Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
I'm Jill Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Tracy, there are many dimensions of the ongoing market turbulent and trade tensions that we can't stop talking about, but a big one, and in a way, it's almost taken. People aren't talking about it that much right now because there's so many other things top of mind, a lot of questions about how the FED is gonna think about what's happening right here.
Right And I know it's probably not very popular to sympathize with the central bank, but I gotta say I would hate to be Jerome Powell right now because in my mind, the consensus right now seems to be that we're heading for some sort of stagflationary scenario, at least in the short to intermedia terms, so higher inflation, lower growth, possibly even recession, and that to me just seems like a nightmare scenario for a central bank which constantly has
to balance its twin mandate of price stability and low unemployment.
It's really tricky, right because we've sort of been used to environments where it's really obvious. Right, So in twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three, it was clear that they were missing on one specific side, which was the price for much of you know, post two thousand and seven or two thousand and eight, the story was we growth, disinflation, whatever, so poor employment. I mean, this is going to be tricky.
And look, when we're talking about restructuring the global economy or the internal economy, these are questions that there is a limit to the degree to which one monetary policy can solve them. They can maybe, you know, maybe things a little bit, but at the end, these aren't really monetary policy questions we're talking about.
Here, right, And I think we all internalized that lesson in the twenty twenty pandemic, Right, We saw all these real world disruptions, supply chain issues, and that gave rise to the infamous transitory inflation as the FED called it. And it seems very much like that's a possibility again.
Right totally, And like we've been saying, we've been going back to talking to all our old supply chain guests because you know, the whole world may be redrawn anyway. We're recording this after the market closed. It's April eighth, twenty twenty five. It's four h nine pm. We just had another crazy day in the market. S and P five hundred and a down one point five to seven percent. It had been up over four percent at one point,
so we continue to whipsaw. Anyway, I'm excited to say we really do have the perfect guest, someone we've had actually on the show once before. We are going to be speaking with Rob Kaplan. He is a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs, member of the management committee. Prior to that, he was the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Prior to that, he had been Harvard.
Prior to that, he had been at Goldman Sacks. Truly the perfect guest for right now, Rob Kaplan, thank you so much for coming back Outlaws.
Thanks for having me. Good to talk with you.
Tracy said she wouldn't want to be Jerome Paula. I would still take that job, but I'm just let's start. You're on this. Let's say you know this is all happening a few years ago and you're still at the FED. How stressful is this kind of environment for charting a course from monetary policy?
Well, the last time we had a tiff issue. Yeah, you got to go back to twenty nineteen. I was at the FED at the time, and you may recall we preemptively cut the FED funds rate three times. I think we called it a tactical recalibration or something like that. And the reason we were able to be preemptive is we didn't have an inflation issue, so we could afford to be preemptive. As we're sitting here today, the FED goes into this already before the tariff situation, with an
inflation issue, and that inflation's sticky. Now the irony going into this, The source of the sticky inflation has been services, not goods. Goods have been disinflating up to now, up until say two months ago or a month and a half ago, and China over capacity has fed that disinflation. But despite that, you know, we're hanging around two and a half two and three quarters on the PCE. And I would argue that the excess inflation has been more
about excess demand due to outsized fiscal spending. So we are now in a new administration where they are dialing down fiscal spending, so that excess demand is being pulled away. You would normally consider that disinflationary. But now we've got a supply shock issue related to tariffs, which relates ironically to goods, not service. And so the most important thing that FED is thinking right now is we don't have to have this figured out, because we can't have it
figured out. If anything, they learned from the transitory episode, don't try to jump ahead to predict things that you can't know. And I think they're going to sit back, let the situation unfold and try to understand it, and they're going to be more reactive, not proactive, And I think that will be the difference.
You know, I mentioned stagflation before, which seems to be becoming the consensus economic environment that everyone is talking about. What's the playbook, I guess the traditional playbook for a central bank that's starting or trying to battle stagflation. You know, I'm thinking back to the nineteen seventies. Maybe Vulcar he raised rates really aggressively and ultimately he was willing to
sacrifice employment in order to get down. Is there like a normal playbook that central bankers can follow here?
Not really in this case, in that you're right in the seventies, we had a situation where we had slowing growth and an inflation issue. One of the things I would say about this situation, I think you have to assess it for what's driving it, what are the structural drivers? And I think that we have a lot of uncertainty.
