Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. W Yoda of JP Morgan writing, we view the upcoming earning season as important for the market as we work through downward revisions. We have widened our base case range to fifty seven hundred to sixty two hundred to reflect increased volatility and uncertainty. Abby joined us now for morgod Morning. Gabby, good morning. There's plenty of uncertainty, let's put it that way, and companies are using different approaches to offer clarity and visibility
to investors. Southwest was upfront, brutal, direct, We're in recession. What do you have an sway?
Well, so I actually think all we're talking about last week and how strong the performance was. And obviously there was a lot going on from a macro perspective and the discussions around trade, but on like, actually we were getting pretty good earnings results, and particularly as it released the aipower demand side, I would say that was like
an area of particular strength. And I think in terms of the way that companies are approaching their guidance, Look, this is obviously a very difficult environment for them, but we thought it was going to be a lot like twenty twenty where they kind of just like no guidance. You know, we don't know what's going to happen, so we're just going to pull this. And that's not really what's happening. Like you're getting them trying to work through
these different scenarios. Like sometimes you're getting two different scenarios. Maybe you're getting a muddle through. And it's been really interesting to hear which companies and in our view, become more de risk. Let's say they extrapolate April second teriff rates throughout the year like that to us is an
attractive entry point for whatever company that may be. But like, you're not really getting these these massive guide downs in terms of the full year outlook into US that's you know, a lot of that is really driven by the AI power demand story that happened last week, but overall has just been better than expected in terms of earning.
Some of the earnings themselves have been pretty decent to your point, But I'm finding get difficult door distinction between good underlying demand and just a rebuild of Infantry's word about supply not being there.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really difficult like line to thread in terms of what really is real demand. But I think for the most part, right if we're thinking about the banks who reported earlier on like overall, like the overall spend outlook like you didn't see a massive bump in terms of it was like mid single digit spend. In terms of a consumer outlook, that's pretty in line with what we've seen over the past couple
of months. And importantly, looking forward, you know, you didn't see really massive reserve builds in terms of the banks either, so their outlook doesn't feel like it's that uncertain as it relates to the consumer.
At the moment, I'm feeling a massive disconnect right now. We just spoke with Christian Keller if Barclay is talking about how recession of the US's base came. So we were talking with Lori Calvasina of RBC. We said, if a session actually does transpire in the US, you're talking about forty two hundred to forty five hundred for the baseline S and P five hundred, you're talking about gains from here. Fifty seven hundred is you're low in terms of this range at a time where we're currently at
fifty five twenty five. Why is there such a disconnect between economists and stock analysts.
Well, because, look, I think and taking a step back and thinking about where we came into the year, like we're coming off of a really strong base. Like I think comparing this to like the twenty eighteen period is a little bit difficult because it was a completely different economic backdrop. Right, We're coming into the year and we're in like a pretty solid footing from both a consumer and a corporate standpoint, And so you do like there is a position of strength that we're coming from that
like we can take somewhat of a hit. Obviously, time is taking in terms of how long this uncertainty persists. And you know, the President heard this from some companies last week when he met with them, saying like, look, this is a matter of weeks in terms of empty shelves, and that is very important, right, Like, the longer this goes on, the more uncertain and the uncertainty pervades, the less likely, you know, the upside becomes becomes a reality.
How many companies are actually gaming out that anything even close to the tariffs as announced on Liberation Day are going to stick? In other words, how many of the analysts, how much of the ranges and the outlooks that companies are coming up with are basically expecting to go back to something like that ten percent baseline as well as subsectoral tariffs.
Well, so I would say the amount of companies that are going back to April second is like kind of few and far between. And again those are like kind of gems to us in terms of the opportunity set. But what you are getting is you're getting some idea of like what it's going to cost from a tariff
perspective from companies. And this is across the board, Like pharma companies, We've heard from a lot of healthcare companies and like we haven't even had those sectoral tariffs announced, and they're trying to like figure out how much they're going to have to spend, and so we're assuming it's based on the current environment, right without having to really extrapolate, and so there is like a cost structure around it, and there's obviously a revenue headwind that they're trying to
take into account. So wrapping heads around how they're getting there is like important for us to help us think.
Through the ear ahead.
But I wouldn't say there was like a ton of companies that took April second and extrapolated, but they're at least incorporating I think that ten percent universal.
