April 7, 2025 • 27 mins
- Lori Calvasina, Chief US Equity Strategist at RBC Capital Markets
- Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan Professor of Public Policy
- Ed Mills, Washington Policy Analyst at Raymond James
- Meghan Graper, Global Co-Head: Debt Capital Markets at Barclays
Lori Calvasina, Chief US Equity Strategist at RBC Capital Markets, talks about the market selloff and whether the meltdown in equities is set to continue as long as tariffs stay in place. Justin Wolfers with the University of Michigan talks about whether negotiating with other countries on tariffs would be an effective economic strategy. Ed Wills of Raymond James discusses President Trump's commitment to tariffs. Meghan Graper, Global Co-Head: Debt Capital Markets at Barclays, discusses what debt markets are telling investors about rising risks in the economy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
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
(00:34):
Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. Harry Cavasina of RBC writing,
we are lowering our year end twenty five price targets
of fifty five to fifty from sixty two hundred, essentially
making our old bare case our new base case. Lurie
joined us now for more, and Laurier have to say
that old bear case, which is the new base case,
is sounding like the bullcase based on the moose we've
(00:54):
seen over the past few days. How you're reflecting on
things over the weekend.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
It's a great question, and I was actually talking to
my energy trader, and the days are all bleeding together
at this point. I think it was on Friday, and
you know, we sort of discussed how we went from
stagflation in terms of people's thinking to recession in about
two seconds. And I've never seen anything like it where
you've just seen the mentality shift so much so quickly.
But I will caution you that is what happens in
(01:20):
growth spheres, and that is what we are Smack Dad
in the middle of the seventeen point four percent draw
down that we saw as of Friday was exactly in
line with the average drawdown that we saw in twenty ten,
twenty eleven, twenty fifteen, sixteen, and twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Of course, that twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Went all the way down twenty percent, which would take
us around forty nine hundred on the S ANDP. This
time around, I think just a touch under. And so
this is what it feels like. You know, we have
this tiers of fear framework we've talked about to help
us navigate. We're in tier two. Tier one is the
garden variety pullback. Tier two is the growth fhere. Tier
three is recession. And so we have increasingly been talking
(01:52):
to people, if we break through that twenty percent number,
what does recession look like? If you look at the
average and the media and draw down it's about twenty
seven and thirty two percent. It's taken out of forty
two hundred and forty five hundred on the S and P.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
We could do that. It's not unreasonable to be thinking.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
About that, Laurie. We know how to price growth scarce.
We're okay at that. We're fairly decent at knowing what
a recession might look like, though we haven't seen many
over the last twenty years. That's a shock to the cycle.
The issue that we've been trying to get our hands
around is how to price a shock to the system
because of these are the new rules of the game.
This is a change we haven't seen for decades, Lourie,
How different is that?
Speaker 1 (02:28):
So I think it's a great question. John.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
And as I've been, you know, talking to investors over
the past month, and we've been talking, we were talking
about how.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
That tier two fear was rising. One of the thoughts
that occurred to.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Me, and I didn't like to say this out loud
all that often, but it had felt a bit to
me like this was January of twenty twenty, where there
was something coming that we didn't quite know what it was.
I will give you one bit of you know, comfort
from that twenty twenty period, which was that that ended
up being a garden variety recession in the thirties and
terms of the drawdown from peak. And I know it
(02:58):
doesn't make us all feel happy for me to say
that out loud right now, but it does give me
a little bit of comfort. If you really want to
talk about big crises, we don't have a big sample
size on those. You know, We've got things like the
tech bubble, We've got things like the GFC. You basically
see the market lose hap its value. I'm not saying
that's what's going to happen, but as we sort of explore,
you know, the depths that we could go, that is
(03:20):
the one outside of recession that you want to look at.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
You said, Laurie in your recent note that full recession
pricing could be a drawdown of some twenty seven to
thirty two percent based on historical standards, which would take
the index down to forty two hundred to forty five hundred.
What would you have to see to start entertaining the
idea of that being a base case?
Speaker 3 (03:40):
So look, I think the street and we talked about
this in our target note. We changed our target on
Friday morning. It was clear to us on Thursday that that,
you know, things were not going to hold in that
garden variety territory. But the reality is that the street
right now is really doing a lot of hard work
modeling out what the economic impacts are.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
And so we've got the impacts.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
From the tariffs, but then we've also got secondary impacts, right,
We've got impacts from all the uncertainty we've just had.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
We've got secondary impacts. Even if the.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Tariffs get dialed down, there's still secondary impacts from the
uncertainty that will be there going forward. This is a
very very tough thing for the economics community to model.
They're working through it now, and I will remind you, Lisa,
a week ago, we were also all sitting here saying
we've seen all this deterioration and the soft data, what
about the hard data. We still haven't really seen any
hard data yet for the recent impacts of all that uncertainty.