You have government spending cuts, you have a dramatic reduction in immigration and shutting down the border, which normally would slow growth and might actually create some stickiness in the labor force. And then you've got these teriff issues. But the issue with the tariff situation is it's in flux. You had the announcement last week on Wednesday, and it's still very unclear. How much is the administration our administration willing to negotiate, how much is this really about reciprocity?
And I think, honestly, how much of this is about the administration might want to create more revenue and tariff for revenue, and actually while countries may come back to us and say we'll go down to zero and remove non trade barriers, I think we're going to find out how willing our administration is to in fact negotiate or how much do they actually want hire tariffs to keep the revenue, and so all those things are going through
the fed's mind, and so we don't know. And so I think you just have to be patient, don't be a prognosticator, be a risk manager, allow this situation to clarify.
Well, let me ask you a question. I mean, you must talk all the time to both investors and to
real businesses of various sorts. Right now, when we're talking on April eighth, do you think there is still some belief that this can't be what the final tear of schedule looks like, whatever it ends up being, maybe negotiations, et cetera, That the idea that no, these numbers that were unveiled on that chart on April second, they can't really be what the new trading relationship with the rest of the world is going to look like.
Okay, so let's talk about both groups, businesses and then capital allocators investors. I think there's a hope, there has been a hope by both that yes, this was more about reciprocity and there was going to be a negotiation, and so this isn't where we're going to end up. I think one of the reasons why the market is
behaving in the way it is. I think businesses are still hopeful that this will be a negotiation, but they're not sure about that, and they're starting to make plans on how they're going to adjust, and there's a series of things they could do. They're already talking about pressuring suppliers to cut prices. They're talking about the potentially taking
some of this out of margin. There we're hoping up to now that maybe the dollar would strengthen, and then the other thing they're talking about is pricing, but they're in the middle of trying to figure that out. They are not, as much as you would hope, actively talking about expanding capacity here because they're concerned that something they build here is globally competitive, and you don't want to build a high cost facility that only is competitive because
of the tariff mode. So that's where they are. They're treading water and trying to be receptive and figure this
out and giving their views to the administration. Capital allocators, on the other hand, started the year wanting to be long the dollar dollar denominated assets, and what's happened is they have been moving on the margin away from the dollar, and you're even seeing in the last week that some dollar weakness ten year treasury backing up as opposed to rallying, which you would normally expect to see, and you're seeing
a move I think, not between asset classes. You're seeing a move away from dollar denominated assets that is extremely unusual, and again they're doing it to hedge their bets depend on what the administration is trying to accomplish.
I wanted to ask you about exactly this you mentioned earlier. Don't be a prognosticator, be a risk manager, and that sounds like we should make like inspirational posters with like
little kittens hanging from trees with that text below. But on this note, one of the reasons this market move is particularly painful is not just because it's very, very big, a big downward shift, but also we're seeing bond sell off at the same time, and I think we've moved from like just under four percent on the tenure to something like almost four point three percent. Now, again, that's happening while stocks are selling off, which is something you
wouldn't expect to see normally. I have seen all sorts of explanations for why this might be happening. I've seen people talk about, well, maybe investors are liquidating what they can sell in the current environment, not necessarily what they want. And then secondly, maybe it's the basis trade being unwound. Thirdly,
maybe it's investors shifting away from US assets altogether. Where do you sort of lie on that spectrum of reasons, like what is the mix for why exactly yields are going up right now?
So we're seeing all those potential explanations. I think the truth is we're not sure. There's certainly been comments in the market, and we've seen them flows about the unwind of the basis trade you referred to. We're seen among some asset allocators a desire to reallocate and rebalance their dollar exposures to other mare markets. And I think the most insightful thing I can say, certainly if I'm at the FED and sitting here at Goldmen Sachs, the only
thing we can all agree on. It's something we are watching very carefully because it's a concern for a country that has a let's say, thirty six thirty seven trillion dollars of treasury debt outstanding and growing by at least two trillion a year. It's very critical that we are able to market our debt. We've struggled over the last few years to sell duration and that we've tried to front endload it. But it's critical for a country with debt to GDP one hundred percent plus. You want to
be able to market your debt. You want confidence in what we're doing here, and I think it bears watching, and certainly if I were at the FED, I'd be watching that very carefully.