When you think of the potential upside to your figures, what would it take? Is it policy?
Is it the Fed?
Yeah, it's policy. I mean I think the Fed. You know, if for like a couple of weeks ago and you got asked like what would be the bull like what would cause the bowl case? I think it would have included the FED, and it would have included some policy pivot from the administration. I think a FED pivot at this point wouldn't necessarily be short term positive, right because
it would be because the FED saw weakness. So I think really The only like bullish outcome is that you see this pivot from the administration, and the market obviously seems to be sniffing that out. In terms of what we're seeing from a PE perspective, we're at like close to twenty times again and again only down two percent since Liberation Day, So there is an element of that, But I do think that's where the ball case is now.
They're talking a lot about these eighteen deals. I can get with other trading partners, but when you're talking about a bullish case, talking about one, right it's China, what do you need to see?
Well, I mean, I think in terms of what the market's probably thinking, it's closer to like thirty to fifty percent.
In terms of the effective teriff right there. I think that would bring down the overall terif rate, like effective terror rate for the US something between ten to fifteen percent, which is like digestible and something that like if we think about again going back into expectations for the beginning of the year, that's probably where it would have been, right like ten to fifteen maybe worst case scenario, still a massive increase in terms of where we were prior.
But I think at least more digestible than the twenty five to thirty percent that we had on Liberation Day.
This week is going to be check full of things other than tariff talk, which is going to be exciting for people looking to sink their teeth into something that's more concrete with numbers and that reflect things that.
Have already happened.
I wonder how you look at some of the economic data that we're going to be getting. A labor market report that a lot of people preemptively are dismissing is backward looking and not really important jolts, data, ism, manufacturing. How much does it matter to you based on what you just said, which we are coming from a very different place economically than we were in twenty eighteen.
Well, I think, Look, I think it's important, but I think it's also juxtaposed to what's happening in terms like we're going to be focused mostly on earnings. Like you said, we have forty percent of market cap reporting and some of the biggest names, and I think that's going to be Like what has been the story for the S and P five hundred over the past couple of years. Is this AI story which nobody seems to be talking
about anymore. So you're getting these like very you know, high growth, high quality companies at a discount at the moment obviously aside from what we saw last week, but still trading at a discount. And so that's really where our focus is right because it's part of our bullish thesis is that you continue to see that spend and that's pervasive through the rest of the market in terms
of a capack. So we're going to get a lot of information there and I think that's what we're going to be focused on from an equity market standpoint this week's aside from mac.
The thing that conflicts with that, as you know, is that they are cycular Gris, but they're also facing an international bank job which is increasingly fragmented. I'm thinking more like Apple directly. Apple. I'm just going to bring up the name directly. They're facing a big situation China. They can have to spend a lot of money moving supply out of China into places like India. For those kind of companies have difficult Is this moment for them, Well, look.
I think this isn't the first time they've seen this. These tensions have been going on in terms of trade as it relates to particular industries like semiconductors since twenty eighteen, it was continued throughout you know, the past couple of years under the Biden administration as well, So this isn't new news. And obviously a lot of this and a lot of that re routing had already taken place post twenty eighteen. So look, it's not easy. It's still difficult,
but they have you know, their global supply chains. They at least have negotiating power as it relates to you know, other other countries and suppliers, so they at least are coming from a position of strength. And that standpoint when I'm talking about these large diversified companies, and so I think, I think it's not easy, but if anyone's going to be able to navigate it, I think it would be these larger companies.
So that one's a must watch. Apple reporting on Thursday, IBB be good to say a soays thanks for being here, Abbyoda that of JP Morgan, a former senior Trump try devisor canay on Shaw writing, I do not expect to see a full blown US China trade deal this year. Callyan joins US now for more Kenney and welcome to the program. What can be achieved in the interim between now and gear end?
Good morning, Thanks for having me.
Well, we're certainly in a he said, She said, when it comes to US China relations, and I'll put that to the side just for a moment. I think in the short term, the administration is looking to ink potentially up to seventeen deals. Now that those won't be full blown trade deals, but they will be agreements in principle, and we'll get the details of those written by lawyers
in the months to come. But that is part of the negotiation strategy with China, and that is to lay the groundwork where the US has deals with a number of key trading partners, going into a broader discussion with China so that they have more of a leg up. China is taking a very similar strategy, and it's charm offensive with a number of countries around the world. But this US China relationship is going to get worked out over years.