(04:30):
So we need that baseline to come out in this
hard data to really understand what the damage is going
to be.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
At the same time that we're talking in these sort
of catastrophic terms. I want to go back to the
call that you actually made, which is gains on the
S and F through the end of this year. What
gives you hope or confidence that actually there is going
to be some sort of rally.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
What is the relief valve.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
That you think Stymy's what this is as you frame
a growth scare.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
So, look, there are two things that you can look at.
One of them I buy into the other that I don't.
I think that the thing that you know, and we've
seen strategists you know, start to take their numbers down,
A lot have not, and I think one of the
reasons why a lot have not is because there is
an understanding if you've been in this business long enough,
that as fast as you go down, you can rally
just as fast on the other side once something happens,
(05:18):
once there's some sort of policy intervention, once there's some
sort of change, And so I think that's keeping people,
you know, somewhat. I don't want to use the word complacent,
because that's not what it is. It's a legitimate thing
to worry about. But I do think the trigger in
terms of the fundamentals for that is this idea that
we get back to tax, that we get back to deregulation,
that somehow this storm passes and we get to the
(05:38):
promised lands of those business friendly things.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
I'm not so excited about that.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
But I will tell you the thing in my modeling, Lisa,
that sort of keeps me sympathetic to that kind of
V shaped type move, or at least on guard for
it a little bit, is the idea that if you
look at aaii netbulls, they are a very very good
contrarian indicator.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
If you're looking on a forward, say nine.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
Month basis or twelve month basis, and we are down
more than two standard deviations below the long term average.
We have been there since the end of February. In
terms of how lousy people have felt. That is similar
to what we saw in twenty twenty two. It's similar
to what we saw in the GFC. It's similar to
also what we saw in the ninety ninety one recession.
If you go back to the fall of twenty twenty two,
there was despair running around the street. We had something
(06:21):
weird happen with that inflation spike. It wasn't quite a recession.
It ended up being a great buying opportunity that nobody
could even entertain in terms of kind of writing the
sentences out on paper. But that indicator, that just sort
of contrarian impulse, I think is something a lot of
people in the strategy community have in their minds.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Laurie Helpers navigated the earning still to come. So on Friday,
we were going into the hard daya looking for payrolls.
Payrolls came and went. No one's talking about it, no
one's mentioned it for the whole of this morning. For
the Holy Yesterday, when we did special programming, the payrolls
number didn't even come up.
Speaker 6 (06:52):
We moved on quickly. This week it's about earnings.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Are we going to have the same behavior towards earnings
this week when we hear from down to rail lines
on Wednesday? From the banks on Friday? What would you
use earnings this week for come they offer any guidance?
Speaker 3 (07:05):
So, John, I don't think that the earnings this week
we're going to offer much guidance beyond the banks themselves.
You know, I think the airlines always give us some
interesting clues, particularly in regards to consumer behaviors. Of course
we want to pay attention to that, but you know,
to be honest, the banks are not at the center
of this storm. You know, we might hear some things
in terms of trading volume and whatnot, but we knew,
you know, back in early March at our financial conference,
(07:26):
that the banks were in pretty good shape. They were
cognizant of what was going on, and they felt like
they could manage through. So do we see any deviation
from that message. That'll be one thing to look at.
But really, John, what we care about is week two,
Week three, week four, We two, we get more industrials.
They're really more at the center of this storm. We
need to hear what they're saying in terms of how
they manage their supply chains and pricing. You're not even
(07:46):
going to get consumer companies till the end of this
reporting season. You might have a few sprinkled out throughout,
but this can be a long slog.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
There's a lot of hard work to be done.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Companies have done a lousy job of giving the sell side,
analyst community guidance on how to think about tariffs because
that denialism you talked about, John, the companies have been
guilty of this as well, and it's really frozen a
lot of the people who cover stocks on the street,
because when they don't understand what the sensitivities are, they
can't model it.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
And I will tell you I read a lot of transcripts.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Companies have not wanted to talk about anything until it
comes to reality, and we're just now having that reality.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Hit them in the face.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Laurie, you don't have to answer this question if you
don't want to. I don't want to put you in
a tricky spot. But do you think that could be
because these management teams didn't want to get on the
wrong side of the administration? Do you think that was
something that was driving that decision not to share their
thoughts on tariffs? And do you think that'll change in
the coming weeks.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
You know, it's hard for me to speculate on what
that is. I do worry about John.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
About financial markets, and you know, I'm an old political
science major. I study political political theory, and so I'm
a big believer in the free marketplace of ideas, and
I do think we have to have a free market
place of ideas on the street for financial.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Markets to work well. But I think, to be honest,
they have.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Really just not wanted to talk about things until they
knew exactly what they had to talk about if we
sort of look forward. You know, I think the conversation
is going to get started. But I will tell you
one of my analysts last week told me his companies
they're not going to be able to figure out this
in one quarter. It's going to take a couple quarters.