You've had a very long career, and Joe his intro for you included many titles, many hats over your history as a financial market veteran.
Have you ever seen anything like this?
I think that normally what you're accustomed to in a week like this last week, you would normally see a flight to quality, you would see Treasury's rally, and you would eventually start to get a better grip on what's going on. Obviously, COVID was a good example of an enormous uncertainty that took a while to resolve. It's been unusual in my career to see a government led action as opposed to an external shock, a government led action I e. Man made that has in turn created this
kind of uncertainty. The good thing about this kind of situation. If it's man made that created the uncertainty, it can also be susceptible to man made actions that will address the uncertainty. And I think that's what people in the market are hoping for.
Do you worry that they? I mean this is this has come up and it's certainly true, right because at any given moment, Trump could say no, we're taking this back, but this is his life mission, or we're doing some pause. And we saw these sort of incredible rally Monday on a fake headline about the pause tells you something about the environment. But what the president can't do is undring the bell because he can't really credibly say he'll never
do this again. Right, Like, do you worry that, like this is going to permanently change America's economic relationship with every country in the world.
Yeah, I just got back from Europe. Yeah there are certainly, yes are strains around the world. Yeah, and yes those bear watching. Having said that, I do believe that there's a great opera coortunity to get this puzzle right and make this work. But yes, there is some cost to what's happened up to now. But I still think this can get resolved. But it's going to require some action
on our part in order to do that. And I think the markets in their up and down reaction today, they're just not sure how imminent that is and whether that's going to happen, And so you're seeing this uncertainty prevail in the markets. The problem with uncertainty going on for too long is it flows activity. If I'm a consumer thinking about taking an action, I might pause it. If I can tell you talking to companies, they're not
saying no, but they're saying not now. They have already had other uncertainties they're dealing with in their business, how to approach AI, which use cases for AI spending will work. They have other issues that they're always wrestling with, and I think all this does is cause them to be more careful pause actions they might have otherwise taken. And I don't think you want that to go on indefinitely.
Just going back to the FED for a second, what's the pain threshold for the Central Bank in terms of movements in the financial market? Like how bad does it need to get before maybe they start rolling out some tools to try to calm things down?
All right, So the Fed back the headline, what I'm worried about is full employment and price stability. Stock market going down substantially does not by itself necessarily cause me to do anything other than I'm aware of it. Credit spreads beginning to gap out gets my attention more because I'm concerned that that, in fact would be an amplifier
of a potential slowdown. I e. Businesses might not fire people because there's is down, but they might start to if they see their business slowing and credit spreads widening and they're worried about financeability. So I'm watching that still not acting normally. If you see a potential demand shock and the soft data, which is what we're seeing, weaken, but the hard data is still hanging in there, you might start thinking. If you didn't have an inflation issue,
you might think about taking some action. But the FED does have an inflation issue, and so I think you'll see the Fed, as we said, be more reactive until you're clearly seeing evidence that there is a slowing and you're going to want to see at the FED to act more than just an inching up in the unemployment rate. You start seeing a much more dramatic move up, and then you're going to realize that we could be entering into a demand shock which would actually be disinflationary, which
might offset part of this supply shock. And that's where you'd see the FED be more willing to act. But it's going to be at least a period of time. It's not the main meeting. I think they're going to watch it very carefully, and I think the sooner you might see that materialize would be into June and over the summer. The only other thing I'll mention that I'd be watching for very carefully at the FED is you want to make sure there's orderly market function and particularly
orderly treasury market functions. And again, as long as that's the case, I think the FED will watch all these things I just said, but be patient, and they're going to want to see real hard evidence of the slowing before they took an action. And the reason is they don't want to jump the teriff situation gets resolved and at the aftermath we still have an inflation issue and they regret that they've jumped into it and cut the rate.
I think they're going to need to be more reactive, which does mean that by the time they move, you know, normally say that are going to be on Maybe you could be accused of being late that. I think they're willing to take that risk.
Let's pivot a little bit. Tracy wrote about something last week, or maybe it was two weeks ago. My brain is getting fried, so I don't have any concept of time anymore. The the Dallas Fed's energy survey, which I think comes to a quarterly, unlike the manufacturing is service. It's just unbelievable stuff up there. And this is from an industry which we all know tends to be, you know, probably pretty sympathetic to the current administration politically. They're talking about
uncertainty like they've never seen. They've talked about the increased cost of all of their parts for drilling. I mean, it was like kind of apocalyptic. And that was actually before the last week and a half. One of the things in Vestent's three three three plan was getting three
million more barrels of oil drilled and expanding energy dominance. Meanwhile, WTI just falling to his lowest level in four years, in part because opek is turning on the gusher, in part because of these recession firms tell us what's going on down there on the energy patch.
So we started the Dallas Fed Energy Survey when I was running to Dallas Fed, and we did it particularly for this reason. We wanted to get a grip on what will break even levels, at what levels are you profitable at, what prices are you more likely to drill, and what we're seeing as the following four years ago, when the industry heard drill, baby, drill, they would be they were very excited about that. I think over the last three or four years they have been drilling subject
to cash flow. They've been pressured by shareholders to return more capital, and cost to drill have gone up, and tariffs will increase cost to drill more. And so the industry will drill at one level if the price is eighty dollars, but it's going to drill at a lower level, all things being equal, if prices get into fifties or sixties.
And so I think we may well find over this next year that actually the level of drilling activity doesn't increase, and I think people who are drilling are going to be more careful, particularly as the price has come down. You see OPEK. I think the US may have more success pressuring OPEC and Saudi Arabia to produce more, and we will in this country make it easier to permit a refiner, will make it easier to build transmission. So
I think the price will come down. Is coming down and may stay down, but it may not be because of more US drilling, and maybe because of demand falling off because of concern about tariffs, and also because OPEK actually producing more, probably under some influence from the Trump administration.
I'm looking at h chart of the Baker Hughes oil and Gas re account right now, and it's kind of funny. I guess we'll take what we can get nowadays. But it went up in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two quite a lot under the Biden administration, and since I guess for most of twenty twenty four, it's kind
of been flatlining. And in fact, Joe, the energy survey that I wrote up, I think the headline on our newsletter was instead of drill, baby drill, it was nil baby nil, right, because there's no new oil and gas rigs actually getting built and not much more production coming on stream.
That's right. And you've seen the reason for that trend you just described is prices were higher in twenty one and twenty two that led to more drilling as prices moderate, and they're actually lowering now. I think you'll see more tepet activity as you just described.
And in terms of your experience at the Dallas FED, I wanted to ask you because you were there, I think it.
Was fifteen through twenty one, thank you.
Thank you for doing my research for me. But that included twenty eighteen when we saw the tariffs under the first Trump present, did and see what was your experience like then and what lessons or surprises did you encounter at that time.
So Texas is a very large exporting state, and we did an enormous amount of work at the Dallas said on the impact of tariffs, and I probably in those years read every tariff paper that I could get my hands on. And what we concluded, me and my team concluded is tariffs could have some price impact, but the biggest impact we saw if tariffs is of the potential of they had to slow growth and so as a
result of it. You may remember back in eighteen and nineteen I said, I think we should be more proactive here lower rates, and that if you wait to see the weakness in GDP and employment, you've waited too late. And the thing is I had the luxury of being able to argue that in those years because we did not have an inflation all right.
So clearly there is a lot going on, some of it in many ways very unprecedented. What are you looking out for next in terms of not just the impact on the FED and how this might influence their immediate monetary policy path, but also in terms of the sort of big structural trends of the global macroeconomy, of geopolitics, you name it.
Yes, so they're including tarifster. Five big structural changes going on right now. We've already hit on on. The Number one is we are attempting to reduce fiscal spending with the desire and obviously it's been somewhat risk of stating the obviously been jarring, but with the desire to try to reduce the current six and a half seven percent
of GDP deficit to something lower than that. We've gone from twenty nineteen to today debt to GDP in the United States net approximately in the mid seventies over one hundred percent. And so first structural changes tried to have an economy that is less fiscal spending lead and more private sector led. That's number one. Fiscal spending reductions, though slow growth might in fact be disinflationary, but that's the first one. Second one is regulatory review in every industry with the ambition
of improving productivity growth. In an aging country that is highly leveraged, the X factor that can help you deleverage is productivity growth. The issue with regulatory review is they'll take some time for that to translate into greater growth, and that's the issue. It'll be a time like third big change, which we've talked about, is I would say
a restruction of the energy ecosystem. Encouraging drillers here we just talked about to drill, although they're going to be more reluctant, but then encouraging Saudi Arabia and others to produce more and addition will be easier to permit a refinery, easier to create transmission and the idea is to help low moderate income families here visibly who've lost twenty five percent plus purchasing power to allow them to pay a
lower price at the pump and for power. The fourth big one is two big drivers of US EXSGDP of the last three or four years. One I would argue was excess fiscal spending, and then the second was immigration and labor force surge is due to some percentage of undocumented immigrants entering the workforce that obviously has ended. Workforce
growth will decline this year from previous years. And there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the country who are uncertain of their status, and they make up half the construction workforce in a state like Texas, they make up a chunk of the agriculture workforce, and other workers in the service sector. And what I'm hearing from employers is some number of those workers are not showing up at work because they're concerned about an ice rade and they're
concerned about their status. They're certainly not spending. And I think there's going to be a question as we go here, do we want to clarify, does the government want to clarify how far they want to go here so those people can get back to their lives. But the juries out on that. And then the last one we just talked about is tariffs, which has created all the impacts of potentially stickier prices, which is a supply side shock, but also is likely based on our work it's likely
to slow growth. So that's the package of things going on, and so the question then with all that, it's one thing that growth slips from what it might have been two and a quarter two and a half percent. We thought some number of weeks ago to say one and a half for one and three quarters, but you now have our own economists and other economists are now suggesting that growth is going to slip well below that, approaching zero or half of one percent. And if these tariffs
continue it those estimates may even get revised down. You've got a risk of a meaningful slowdown in growth. Again, it doesn't have to unfold this way, but a lot of it is going to be a function of what actions are taken here over the next days and weeks.
Robert Kaplan, you know, when we scheduled this episode several weeks ago, I didn't think we realized it would be quite such interesting times. But this was the perfect timing, perfect guest. Thank you so much for coming back on.
Odd lotch That was great.
Great to talk with.
You, Tracy, that was great. I, like I said the end, didn't quite realize how much there would be to talk about.
You know what I think I shouldn't have said that.
You should have just been like, yeah, we were thinking about what's going on in markets, and we had Rob Kaplan on speed dial and he was We knew he was the perfect person.
Knew who you know what, Tracy? That tenure yield four point twenty eight, it was at four on the fourth so on Friday. Yeah, that's a crazy chart. That's an ominous chart. It's an ominous chart.
You know what worries me more? Yeah, I'm looking at swapspreads right now.
Oh yeah.
It's never a good sign when you start seeing headlines about swap spreads like these are supposed to be relatively boring, and uh, they're not boring right now.
So what's going on in swap spreads?
So they're dropping quite a lot, and I guess the speculation is whether or not that has to do with hedge funds unwinding that basis trade that we mentioned.
It's really funny, man, it's really funny also thinking that, you know, I totally forgot basically until right during that conversation that three three three bestent thing, which just seems like such old news. The idea is like, Okay, we're gonna modestly decrease the deficit over time.
It doesn't come up that much anymore.
We're gonna have three percent GDP Brothers like, man, they really just took a They really did not go with that approach. Did they to say the least?
No?
No, they did not show. Here's a question, do you still want to be fed chairman?
I would take it.
If you become FED chairman? Will you come on on my solo All Thoughts show and talk to me?
It would be fun if you go. It's so great to reunite with you, Tracy. I got a new job, but it's always fun to come back and check out. How Yes, I'll do that. I'll leave it. I would even be a regional FED president. Can yeah, can listeners tell that we're totally fried?
I wonder like, yeah, our our banter y is not great at the moment, but okay, shall we leave it there on the note that we cannot banter any longer? All right? This has been another episode of the au Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.
And I'm Jill Wassenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart. Follow our producers Kerman Rodriguez at Kerman Arman, Dashel Bennett at dashbot and kel Brooks at kel Brooks. From our Oddlogs content, go to Bloomberg dot com slash od Lots. We have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes, and you can chat about all of these topics twenty four to seven in our discord discord dot gg slash od loots.
And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you like it when we tap former Fed presidents to talk about what the Central Bank is going to do right now, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.
Thanks for listening in