And not months.
Kelly on how do the Europeans fits in.
Well, A US europe deal has eluded multiple administrations for decades. Now, I do think that there is a genuine effort between the administration and some European leaders to see what they can do in terms of stopping the bleeding with respect
to these twenty percent reciprocal tariffs. But the European Union is a very advanced and entrench regulatory system and it's going to be very very hard for them to pivot and to change and to concede on some of the requests that the Trump administration has.
So I'm not particularly optimistic, Kelly.
What are those requests that the Trump administration is telling the Europeans they have to see in order to get a trade agreement.
Well, they haven't made those demands public except for this National Trade Estimate, which President Trump and Jamison Grewer have held up on multiple occasions and said, here are the list of non tariff barriers. But they are long stan and well known. So they are talking about the VAT tax, but some of the regulatory barriers in agriculture, in automotive, some of the EU's subsidy programs, the digital services taxes
that a number of EU countries maintain. There are quite a few barriers to trade that are going to make it very very challenging. And tariffs really are just the tip of the iceberg.
When it comes to China. What needs to happen for one of them, either Beijing or Washington, to blink, because right now it's just a tremendous amount of noise.
Yeah, certainly, and drama is certainly a feature of US China trade negotiations.
It was during Trump one.
I fully expect it to remain a part of Trump two point zero. I do think that behind the scenes, both sides are looking for a political off ramp that saves face. These one hundred and twenty five percent and one hundred and forty five percent tariffs are not sustainable in the short or medium or long term. So I do expect to see some sort of de escalation in the coming weeks or potentially months, But in terms of a full blown trade deal, I don't know that that's possible anytime soon, if at all.
Now.
I do think both sides will at some point sit down and try to work out some of their shared differences. But at the end of four years, I think the US and China are going to do less trade with one another and not more.
But you're talking about an off ramp potentially we could see before they sit down. When do you think that offramp would be well.
I was hopeful that the two sides could have found something in.
The first couple of weeks.
But you've got, on the one hand, President Trump saying that I only want to do this at the leader level. On the other hand, you have President she who's saying I'm not going to do this at the leader level, appoint someone else. And so both sides are engaged in this game of chicken, arguing that the other side has
more to lose than they do now. Back in Trump one point zero, we had the G twenty and these other international forum that were happening around the same time as the trade war, which gave the two leaders a political opportunity to meet on the sidelines. We don't have
that in the short term. So it is either going to be President Trump saying okay, I'll appoint someone, or some backchanneling, potentially some Track one point five or Track two diplomacy between CEOs going back and forth to try to work things out.
Kelly On, you pointed out that we're about two and a half months into President Trump's three month window to make trade deals with virtually every nation in the entire world, and it points to how unfeasible infeasible. This is how much is this just a period of time to reset the narrative before having another extension and then another extension before there's a realistic timeframe for how long it takes trade deals.
To be inked.
Yeah, And this is where there's a distinction between these full blown trade deals versus these agreements in principle. And I do think that it is possible to reach agreements in principle, which is basically an outline of some of the key components.
Of what will be in those deals in a short period of time.
But if you want to have drafted text that captures these trade deals, that's going to take months and months and months of time and a ton of work by various lawyers. Now, that said, if you're still dealing with seventeen or eighteen countries, that's still a lot to do between now and July ninth. So I do think for countries where substantial progress has been made, the president is likely to extend that period of time, although he has
not said that he will do that. And then for countries that are maybe not as far along, the president's going to feel some pressure to turn those terrorists back on so that his threat means something and to try to squeeze some countries at the end of that ninety day period, So I think we'll see a mix.
On April second, there was a big question around what the ultimate goal was of this new Terra regime. Was it revenue raising, was it penalizing national security issues or potential trade partners that hadn't been doing the right thing? Or was it fairness. Now that we've seen some of these negotiations, do we have a better sense of the overarching framework of what the goal really is.
Yeah, And I think that different tariffs have different goals. So clearly one of the north stars of the administration is addressing this substantial one point two trillion dollar trade deficit, and that, to me, is what this ten percent global
baseline tariff is about. But when it comes to these more advanced reciprocal tariffs like that forty six percent on Vietnam, that twenty percent on the EU, that is about fairness and leveling the playing field and addressing some of the unfair trade practices, the unbalanced trade that the President has been talking about. National security tariffs are really those sectoral tariffs,
so those on semiconductors, pharma, steel, aluminum and autos. And then this revenue point which the President raises to me is more about messaging. It's about selling that domestically to the American people about why leaving tariffs in place, particularly why negotiations are ongoing, may not be the worst thing in the world because look at the tariff revenue that's coming in.
But I don't see that as one of the prime Mary goals.
Over the weekend, the Treasury Secretary was asked about this whole strategy putting tariffs on pulling them back, and the Treasure Secretary said, actually, it's called strategic uncertainty and game theory. You were an individual at the negotiating table. Do you think this strategic uncertainty is damaging or actually useful?
Well, I think it depends on where you're sitting.
And as a negotiator, I used to say that, and I spent ten years as a negotiator for the US government that I had the most fun working for President Trump because my trading partner sitting on the other side really had no idea what my leader was going to do, which actually gave me a fair amount of leverage at the table to try to advance US interests. Now sitting
on the other side now representing companies. That uncertainty, that lack of clarity that will we have tariffs tomorrow won't we is incredibly challenging in terms of making investment decisions and supply chain decisions. But that strategic ambiguity is really aimed at other trades partners, and the message is not for the business community, and so I think that tension makes it a bit challenging, particularly for domestic stakeholders, while the President.
Works this out.
Kelly, I appreciate your time as always, Kelly, I'm sure they Former senior Trump trade advisor Amanda Line of a black Rock writing, we see scope for additional spread widening and credit. Underpinning this view is our expectation for a more challenging growth inflation mix, as well as our expectation that the hard economic data will eventually catch down to the soft sentiment data. Amanda joins us now for more. Amanda,
good morning, morning, Thank you for having me. Eventually, can we put some details on eventually?
So I think taking a step back, the market seems to be taking a bit of I would say, a temporary reprieve from the fact that we haven't seen this soft data translate directly into hard data immediately if you actually look at what these companies are saying though, which even the companies over the last seven days of report haven't really baked in expectations of shifts and trade policy, and so I think actually what we're looking for is
the second half of this year. If you look at home builders, they're not expecting higher costs to hit closing until the third quarter or fourth quarter. Industrial companies aren't expecting higher costs until they work through inventory, possibly to the second half of this year. So corporates are I think we're still figuring this out to a large degree, so it's not surprising that we haven't seen it in
the hard data yet. I think just because we haven't seen it in the hard data, though, doesn't mean that it's not eventually in train, and so we are bracing for that. But I would say it's probably going to be a second half of this year.
Some of the hot ice, of course flat sid by front load, and we saw that in retail sales, and I think you say in earnings as well, to some extent, how are you distinguishing between genuine underlying demand and just a stalk pile and getting ready for supply not be in there.
So I've spent a lot of time in company earnings called transcripts, and they actually are even having a really difficult time figuring out what is front loading and what is actually real demand. I think it's going to be a matter of time before we see that playthrough. But even in the autos, for example, we did a really large jump in auto sales. I think you can kind of put the mosaic together and figure out that is
some front loading. But I think when we take a step back a corporate credit markets, high old spreads, for example, have retraced forty seven percent of the widening since mid February. It's been striking how quickly these markets are kind of mean reverting. So investors, I think, are getting these opportunities to put money to work at more attractive spreads, but they're becoming short lived. They're snapping back. We don't think we've seen the end of that. We're around three sixty
in HILD spreads. In order to bake in a real material growth slowdown, we would need to be five fifty six fifty. A recession would be even above that. Recessions on our base case I should.
Say, just to put some numbers on that, on April eighth, the average yield and high old bonds was eight point seven percent. It is currently down to seven point eight percent. Just massive snapback as everyone piled in. I want to understand the buying dynamics. How much you're seeing the buyer base for credit instruments shift maybe away from the foreign buyer, away from the Japanese, away from the Europeans, and toward a more domestic audience.
So for an investor's own around one quarter of the US corporate bond market, so it's not just treasuries or equities, they also own corporate debt. I would say the marginal dollar has been in place to reallocate to European credit for a couple of years now, ever since the FED was started, ever since the ECV rather started hiking rates because you had some yield build up in that market.
I would say, on the margin, given some of the optimism around the fiscal support, there is incremental interest in putting money to work in Europe. It's tempered by two things, however, One the growth backdrop in Europe isn't great either, and so we are expecting some headwinds from shifts and trade policy. You can see that and even some of the survey data from Europe. And two, the US corporate bond market is the most diverse, deep liquid market for corporate investors.
So if you're looking for high quality spread product, there's not a lot of availability in Europe. So I think by that extension, investors will still need to allocate a significant amount to the US.
Market, which is the reason why you haven't see the numbers fall off that much. I wonder how much of competition the credit market is getting from the treasury market. The fact that the US Treasury Department is going to be announcing their quarterly refunding estimate today and then on Wednesday their actual schedule of issue ince. How much is that creating a real challenge for you in understanding the dynamic going forward for how the fair pricing.
Of credit really works.
So related to this is part of the reason why we like actually moving down in quality in Europe in US corporate credit. For this reason, the treasury market has been very volatile. We're expecting steeper curves, We're expecting a rebuild and term premium. For that reason, we think it's important for investors to capture the additional spread premium where they can in corporate credit to kind of offset some
of that volatility and boost those total returns. Actually, parts of high yield have outperformed investment grade on a total return basis so far this year, and even the lowest quality portions of high yield have outperformed the equity market. So actually the credit market, even though it's been a really volatile year to date, is still offering a bit of a reprieve in terms of total returns because of
that spread pickup. If you move down into the high end of high yield, you're not actually foregoing that much credit quality relatives tay, for example, the low end of investment grade. So we do like moving down in quality a bit to pick up that extra spread premium to kind of cushion those total returns. As for the competition point, we're just bracing for a significant amount of treasury supply.
That's been a theme for the past several quarters. We know that because of the deficits, but I do still feel that corporates recognize the difference between the sovereign risk and the corporate credit risks. There's still a really significant need for corporate credit allocations, But I think really the name of the game is actually duration has been very volatile. We're better off allocating to credit for carry and income, so favoring that short duration and picking up spread when you can.
Are you seeing investors a broad discriminate between the two between self, between treasuries and psychoporate credit In America?
For sure, I think the allocation to corporate credit is really in its own bucket. I think the decision for investors really from our covers has been twofold. Am I investing for total or excess returns? And so where am I aiming in the credit quality spectrum? Am I aiming for duration or not? And then also the relative value
as you alluse to Lisa cross regions. The other tricky thing for Europe is that valuations haven't reset that much, So if you are allocating that marginal dollar to Europe, the valuations haven't given you a great entry point at this point.
Cerently, at times this month is found like old US assets are trying in one buck hit day today.
Which it has except now when you look under the hood and what you've seen even in the flows is that yes, foreign investors have been shifting away on the margins from treasuries but not credit because of some of these ideas, and that's why people could say we can still get around some of the corporate story in the US, but maybe not the government story.
Right now, Amanda's going to see you waste thanks to dropping by Amanda Lanea in there of black Crook, no doctor of ramdmac John. Just now for more and the welcome to the program, sir. Before we get into details, Neil, you wrote about it recently, I just want to sit on this.
Just for a beat.
The rock pool that we've seen to consensus, Neil, that you've written about, just frame that historically, how quick, how vicious this has been well, as you.
Know, I mean, I think one of the ways recession works is through that element of surprise, So people think things are going to be okay and then they're not, and that prompts the clearing out of inventory's investment, hiring and so forth. And it's been quite dramatic. I mean, remember we went into the year looking for Q four Q four growth of around two percent and now it's
around half a percent. So you've seen a fairly meaningful download revision to GDP growth expectations for twenty twenty five, and if you go outside the COVID years, the last time anything like that's happened is two thousand and nine, So it's pretty dramatic.
You've been tracking some week a data, not just at the start of this year, but from the back end of last year as well. Neil, just give us the trend of things at the moment and how you'll navigate payrolls on day, because I can tell you for a lot of people in the market at the moment, they seem to be willing to ignore strength and they'll triple down on weakness. What's your approach, Well, I.
Think that makes sense because I mean, you know, to me, it's to the extent that any number is strong, it's probably somewhat backward looking. And if it's weaker, it just means that the economy was even softer than we thought going into all this. But you know, take a step back and think about what happened last year. We saw a very strong growth in consumer spending that was driven primarily by or to a large.
Extent, by a decline in the savings rate.
If you look at real incomes excluding transfers, it's up only one and a half percent, So even if you assume the savings rate stable, you're going to get weaker consumption. At the same time, a non residential business fixed investment contracted.
Towards the end of last year.
It only added about thirty basis points on average to growth in twenty twenty four. Believe it or not, John, that's actually less than the contribution from healthcare services consumption. So it just tells you about the sort of cyclical momentum in the economy going into twenty twenty five. And you know, this year, I think what's been notable was the ongoing increase in completed unsold new housing inventory, which sort of begs the question about what home builders are
going to do. It probably means they're going to cut back on residential construction, and I think in turn that probably means some slowing and residential construction employment. So, you know, I think the onus is really on the economic growth goals, and you know, my sense is that you know, things can get a little bit sloppy over the next couple of quarters.
Let's say, Neil, every single FED official is watching right now and they're quiet period. They're taking advantage of that and reading all of your reports and saying, Okay, we're going to cut by a full percentage point. We'll cut dramatically in the next couple of meetings in order to get ahead of this.
How much would that help, Well, I don't know that it would help that much, because I do think to some extent the train has sort of left the station. That doesn't mean I wouldn't encourage them to start thinking about recalibrating monetary policy. But I think it's important to keep in mind that, you know, think about the areas of the economy that are affected the most by the trade war. It's stuff like consumer durable goods, it's stuff like housing. So those are the areas that the FED
can help. But I don't think they can offset a full impact of the trade war. So the FED is just one part of this. But really to kind of totally shift the narrative, I mean, you just see, you know, the uncertainty sort of abate.
I feel like we've switched roles, Neil. It sounds like you're really downbeat, and I'm thinking, well, the companies are not sounding that downbeat. Corporate executives are coming out and saying we can manage through that, and their estimates have actually surprised to the upside in a large number of instances. Why does that not come for you and give you a sense that actually, maybe it's not as bad as people are saying.
Well, I mean, you know, time will tell. I mean, I don't know that that's true. I just saw an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning talking about how companies are sort of shelving their cap X plans. You know, the fact that we're talking about a large amount of companies pulling their earnings guidance, Lisa, I mean, if they're pulling their earnings guidance, they're not spending point. You know, simple as that. So you know, I don't
really see that much optimism out there. If anything, CEO confidence has been waning because people got the sequencing.
Wrong, right.
I mean, when they bet on Donald Trump, they bet on tax cuts, deregulation, and tariffs in that order. And obviously we started with the last thing first. And that's kind of the big, the big issue in my opinion.
Because, as you know, Neil, the last thing is the thing that Trump can do unilatterly by himself. You recently had a piece out where you talked about Trump's recent comments around Powell, soothing comments around China, and you said that Trump is starting to quote feel the market, But at the end of the day, the tariffs are in place when it comes to China. How quickly, Neil, do you think that they need to start evaporating or this is going to get brutal very quickly.
Well, I think we're already there.
I mean, there's a lot of interesting comments that the market sort of runs with on any given day, but at the end of the day, just look at what's going on. We effectively have a trade embargo in place with one of our largest trading partners, and the primary debate right now seems to be whether are they talking or not talking? Are they fake talking, are they talking through back channels? I mean, it's a little bit ridiculous.
Just focus on what's actually happening. We have an effective tariff rate in the twenties and we continue to have fairly substantial tariffs on with China. That's effectively resulting in a zero in terms of bilateral trade. To me, that's important, and that's going to mean that you inventories are going to be pretty problematic relatively soon, probably sometime over the next month.
Neil final take. Kevin wash how close away to installing a shadow FED share?
Well, I mean he has a habit of just you know, you talk about the blackout period. Mike McKee mentioned that I find it hysterical that he's out in the Wall Street Journal with an outbed, but you know, look I don't, I don't. I mean I took a quick read of his his outbed. You know, I think I think it's ridiculous to really say that the FED is the reason why we have profligate spending. I mean, remember when interest rates were zero and the FED was doing open ended QE.
The government at the time was going out on an austerity budget and we talked about sequester and all that. So I think he has the cause and effect wrong.
I mean, the reason why.
Rates were so low was because probably there was austerity, not the other way around. So I mean, I think talking about firing Powell is bad. Replacing him with Kevin Wassh wouldn't be much better.
No data of run back. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angio politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.