And that was not a comforting thought to me.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Lurie, I appreciate your time as oas thanks for jumping
on for us Lari canvasin event a VAMPI.
Speaker 7 (09:16):
Sat excited to say I'm joined by Ed Mills this
morning of Raymond James, and thank you so.
Speaker 5 (09:30):
Much for joining.
Speaker 7 (09:31):
A big question we have going into this week is
is this a negotiating tactic. This reports in Japan the
Prime Minister will get on the phone with the president
this morning DC time, or are these the new rules
of engagement.
Speaker 8 (09:43):
I think it's a bit of both, and I think
that they need more revenue to go to the tax cuts.
I do think that this is a big part of
trying to change policy and Marie, but I think that
the problem for the President is that a lot of
world leaders are not quite sure that they can negotiate
with him. They look at the meeting between Trudeau Zelenski.
(10:03):
They don't want to be embarrassed. They also don't know
what the president actually wants. He says he doesn't want
a trade deficit, but there's some of these countries that
will never be able to be at par you look
at Vietnam in particular. I think one of the saving
graces potentially is that the only thing that is still
not subject to tariffs are USMCA compliant goods. That was
(10:25):
a deal that he struck in his first term. Is
he trying to send the signal that if I negotiate
a deal that I am willing to stick with it.
The more USMCA goods are excluded, the more he can
lean into that argument.
Speaker 7 (10:37):
The trade deals take years to hammer out. Is the
damage going to be done?
Speaker 8 (10:43):
That's the question for markets, And when I talked to
folks at Raymond James is that they are concerned that
what they thought they understood about President Trump is not
what they're getting. That there is a big concern that
the equity markets are no longer a barometer of his success.
That they are concerned that he is going to be
pushing for a change to the world global order that
(11:04):
has existed since the end of World War II, and
that they are concerned that he might go too far
because his advisors are telling them in his first term
he didn't go fast enough and that he wasn't able
to do the change in the four years that he
was president, and that there is a desire to go stronger,
hold the course and try to push for additional change
(11:24):
that we were not pricing into this market.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Will there be.
Speaker 7 (11:27):
Legal or congressional challenges to the tariff plans.
Speaker 8 (11:30):
I think that there's going to be both. I think
with Congress. Congress has the ability under the National Emergencies
Act to undo this emergency. However, it requires a veto
proof majority. We saw the Senate pass a resolution on
the Canada tariffs last week that was only fifty one
to forty eight. It was a majority, but not veto proof.
If he's not cutting deals, the tensions will grow when
(11:52):
you look to the courts. He used emergency powers JEPA.
Speaker 6 (11:55):
Yeah, AIPA.
Speaker 8 (11:56):
Back in nineteen seventy one, Richard Nixon did the same thing,
used emergency powers to put a worldwide global tariff as
we came off the gold standard. There was a strong
argument there about an unbalanced of payments. Then in nineteen
seventy four, Congress passed a trade Act that said, if
there is an uneven balance of payments, the president's authority
(12:17):
is to use what's known as Section one twenty two,
where you can put a tariff on for one hundred
and fifty days up to fifteen percent one to five.
This is not what the president did here. So did
the president violate the congressional intent? Did the president use
emergency authority when there isn't the subcontext for an emergency authority?
Speaker 1 (12:35):
The problem for me.
Speaker 8 (12:37):
Is that the courts, almost exclusively never say that the
president's emergency action was not legitimate, and that the beef
might be with Congress that the Congress has to make
their action under the National Emergencies Act to turn off
the emergency.
Speaker 7 (12:52):
Saying in Congress, some good news for the administration was
the fact that the Senate passed this budget is going
to go to the House this week. When do you
think we will see extension of tax cuts?
Speaker 8 (13:01):
So I'm always looking for a crisis or deadline in
DC before we act. You look at Republicans and they're
trying to do this with the debt limit. So to me,
that goes right up to the August recess, so probably.
Speaker 6 (13:13):
The June July time period.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
And when you look at that bill, what passed in
the Senate was at least five trillion dollars worth of
tax cuts over the next decade, a three hundred billion
dollar increase in defense, in immigration spending. That would be
the single largest bill in the history of the United States.
And a lot of people look at this and say,
all right, well, this is not going to be stimulative
because it's a continuation of current policy. But when you
(13:36):
add in the changes to no tax on tips, overtime
social security, extension of salt, extension of the child tax credit,
in the business tax credits, I can come up with
a reasonable argument that over the next year or two
that's somewhere between five hundred billion in a trillion dollars
of additional stimulus. That's where the market is going to say,
that's the bull case from here, especially if we start
(13:57):
getting some of these trade deals struck.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Ed wills, Thank you so much from Raymond.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Jeans Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan writing, these
tariffs are going to hurt a lot. They're going to
reshape your life in much more fundamental ways, and pleased
to say that Justin has given us some time this
(14:21):
morning just thin good morning to you, sir. Let's just
breath some life into that quote. When you say this
is going to change people's lives in fundamental ways, what
do you.
