspective, you don't see much movement on traditional You could see movement
sort of negatively placing a drag on clean energy. The real story is the rate story on clean energy.
So I'm looking at the vix here. As my colleague Paul Sweeney, you know, rightly points out, we're back down to sixteen, off twenty two percent day over day, you know, off nearly a third since you know, the fourth since Monday. You know, talk to us a little bit about, you know,
expectations for volatility under a Trump regime. I remember during his first term, you know, you know, it was jump risk, right, it was, you know, one day he says something, you know, his left leg is feeling one thing, and all of a sudden he says it, and the markets kind of react to that. You know, we've been in an environment for the better part of the last four years, Monica, where it's been all about rate differentials, all about monetary policies,
all about the Fed. Is there any chance that the Fed, that you know, rate differentials, can retake control of the market narrative here or are we just in Trump's world and everyone's just living in it.
That's a that's a great question. I mean, I think the drop off in the vix that we're seeing that's just par for the course with normal election year activity. Once you have right the president set, you have a sense of what's happening with Congress. Granted we don't really know what's happening with a House, volatility plummets. Yes, you're going to see a headline response. One of the one of the sort of murky areas around Trump is which
Trump are we going to get? Does that mean that we get more disruption or is it really a story all about Congress and what they do with taxes. In that case, if it's focused on is things are likely to remain more stable, especially as we lost the play by play as they debate each provision under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, you could get you an extension
of most of it. But what's important here is that even if you have you know that's a shallow red wave in the House and you have that unified government, those thin margins mean that they're still room for the GOP to play. So we are going to be watching that for a while and I think that yes, Trump
is the disruptive, disruption president. Right, we're thinking about headline reaction volatility that's short lived, but over the long run, what we're all going to be focusing on is that tax agend and what happens in Congress.
All right, Monica, thanks so much for joining us. Monica Aguera, executive director a head of US policy for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.
This is the Bloomberg Intelligence Podcast, available on apples, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday ten am to noon Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal