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. The US and China agreeing to a ninety day calling golf period, the US reducing its levies on Chinese imports from one hundred and forty five percent to thirty while China cuts duties on US goods from one hundred and twenty five percent to ten. Joining us now to discuss the Treasury Secretary Scott Beson, a driving force behind trade soalks in Geneva over the weekend. Mister Secretary, Welcome back to Bloomberg Surveillance, Sir.
It's good to see you.
Good afternoon from Geneva.
Jonathan WRT to catch up. As always, let's get into these talks over the weekend. One standout line for me and for many others was the line that the differences between the two sides weren't as large as we thought they would be. What were those differences, sir, and why were they smaller than you expected?
Well, I think Jonathan, what's important to know is for the tariff program, we had a plan, we had a process, but we did not have a mechanism for engaging with the Chinese. So China was the only country who escalated their terriffs in response to our reciprocal tarot level. So that resulted in an unfortunate escalation. So we now have a mechanism to deal with that. Neither side wants a
generalized the coupling. The US is going to do a strategic dec coupling in terms of the items that we discovered during COVID were a national security interest, whether it's semiconductors, medicine, steel, So we still have a generalized terriffs on some of those, but both sides agreed we do not want a generalized decoupling.
These things take time, as you know, sir, We've got ninety days now to work with. Last time around, it took eighteen months to reach an agreement on purchase agreements. I think you yourself have said in the past that it can take two to three years to have a full comprehensive trade agreement with the country. Between the US and China, What do you think is achievable, sir, over the next ninety days.
Well, Jonathan, we're going to see.
But what has to happen is it has to be fair for the American people. But in January twenty twenty, President Trump produced a template.
We have an excellent.
Trade agreement with China, and the Biden administration chows not to enforce it. The Chinese delegation basically told us that once President Biden came into office, they just ignored their obligations. So we all already have a large framework. The other thing to remember here, Jonathan, is that this is a pause down to ten percent. The April second level for China is thirty four percent, so we will be working
to see where their final reciprocal number ends up. And the negotiations are a combination of tariffs, non tariff, trade barriers, currency manipulation, and subsidies of labor and capital.
Just to build on that, as I listen to you, do you consider the new levels as a sailing or a flaw.
Well, it's obvious.
It's obviously a floor that they are now with everyone else who did not retaliate. So the levels have come down to the Paull's level, And what I would say is thirty four, which is their assigned April second level, would be a ceiling, which is what I went out and told people on April second, which is.
Why I was surprised.
Market participants panicked because we had kept we had kept the upside for every country and if they didn't retaliate, So this unfortunate turn of events happened because of retaliation.
But now we have a.
Process in place to avoid escalation like that.
Again, Secretary Buston, just to build on that, are you saying that teriff rates will only go up from here if this really is a floor or of ten percent on the Chinese side and thirty percent on the US side.
I'm not saying that they're going to go up, but it would be implausible that they would go below ten.
One thing that you've been talking about is generalized to coupling as something that's not necessarily in the interest of either side, and either side wants that.
What about a strategic to coupling.
What is the appropriate rate of tariffs that could potentially cause some sort of strategic to coupling in the sectors that you are talking about.
Well, look, the bringing back our strategic.
Are important.
Strategic industries can be a result of terrace, but it's also a result of national will. So this administration is running full speed to make sure that what we saw during COVID.
Never happens again.
So it's a combination of it can be terrorists, but again it is the administration moving as quickly as possible to make sure that we are self sufficient in the strategic industries.
I think that's completely understandable from the United States side, and I want to miss the secretary whether the Chinese understood that. Did you get the sense they do understand that will be the road forward for the United States.
Well, I think they understand that, and I think they understand that we are focused on fair trade, that this gigantic deficit that we have with them, that it didn't happen last year, it didn't happen there before, It's happened over decades, and that this happened half excuse me has to be remedied. The China shock gutted our manufacturing sector and we want.
To bring that back.
On the other side, Party chair, she has said that he would like to increase consumption, but to date the Chinese have just increased manufacturing. So we would like to see them increase consumption. We would like to see them open their market to American products. So there are two ways to rebalance. One is fewer Chinese goods in the US market. The other is more American goods in the Chinese market. And my guess is that the answer is somewhere in between.
Some of this, of course, takes us back to the purchase agreements of the first term of the president.
Is it different this time around?
Is it as simple as just revisiting those purchase agreements or do you see additional sectors being targeted?
Jonathan, I think everything's on the table. But the Phase one purchase agreements is a very good road map because I will point out that during twenty twenty China met their obligations under that agreement. It was only under President
Biden where they neglected them. So we are getting we are starting there, and look, the world has changed, products have changed, product mix has changed, so I think everything's on the table, but the main thing here is we have to have a fair deal for the American people. And keep in mind too that we also have twenty percent fentanyl terras on, so we are at for twenty twenty five. We have put on thirty percent terraffs. They
have put on ten. And my economic observation is that businesses just need time to calibrate that we saw approximately twenty percent terraiffs from President Trump's first term. Businesses calibrated, supply chains moved. We have seen twenty percent tariffs President Trump put on in February due to the fentanyl crisis.
Calibration very little disruption.
And now a ten percent additional tariff should mean very little disruption.
Mister Secretary.
A lot of people are wondering what caused the softening and tone, the reason for both sides to come together and be able to have this kind of negotiation and try to pass forward where there will be further negotiations in the near term. What's your interpretation of what caused both sides to come.
To the table.
Well, I think that the two levels on the reciprocal tariffs, when they both ratcheted up to one twenty five caused the equivalent of an embargo, and that wasn't good for either side. Where the depth is a country, so less bad for us. But I think there was the unintended consequence of this very fast ratchet, and so now both sides are at ten. We will be moving forward with a ninety date pause. And the important thing to remember is that we can always go back to the April
second level. But my sense is we had very good discussions of my counterpart was the very firm, but very engaged, and I think we have set the stage for meaningful discussions.
Mister secretary, is there already a scheduled date for Jijian paying and President Trump to meet in person at any point in the near term?
Do you think that that is something in.
The cards as part of these negotiations.
I think that there would be a phone call before a meeting, and there's nothing on the calendar, but I could imagine that that could happen in the coming weeks or months.
Coming into the meeting.
As you know, the President put out a social media posts referred to as Scotty b. I won't go there, We'll keep using missus secretary, and he said you could go as low as eighty. Can you share with us how we went from say, eighty down to thirty.
Where did that number come from?
Sir?
I think that in the President's mind, eighty was a number that did not cause an embargo, so we could still be at eighty and have trade flowing. But we were able to both the moved down by one hundred and fifteen percent. And Jonathan, I think the other important thing here is I think this is the first time that the Chinese have addressed one of the President's real priorities, which is ending this fentanyl crisis in the United States.
So they brought their trade team, and they brought a vice Minister for State Security who met with our national security team. It was a separate and they had a very robust and detailed discussion on ways to stop the transport of precursor drugs from China to North America that ends up in the hands of the cartels that is then killing several hundred thousand Americans a year. So I'm very optimistic that President Trump we have solved part of the fentanyl crisis by securing the border, and I think
this is the next step on that. So if over the coming months we were to see excellent engagement from the Chinese and solutions towards solving the fentanyl crisis. I think we could see some amount of the fentanyl tariffs perhaps come off, but that is going to take actions from them.
What kind of action specifically, sir, Well, we.
Can see where these precursor drugs that are coming from from at Treasury Financial Criminal Enforcement Network has very good visibility into international finance. We can see these Chinese companies that are selling the equipment for making the pills that transferring the precursor.
Drugs to the cartels.
US Treasury has declared the Mexican cartels foreign terrorist organizations, so working with Chinese leadership to stop this would be a very tangible symbol.
In China.
The narcotics distribution is punishable by death, and we're not pushing for that necessarily, but we are pushing for very very strict enforcement, similar to what they.
Do at home.
Mister Secretary, I imagine you're incredibly tired, and a lot of people are very excited to see you taking the lead in these discussions, certainly in the market. Are you going to be taking the lead going forward with other difficult negotiations around the world with different trading partners.
I've been involved in most of the Asia negotiations. We had a very good negotiation with Or, We've had two rounds of negotiations with Japan. I've been involved with Korea. I've met with the Vietnam and excuse me, also Indonesia. So my focus has been on the Asia region thus far. And then the trade team had a great victory with the UK putting together the contours of the first trade deal. The other thing I want to say too is my partner here in Geneva. Ambassador Greer was an incredible asset.
He has years of experience, a broad and deep knowledge of trading to goociation.
Of the numbers and the nuance.
And we would not be here today without Ambassador Career.
Missus Secretary, just before you go, you've promised us a lot of time. We've used up most of it already. Just the final question, what does victory look like for you in six months time when we get to year end. And I know it's frustrated to you that we've only been talking about trade, that we haven't focused on the full policy platform. Where do you want to be by year Rent?
Well, well, Johnathan, this administration is doing peace deal, trade deal, tax deal. I try to stay mostly, as you know, in my econ lane. So from that lane, victory to me looks like the three legged stool. That really are the three parts of our program really kicking in, So we will have most of the trade and tariffs settled. The tax bill is moving along very well, better than I could have imagined. Speaker Johnson, leader Thoon are doing an incredible job with President Trump's leadership.
So we will have tax done.
And then the final piece that is longer lagged, but perhaps the most important is deregulation and deregulation. We are deregulating across all industries every day. President Trump is committed to for every new regulation, ten comes off the books. And deregulations should start kicking in in the.
Third and the fourth quarters.
So tax, trade, and deregulation all coming together at the end of the year. I think it's going to be very, very powerful for President Trump's economic agenda.
Mister Treasury Secretary scope Esson, we appreciate your time, sir from Geneva. Very generous with your time. Thanks for being with us right here. Merripandita. JP Morgan writ SINC. We do not want to be loaded into a false sense of security. While the volatility we saw in April may have been the high water mark, that doesn't mean volatility is behind us all together.
MARYA.
Johns is now for more American monic.
Good morning.
Have we put all the bad news behind us?
Not necessarily.
What we have to be mindful of is volatility in the nature of it, It comes and goes. And while we have another recalibration moment. We had April second announcement of tariffs, we had April ninth pause on tariffs. Now we have a big reduction for a period of time in the Chinese.
Tariff rate, but there are still risks ahead.
We have to continue to follow the ebb and flow of trade optimism, trade disappointment. And there's also a distinction here between when the market stops caring, but the economy is still going to care.
Think about Brexit.
You know, we're ten years on almost from Brexit and it's undoubtedly still an impact on the economy there, even though it's not showing up in.
Markets on a day to day basis.
So this is the squaring of the circle that we're going to have to go through over the next couple of years, because having a two percent average import goods tariff rate last year to something probably still in the double digits when all of the dust settles, is going to have that longer term pass to the economy. And that means where the economy and markets meet is around profitability.
Before we get into the next company years, can we deal with the next couple of months, how will you digest the incoming information?
What will you ignore? What will you choose to put some whites on?
What I want to choose to put weight on the most is how our price is impacted, because, as I mentioned, the link between markets and the economy and the long run is going to be the profit picture here, and profits are really going to determine how well stocks can do, because ultimately we're already in an environment where evaluations are still compared to their long term averages twenty percent higher than they perhaps should be on an average basis, And
so when we think about what underpins that, we have to see that profitability. Now we have to recalibrate a little bit around economic growth expectations. We were at a fifty to fifty recession probability coming into this. Perhaps now that is skewed towards slower growth as opposed to definitive mild recession. So in that case, still slowing growth means slowing profit growth. How do we continue to see profits playing out this year? What are the risks from tariffs
while you have potential revenue slow down? How much you have potential pricing increases? How much gets passed on to an exhausted consumer versus how much get absorbed by historically very high margins. And then you think about even the structures within the S.
And P five hundred.
Could areas like the mag SVN be a saving grace this year as some of those areas are more resilient and we see yet another delay, And in terms of broadening out of profits, there are so many angles to this tariff and non tariff As we reconsider what this pause means.
I can feel a bit of frustration, if not for you, for me. I was reading your notes and you were talking about a fifty to fifty recession call, and I was going to ask you about that. You already brought it up and said, probably it's skewed more against recession than for recession.
But how do you switch your views so quickly?
Right?
I mean, we're going to see just a complete downgrade of the potential for recession, risk of cost Wall Street.
If these new rates of terrorift stick, you have to think about scenarios, and certainly in this environment, extreme scenarios. What if tariffs come off altogether? What if we go right back to where we were April second? Where do we land in between? And clearly we're probably going to be somewhere in between, and that in between is so hard to figure out when we think, okay.
Look at what's going on with yields.
For example, you're seeing yields start to perk back up. If one of the factors that's been weighing on yields has been lower growth and all of a sudden that is potentially alleviated to some extent, then you have yields moving in a different direction here. I mean everything in the market, whether it's equities or fixed income, has been so sentiment driven this year. It's really hard to ground yourself. It's trade fears versus trade optimism, and you're switching back
and forth. So we are trying to figure out where to ground ourselves in the in between state, which we're likely going to end up in.
Where is that place?
Is that gold Well, not necessarily, I mean when I think about portfolio position in a way, that's what's changed the least because of some of the starting points that we're dealing with. I mean, there's still definitely two sided risks to bond here when we think about maybe you don't see as so much that with growth slow down, so there's a lot in terms of term premium that could potentially be pushed up when we think about uncertainty.
On the other hand, when you think about the basic dynamics of if we were to see on the AG bond index a one percent rise in rates certainly not what we expect, you'd be looking at a sell off of about one and a half percent over total return a year in your bond allocation.
So you're still actually looking at someone of a contained impact there, and.
Despite overall yields biased upwards, you've actually seen that most areas of the bond market have been positive. On the other hand, a one percent fall in rates not something we expect either, would give you about an eleven percent return given that income cushion, So being broadly diversified within fixed income has worked. I think it will continue to work, and on the equity side, you're still dealing with high starting valuations and growth. We want to make sure we're geared towards some of
the areas that have been a bit more favorable. Whether it's value outperform in growth about six percent this year or international outperforming fourteen percent in dollar terms this year, none of that really changes despite the thirty percent, eighty percent, fifty percent terifreate.
You're getting to something really important, something that John and I were discussing earlier this morning about how much structurally there has been a loss of dollar exceptionalism and a loss of haven status, and the shift to Europe has been something more sustainable and not just a knee jerk reaction that was a positioning squeeze. You're saying, on one hand,
maybe a little, but not necessarily wholesale. When it comes to the loss of treasuries as a haven status, how do you sort of understand what.
Has changed since April second?
I think what has changed is certainly that uncertainty level, where when there is uncertain T people want to go to treasuries, and more recently, when there is uncertain T people don't. Because a lot of that uncertainty is emanating from the US. I think it's also just the compounding effect over time of having unsustainable debt and deficits, and that really starting to feed into the bond market given
higher rates in the cost of servicing debt. Overall these things putting that upward pressure on yields, and I think that people are putting a microscope to some of those elements because it doesn't feel like we're in an environment where some of that direction of travel is going to be for a more grounded place.
This comes to scarring. How much scarring will we say post I posecond infnably to secure some mighta dails in the common ways.
There are some things you can't unsay.
I think that's going to be the theme for the rest of the year, where even if you do come up with a number of trade deals or more likely frameworks for longer term deals, there's always that possibility that things can potentially come back around, and so there is that scarring there where if you're a business, you're seeing a lot of buybacks. Hey, what's the best use of my money right now? Let me just double down on my company. While prices have gone down as opposed to
put forth money for future investments. So maybe it's less about people changing their plans but just putting their plans on hold, and in some ways over time that can be equally damaging hip.
Moolk and asset management. Seth Conpenter of Molten Stanley joins us around the table. Well, Seth, good morning's you sir? H quit exercise.
I'm okay.
If the federals have knew what they knew this morning, what they've changed the statement and the way they did last Wednesday, I don't think.
They would have.
Look where are we right now. We're going to get a CPI report tomorrow and it's going to be pre teriff for the most part, maybe a little bit in autos, but essentially that's also going to be pre teriff, and they're going to want to look at that to see are they learning anything on inflation? And so what they said at the last meeting was there's uncertainty. There's uncertainty on the inflation side, there's uncertainty on the growth side. Just the news that we've gotten in the past twenty
four hours change that. I'm not really convinced that it makes a massive difference, because the announcement was that terroiffs will come down from the peak still be above where they were at the beginning of the year. And I think we have seen a few times in the past few weeks, times where one announcement gets made and then it's reversed twenty four hours forty eight hours later. I'll believe this is real when I've seen it in place for a while and it actually starts to affect the trade flows.
Your assessment of the risk though for inflation for growth, and they still still tilted to the downside for growth and tilted to the upside for inflation.
See the risks unquestionably.
So we do still, no matter how you slice it, have higher tariffs this year than we had coming into the year, and so that's got to push up inflation.
Now.
In twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, I said, much like what you've heard from Powell, the inflation side of things from tariff's likely to be temporary. Might even use a word transitory if it hadn't become taboo. That's still very likely to be the case. However, now versus then, we have lived through years of higher inflation and it's not at all clear where businesses and household's minds are for how inflation dynamics get going. So I think there
is still upside risk to inflation the downside. Businesses that plan, businesses that are going to undertake investment spending, businesses that are going to make hiring plans would like to have some certain and we have none of that. And again, just because there was a statement that there was a plan to make a plan to have a deal does not take away that uncertainty. So again the risk to the downside and growth I think is real and present danger.
A number of guests have come on the show this morning and said that at the very least, it does make recession look more like a remote possibility rather than a fifty to fifty type of possibility.
Do you agree with that?
So I think it probably has to lower the probability remote seems a little bit optimistic. Again, how much of an effect does the overall uncertainty effect business spending? I think I know pretty clearly what the direction is. I don't think I have any conviction. I know exactly what the magnitude is, and so to be able to say it's going to slow things down a little bit, but not so much to tip us over.
That's our baseline view.
Don't get me wrong, I just don't know how you have conviction there to call it remote.
It sort of raises a point of the Fez reaction function.
It's something that's interesting when you look at FED fund's futures this morning, you're only seeing two rate cuts getting priced into the market four last week. It highlights this idea that without some sort of rapid deterioration akin to a recession, you're not going to see that rapid response from the FED that could be one hundred and twenty
five basis points of ray cuts Like cities. Andrew Hollenhorst has called for, how much do you take signal versus noise from the market's reaction mane, would you agree with the current assessment?
I would not. In fact, we've been far far, far out of alignment with the market pricing has been. We have said, even when even before this announcement about the possible de escalation on tariffs, we had said the market calling for three or maybe four ray cuts this year was overdone. We don't have any cuts in our forecast for this year. The market's coming towards us, which is always a comfortable place to be. But the Fed's got
a really tricky challenge tariffs. Even if it's at a lower level of tariffs, they will push up inflation and that probably happens faster than any hit to growth that we're going to see in the hard data, which is where the FED is really living. And so what does that mean? They have to watch things come in and they can't take anything.
Granted, we often cite you, you and Mike gapam because you are at zero zero cuts for twenty twenty five.
Amos are both tall and good looking.
Of course, that's it. That's why I do it. Andrew homhost a city, another toll and good looking gentlemen. It's a one hundred and twenty five faces points it cuts for twenty twenty five and we said repeatedly you can drive a truck through those estimates. They believe the labor market weekends in the coming months. What gives you the confidence that it won't.
I think a few things.
One, the US economy tends not to shift quite so dramatically. We do have a big slowdown in our forecast for the next several months. So I think that in that regard, it's likely to happen. But the first thing you need to see is businesses pull way back on the hiring and then you're likely to see businesses start the firing process. And you need both of those to happen first before the FED can go into a full fledged cutting cycle.
Very difficult to see they get there to get that amount of cutting this year.
Seth, it's going to see a nice to drop it by.
Thank you the total and good looking Seth compenter the of Morgan Stanley russ Coastrict Blank Rock right in the following. These stabilization inequities and other risky assets makes sense based on a some progress in trade negotiations and b generally
supportive economic data and earnings. R us Coastric of Blank Rock joins us now for more rus We've got this odd tug of war, this short term reaction to the progress we're making in trade talks, real progress between the US and China, and then long term just realizing the tarifs are higher now than they were at the start of the year, and that could be disruptive for growth in the future.
How do you wait one versus the other.
We'll good more on Jonathan.
You know it's funny whatever you write two three days ago probably is still you know, given the piece to which headlines are coming out. But I think I think you're right. I think we are in a tug of war. Obviously, this morning we got some very good news. It reduces the risk that we're going to see a serious economic contraction. It reduces some of the uncertainty, It reduces some of that left tail.
Having said that.
We self to contend with a few things, one of which is they're still uncertainty, the second of which is how much did the previous disruption hurt economic activity, whether it was at the consumer level or at the corporate level.
And third and again, valuations are not the best short term timing tool.
Dealing with the fact that even with the pullback we had earlier in the year, SMP's back to trading the twenty one times future names. That's a big number given all the other things going on.
So I do think it's a tug of war.
I think we're still in a range, although that range is probably higher on the upside and lower on the downside than it was on Friday.
Did we learn anything rosse that makes you materially change your allocation? Given some of the uncertainty that remains out there.
I don't think we would change our allocation, and a lot of the themes we were thinking about on Friday are still in place.
You know.
One of the things that we were looking at that I do think is.
Going to probably work in the back half of the year.
We had that big rotation earlier in twenty twenty five, everyone piled into defensive parts of the market, whether we're staples, utilities. I don't think that was right, and that really made sense only if you expected a recession. They said, the odds of that are lower. We're probably going to muddle
along with the economy. I do think some of the large megacap tech names that struggled earlier in the year can actually do well in an environment in which growth is okay, race are contained, and many of these big things that we're all talking about back in twenty twenty four, they're still very much in place. So that's one area of the market I do think is a place to be in the back half of the year.
It looks like a lot of people agree with you, Russ, because it looks like we're entering something of a bull market in big tech, possibly up twenty percent from the truugh on April eighth. So you can see this kind of knee jerk reaction when you take a look at what's changed. What's not back to that pre April second relationship of markets.
It's the dollar.
The dollar is still not completely back to where it was. Raises a question has anything materially changed since Liberation Day? Given the fact that we are seeing a walking back of a lot of those terraffs, how much is the dollar fundamentally and structurally in a different place today than April second, even with some of the ratcheting back of tensions.
Well, I think there's definitely more uncertainty, and you've got to ask the question, are we going to see some diversification out of dollar based assets from international investors?
And I think that's still very much an open.
Question, given the fact that trade is going to look different going forward than it did, you know, two, three, five, ten years ago. Having said that, you know, it's interesting there's been a lot of agonizing about the dollar, and I think that's right.
But having said that, the dollar's basically.
Been in a range mostly between about one hundred and one hundred and ten and the DXY. It was down with the loads around eleven twelve percent. We had seen similar pullbacks in the last five years even without these generational or potentially generational shifts in trade. So I think the outcome on the dollar is still very much a question mark. We may not know that for a period of time as we start to see how international investors are really are behaving.
Russ in some ways is part of the same question, how to manage your exposure to US treasuries?
What have you and the team done.
Has anything changed for you guys over the past few weeks, and would it flipped back? Based on the discussions we had over the weekend.
So, Jonathan's really interesting.
Our our duration position has not changed much this year despite all of the volatility. We've been slightly underweight our benchmarking duration. Most of that is on the long end of the curve. As we've spoken about the past, we do like credit and I think that's still probably about right. We've seen that backup in yields this morning, so I think right, you know as of now that that positioning seems.
To be about where we want to be. But it's worth keeping in mind.
Even before we started talking about the dollar and we started talking about whether or not international investors would abandon the dollar. There were those concerns about supply, that concern about the deficit, about whether or not that was going to have some negative impact on the long end of the curve through the term premium. Those concerns are still there, so I do think while we are closer to benchmark, a little bit of an underweight on the long end probably still makes sense.
Those concerns for us, as you know, a pretty durable they're not going anywhere. The big question was whether international investors would be willing to finance that deficil, or whether we would need one or the other or a combination of the two, which is a week at dollar or high bond yields. Do you think we settled some of those issues or do they remain as well?
Well? I think they remain.
I think it's certainly too early to declare all clear, and I think a little bit of caution, particularly given the fact that we do of their structural deficits are exactly right, and the term premium is not so high that you're being generously compensated to go out.
On the curve and take that risk. The other point is, do you really need to know.
Rick.
Readers spoken about this on many occasions.
If you have an environment where credit spreads are maybe not great, but the absolute yield you can generate on a high quality credit portfolio with six or seven percent, do you really need to take a risk going out.
To ten year on the US Treasury? Maybe not.
Hey, Russ, I appreciate your time. As always, it's going to be another busy week. Ross Coastrectare of black Rock. Russ, thank you. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics. 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