Speaker 9 (14:29):
Mean Next time you walk through the supermarket, just pick
up that box of cookies or their pastor or that avocado,
and just look on the side for where it's made.
Even when it says whether it's made in America, think
about whether or ingredients came from and very quickly you'll
discover that every part of our lives is profoundly integrated
(14:50):
with the global economy. And what we now have is
on average twenty percent tax on every interaction we have
with the rest of the world. So we're going to
have to shift what we buy, we shift how much
we can afford, and you know, the rest of the
world's off doing business with each other. This is a
shock very much on Americans.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Justin.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
You said, small tariffs create small problems, and big tariffs
create huge ones. How much of this is just simply
price increases. How much is this a real crimping in
the economy, and how much is this actual supply chain disruptions?
It kin to what we saw during the pandemic.
Speaker 9 (15:27):
Yeah, so Lisa, this one of a few networks so
I can actually come on and talk about it this way.
There's something I hope your viewers remember from when they
took introductory economics, which is that the cost of a
tariff rises in the square of the tariff. So you know,
when we move from one percent to two percent tariffs,
(15:47):
which is basically what we did under the first Trump administration,
it's just not a big deal. You know, if our
two percent tariff can lead you to switch off buying something,
you probably didn't want it that much anyway. But now
we're moving all the way up to twenty percent tariffs.
And so by my calculation, that means that the second
set of the tariffs in the second Trump administration will
(16:09):
literally be fifty times more painful. To put it in
simpler language. In the first Trump administration, if things became
a little bit more expensive, you know, you could sort
of soldier on and a percentage point here, and then
you're not really going to notice here. Every time you
go to purchase something, every part of your supply chain,
every store you visit, you want to ask yourself a
(16:30):
question before you walk in hey to these prices make sense?
Can I afford to keep doing this? Ought to be
looking at a substitute even if it's a substitute I
don't like as much. And that's the sense in which
this is really fundamentally going to change every part of
our lives.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
Which raises the question of what the bigger risk is
right now? Is it stay fleation or is it recession?
And people have been asking this question initially is stay
fleation was the main case? If this really does suppress demand,
at what point are we just talking out a recession?
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Listen.
Speaker 9 (17:01):
I think one of the hard things to do right
now is to interpret the news that we're getting. So
realize that stocks have fallen twelve thirteen percent over the
past a few trading days, but realize they'd already priced
in their best guess at what the Trump tariffs would
look like, and even right now they're pricing in a
very large probability that Trump backs off. So if you
(17:23):
took all of that out, that suggests that markets believe
that the cost of these tariffs are much much larger
than the ten than the twelve or thirteen percent that
markets have subtracted as a result so if they got
clarity that Trump were going to stick with this, it
would be even more calamitous. Look, you raise a really
important question, which is it's a very very asymmetric set
(17:45):
of risks. And so here's the thing Trump doesn't understand,
which is he remembers from when he was young that
there were very not very large, there were large trading
barriers within a number of countries. That's simply not true.
We had decades and decades of aid liberalization and it's
no longer true. So look, heads we win, we can
get a country like Vietnam to get rid of its tariffs,
(18:07):
but realize the gain there is Vietnam is going to
reduce its tariffreate from one point one percent to zero.
Tales we lose. We're facing thirty four percent tariffs on
trying to export stuff from China. So this is a
game where there's not much to win, but there's a
whole heck of a lot to lose.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Justin can we sit on the sources of inflation and
the potential for further price increases when you look across
the economy of various industries, and you mentioned food production
repeatedly through this conversation, are there certain industries where demand
will be high but capacity will continue to be low
and constrained here domestically in the United States that you
would worry about in the coming months.
Speaker 9 (18:46):
Man, I'm just going to tell you, I'm not very
good getting down to the sector bisector staff. So you've
got all sorts of really smart analysts, and so I
reckon you oud oppose it to them.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
I'm sure I'll ask them that question and they would
probably point to what you've pointed to food production, and
that could be the issue going forward from here. That
raises the question about consumer price tolerance justin and maybe
you can speak to that. This is going to be
the interesting interplay for us as we watch financial markets
and how corporations respond in the coming days, the interplay
between margins whether they'll absorb some of this or whether
(19:14):
they'll pass it on consumer price tolerance. Are we in
a different phase of the economic cycle compared to where
we were several years ago, when consumers could absorb some
of the higher costs.
Speaker 9 (19:23):
Made were in a very different place. So, first of all,
during the last downturn, we had enormous amounts of government
support coming and more to the point, we had you know,
through twenty twenty one, a government that, whether you like
it or not, appeared to be competent on its face,
we had no surge in economic uncertainty. Look, one of
(19:46):
the things that's really unnerved to all of us over
the past few days is not just the tariffs. It's
the clown show that's come with it. It's tariff's on penguins,
it's setting tariffs proportional to the bilateral trade deficit, which
Noah on Earth will tell you it's defensible. And then
it's sending out the entire cabinet to the Sunday shows,
where each one of them, on a different network gave
(20:08):
a different rationale for what's going on, basically leaving us
all with the conclusion that the global economy is being
held hostage by the whims of just one man, which
is not usually how we like democracies or economies to work.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Justin, I appreciate your time, sir, as always, and your
honor's response as always, Justin Wolferstan at the University of Michigan.
Macan Draper Barkley's writing this coinflation will likely rise markedly
over the coming months as taris are implemented, labor report
(20:44):
needs to weaken materially for the fat to cut as
much as it's currently priced then by the market. Maganjoin's
is now for more. Megan, gim morning, get to see you,
Good morning, to see you. What changed the chairman pal
over the last week.
Speaker 10 (20:55):
Oh, I mean things have become much cloudier. I think
it's a much more complicated hand that he's been delt.
And frankly, we've downgraded our growth forecast I think in
good company across the street over the course of the
last forty eight hours. So calling for two periods of
negative growth in the second half of this year, or
calling for unemployment to tick back up to four point
six by year end. But the bigger problem for the
(21:17):
Fed is that we're calling for an increase in inflation.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
So it's up four percent on.
Speaker 10 (21:22):
The course EPI number by your end, three seven on
core PCE. But to your point earlier, you know, it's
not really about where inflation is today. I think for Powell,
he's looking out where is inflation a year from now
or two years from now, and looking his legacy as a.
Speaker 5 (21:35):
Piece of that.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
You're running deck capital markets.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
How well supplied does this market been in the lead
up to this and what kind of issuance are you
expecting in the next few months.
Speaker 10 (21:44):
Now, Yeah, you know, this is an a liquidity event
and I think that's the net positive. So if we
look at investment grade markets, is really becoming a safe
harbor for issuers and investors. We started out the year
with a record amount of supply, an all time record.
Why is that it's front loading. It's not a nominal
increase in funding needs, but it was a defensive posturing
(22:05):
I think heading into expectations that this year would be
choppy to navigate, and so you think about you know,
the issuers we're talking to as on the road the
last week, talking to CFOs and treasures, they're very defensively
positioned heading into this, which netnet is a positive. You know,
they have extended their maturity profiles. You're watching EBITDAH margins
(22:25):
that are upwards of thirty percent still in it's far
above two thousand and four highs, and you know, at
the end of the day, they're appealing to investors who
are flushed with liquidity.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
So you talk to the buy side.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
You know, the silver lining, the bright spot, and the
noise we saw in the last forty eight hours. Is
that investors continue to have cash to spend. Why there's
four hundred billion of coupon and come back coming back
into investor's hands this year, they've got record COVID debt maturing.
That's all cash coming back into investors pockets. And so
we saw actually net buying over the course of Friday session,
(22:58):
as bad as it felt in their places, you know,
two and a half billion of net buying.
Speaker 5 (23:03):
It's pretty astonishing.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Well, we've also seen deals pulled. People have been companies
have been planning to issue certain deals and have decided
maybe they ought to wait till another time because this
might not be the best week in the world. Does
that concern you or is this just a timing for
the best price kind of issue? And if they needed
to and wanted to, they probably could just a small
haircut to what they would like.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (23:23):
I mean in investment grade, we haven't had deals pulled,
but they've been postponed. So we're evaluating entry points. And
it's really three camps I think emerging as I talked
to issuers. The first are yield centric investors, and so
you look at these moves and underlying treasury yields.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
It's more than offset spread widening.
Speaker 10 (23:40):
We've seen an investment grade, so you know, in mid January,
you know, four seventy eight on the tenure note. You know,
four percent or sub four percent feels like a reasonably
good entry point, even if you need to pay higher
new issue concessions to appeal to some of that liquidity.
Speaker 5 (23:55):
Then you got spread focused borrowers.
Speaker 10 (23:57):
I think there it's a bit more defensive shelter in place,
if you will. But in talking to what are largely
bank buyers in that subset of issuers, many of them
are already forty to sixty percent through their funding needs
for the year.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
There's no real urgency here. We're not seeing any signs
of panic.
Speaker 10 (24:13):
And then there are others that are just flush with
cash and I think maybe disappointed that business investment is slowing,
but all in all, I think well positioned and willing
to write out the storm.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
There's a larger question here. You said that there's plenty
of cash in the investor base is looking for good investments.
A lot of the investor base used to be overseas,
Japan in particular, and there's a real question, and John
was alluding to it, earlier. Will some international buyers withdraw
their interest from the US markets on the heels of
a whole host of different policies as well as currency differentials.
(24:45):
Are you seeing any signs of that.
Speaker 10 (24:48):
It's a great point, and I think it's something we
need to continue to closely monitor. So retaliation may not
be just as it relates to tariffs, may actually be
as it relates to investment in US assets.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
And the largest growth of.
Speaker 10 (25:00):
Underpinning to demand an investment grade credit has come from
overseas investors. It's twenty to twenty five percent of the market,
so not insubstantial. On the new issue side, it's probably
fifteen percent of the order books that we'll be seeing.
It's about forty percent of that is Europe, about twenty
five percent of that it's Asia, and then you've got
ten percent or so from Canada. The mitigans to that
(25:20):
money moving away from investment grade credit are really two
or threefold. One is they already own twenty to twenty
five percent. So are you really working against your own
book by pairing back or not showing up to not
showing up to the new issues that emerge here. On
the other hand, it's one of the few places you
can source duration, and it's also the most liquid market
(25:41):
around the globe, so eight and a half trillion of assets,
it would be difficult, I think, to move back to
their whole markets. We did see one or two instances
of smaller size real money pension investors on principle stepping
back from the market last week, but it's a small
fraction and net net six and a half of net
buying over the course of the week says it was
dropping the bucket in terms of those who paired back.
Speaker 5 (26:02):
But certainly something we need to keep an eye on.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Race is the question where asked you go my gape
and it was just on just pig me on the
Bloomberg terminal said trades only a fraction of US GDP
compared to other countries. The larger revisions may come outside
the US, and it may be more of a global
recession story than a US one.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
That's something we have to think about. I think.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Over the last two months or so, we just talked
about trade, looked at the market move. The market was
basically the bias for everyone to frame their own view
on what was happening at the moment. Equities were under
performing in America outperforming in Europe. Everyone talked about the
pain in the United States over the past week or so.
We've only just started to talk about the pain abroad
in Europe, stocks down hard, Japan, in China.
Speaker 6 (26:40):
That's a new phase of this story.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
This was what people thought would happen, like late last year,
where they were looking at a potential terror regime, the
US sneezes and the rest of the world catches it
called that was upended partly because people a didn't believe
that these tariffs would go on, and B we're so
excited about the idea that Germany was going to spend
money that it seemed like the whole world could be
a brighter place with fiscal stimulus. On some level, there
(27:02):
is this issue of whether this is the right sizing
and the unwind of some of that capital shift that
we saw.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
Earlier this year.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Megan, this was a clinic. It's great to cant show
with you. Thanks for your time, Thank you very much,
making great for their of Barclays. This is the Bloomberg
Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angiot 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,
(27:30):
and as always, on the Bloomberg terminal and the Bloomberg
Business app.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
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
(00:34):
Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. Harry Cavasina of RBC writing,
we are lowering our year end twenty five price targets
of fifty five to fifty from sixty two hundred, essentially
making our old bare case our new base case. Lurie
joined us now for more, and Laurier have to say
that old bear case, which is the new base case,
is sounding like the bullcase based on the moose we've
(00:54):
seen over the past few days. How you're reflecting on
things over the weekend.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
It's a great question, and I was actually talking to
my energy trader, and the days are all bleeding together
at this point. I think it was on Friday, and
you know, we sort of discussed how we went from
stagflation in terms of people's thinking to recession in about
two seconds. And I've never seen anything like it where
you've just seen the mentality shift so much so quickly.
But I will caution you that is what happens in
(01:20):
growth spheres, and that is what we are Smack Dad
in the middle of the seventeen point four percent draw
down that we saw as of Friday was exactly in
line with the average drawdown that we saw in twenty ten,
twenty eleven, twenty fifteen, sixteen, and twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Of course, that twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Went all the way down twenty percent, which would take
us around forty nine hundred on the S ANDP. This
time around, I think just a touch under. And so
this is what it feels like. You know, we have
this tiers of fear framework we've talked about to help
us navigate. We're in tier two. Tier one is the
garden variety pullback. Tier two is the growth fhere. Tier
three is recession. And so we have increasingly been talking
(01:52):
to people, if we break through that twenty percent number,
what does recession look like? If you look at the
average and the media and draw down it's about twenty
seven and thirty two percent. It's taken out of forty
two hundred and forty five hundred on the S and P.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
We could do that. It's not unreasonable to be thinking.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
About that, Laurie. We know how to price growth scarce.
We're okay at that. We're fairly decent at knowing what
a recession might look like, though we haven't seen many
over the last twenty years. That's a shock to the cycle.
The issue that we've been trying to get our hands
around is how to price a shock to the system
because of these are the new rules of the game.
This is a change we haven't seen for decades, Lourie,
How different is that?
Speaker 1 (02:28):
So I think it's a great question. John.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
And as I've been, you know, talking to investors over
the past month, and we've been talking, we were talking
about how.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
That tier two fear was rising. One of the thoughts
that occurred to.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Me, and I didn't like to say this out loud
all that often, but it had felt a bit to
me like this was January of twenty twenty, where there
was something coming that we didn't quite know what it was.
I will give you one bit of you know, comfort
from that twenty twenty period, which was that that ended
up being a garden variety recession in the thirties and
terms of the drawdown from peak. And I know it
(02:58):
doesn't make us all feel happy for me to say
that out loud right now, but it does give me
a little bit of comfort. If you really want to
talk about big crises, we don't have a big sample
size on those. You know, We've got things like the
tech bubble, We've got things like the GFC. You basically
see the market lose hap its value. I'm not saying
that's what's going to happen, but as we sort of explore,
you know, the depths that we could go, that is
(03:20):
the one outside of recession that you want to look at.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
You said, Laurie in your recent note that full recession
pricing could be a drawdown of some twenty seven to
thirty two percent based on historical standards, which would take
the index down to forty two hundred to forty five hundred.
What would you have to see to start entertaining the
idea of that being a base case?
Speaker 3 (03:40):
So look, I think the street and we talked about
this in our target note. We changed our target on
Friday morning. It was clear to us on Thursday that that,
you know, things were not going to hold in that
garden variety territory. But the reality is that the street
right now is really doing a lot of hard work
modeling out what the economic impacts are.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
And so we've got the impacts.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
From the tariffs, but then we've also got secondary impacts, right,
We've got impacts from all the uncertainty we've just had.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
We've got secondary impacts. Even if the.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Tariffs get dialed down, there's still secondary impacts from the
uncertainty that will be there going forward. This is a
very very tough thing for the economics community to model.
They're working through it now, and I will remind you, Lisa,
a week ago, we were also all sitting here saying
we've seen all this deterioration and the soft data, what
about the hard data. We still haven't really seen any
hard data yet for the recent impacts of all that uncertainty.
(04:30):
So we need that baseline to come out in this
hard data to really understand what the damage is going
to be.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
At the same time that we're talking in these sort
of catastrophic terms. I want to go back to the
call that you actually made, which is gains on the
S and F through the end of this year. What
gives you hope or confidence that actually there is going
to be some sort of rally.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
What is the relief valve.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
That you think Stymy's what this is as you frame
a growth scare.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
So, look, there are two things that you can look at.
One of them I buy into the other that I don't.
I think that the thing that you know, and we've
seen strategists you know, start to take their numbers down,
A lot have not, and I think one of the
reasons why a lot have not is because there is
an understanding if you've been in this business long enough,
that as fast as you go down, you can rally
just as fast on the other side once something happens,
(05:18):
once there's some sort of policy intervention, once there's some
sort of change, And so I think that's keeping people,
you know, somewhat. I don't want to use the word complacent,
because that's not what it is. It's a legitimate thing
to worry about. But I do think the trigger in
terms of the fundamentals for that is this idea that
we get back to tax, that we get back to deregulation,
that somehow this storm passes and we get to the
(05:38):
promised lands of those business friendly things.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
I'm not so excited about that.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
But I will tell you the thing in my modeling, Lisa,
that sort of keeps me sympathetic to that kind of
V shaped type move, or at least on guard for
it a little bit, is the idea that if you
look at aaii netbulls, they are a very very good
contrarian indicator.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
If you're looking on a forward, say nine.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
Month basis or twelve month basis, and we are down
more than two standard deviations below the long term average.
We have been there since the end of February. In
terms of how lousy people have felt. That is similar
to what we saw in twenty twenty two. It's similar
to what we saw in the GFC. It's similar to
also what we saw in the ninety ninety one recession.
If you go back to the fall of twenty twenty two,
there was despair running around the street. We had something
(06:21):
weird happen with that inflation spike. It wasn't quite a recession.
It ended up being a great buying opportunity that nobody
could even entertain in terms of kind of writing the
sentences out on paper. But that indicator, that just sort
of contrarian impulse, I think is something a lot of
people in the strategy community have in their minds.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Laurie Helpers navigated the earning still to come. So on Friday,
we were going into the hard daya looking for payrolls.
Payrolls came and went. No one's talking about it, no
one's mentioned it for the whole of this morning. For
the Holy Yesterday, when we did special programming, the payrolls
number didn't even come up.
Speaker 6 (06:52):
We moved on quickly. This week it's about earnings.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Are we going to have the same behavior towards earnings
this week when we hear from down to rail lines
on Wednesday? From the banks on Friday? What would you
use earnings this week for come they offer any guidance?
Speaker 3 (07:05):
So, John, I don't think that the earnings this week
we're going to offer much guidance beyond the banks themselves.
You know, I think the airlines always give us some
interesting clues, particularly in regards to consumer behaviors. Of course
we want to pay attention to that, but you know,
to be honest, the banks are not at the center
of this storm. You know, we might hear some things
in terms of trading volume and whatnot, but we knew,
you know, back in early March at our financial conference,
(07:26):
that the banks were in pretty good shape. They were
cognizant of what was going on, and they felt like
they could manage through. So do we see any deviation
from that message. That'll be one thing to look at.
But really, John, what we care about is week two,
Week three, week four, We two, we get more industrials.
They're really more at the center of this storm. We
need to hear what they're saying in terms of how
they manage their supply chains and pricing. You're not even
(07:46):
going to get consumer companies till the end of this
reporting season. You might have a few sprinkled out throughout,
but this can be a long slog.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
There's a lot of hard work to be done.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Companies have done a lousy job of giving the sell side,
analyst community guidance on how to think about tariffs because
that denialism you talked about, John, the companies have been
guilty of this as well, and it's really frozen a
lot of the people who cover stocks on the street,
because when they don't understand what the sensitivities are, they
can't model it.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
And I will tell you I read a lot of transcripts.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Companies have not wanted to talk about anything until it
comes to reality, and we're just now having that reality.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Hit them in the face.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Laurie, you don't have to answer this question if you
don't want to. I don't want to put you in
a tricky spot. But do you think that could be
because these management teams didn't want to get on the
wrong side of the administration? Do you think that was
something that was driving that decision not to share their
thoughts on tariffs? And do you think that'll change in
the coming weeks.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
You know, it's hard for me to speculate on what
that is. I do worry about John.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
About financial markets, and you know, I'm an old political
science major. I study political political theory, and so I'm
a big believer in the free marketplace of ideas, and
I do think we have to have a free market
place of ideas on the street for financial.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
Markets to work well. But I think, to be honest,
they have.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
Really just not wanted to talk about things until they
knew exactly what they had to talk about if we
sort of look forward. You know, I think the conversation
is going to get started. But I will tell you
one of my analysts last week told me his companies
they're not going to be able to figure out this
in one quarter. It's going to take a couple quarters.
And that was not a comforting thought to me.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Lurie, I appreciate your time as oas thanks for jumping
on for us Lari canvasin event a VAMPI.
Speaker 7 (09:16):
Sat excited to say I'm joined by Ed Mills this
morning of Raymond James, and thank you so.
Speaker 5 (09:30):
Much for joining.
Speaker 7 (09:31):
A big question we have going into this week is
is this a negotiating tactic. This reports in Japan the
Prime Minister will get on the phone with the president
this morning DC time, or are these the new rules
of engagement.
Speaker 8 (09:43):
I think it's a bit of both, and I think
that they need more revenue to go to the tax cuts.
I do think that this is a big part of
trying to change policy and Marie, but I think that
the problem for the President is that a lot of
world leaders are not quite sure that they can negotiate
with him. They look at the meeting between Trudeau Zelenski.
(10:03):
They don't want to be embarrassed. They also don't know
what the president actually wants. He says he doesn't want
a trade deficit, but there's some of these countries that
will never be able to be at par you look
at Vietnam in particular. I think one of the saving
graces potentially is that the only thing that is still
not subject to tariffs are USMCA compliant goods. That was
(10:25):
a deal that he struck in his first term. Is
he trying to send the signal that if I negotiate
a deal that I am willing to stick with it.
The more USMCA goods are excluded, the more he can
lean into that argument.
Speaker 7 (10:37):
The trade deals take years to hammer out. Is the
damage going to be done?
Speaker 8 (10:43):
That's the question for markets, And when I talked to
folks at Raymond James is that they are concerned that
what they thought they understood about President Trump is not
what they're getting. That there is a big concern that
the equity markets are no longer a barometer of his success.
That they are concerned that he is going to be
pushing for a change to the world global order that
(11:04):
has existed since the end of World War II, and
that they are concerned that he might go too far
because his advisors are telling them in his first term
he didn't go fast enough and that he wasn't able
to do the change in the four years that he
was president, and that there is a desire to go stronger,
hold the course and try to push for additional change
(11:24):
that we were not pricing into this market.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
Will there be.
Speaker 7 (11:27):
Legal or congressional challenges to the tariff plans.
Speaker 8 (11:30):
I think that there's going to be both. I think
with Congress. Congress has the ability under the National Emergencies
Act to undo this emergency. However, it requires a veto
proof majority. We saw the Senate pass a resolution on
the Canada tariffs last week that was only fifty one
to forty eight. It was a majority, but not veto proof.
If he's not cutting deals, the tensions will grow when
(11:52):
you look to the courts. He used emergency powers JEPA.
Speaker 6 (11:55):
Yeah, AIPA.
Speaker 8 (11:56):
Back in nineteen seventy one, Richard Nixon did the same thing,
used emergency powers to put a worldwide global tariff as
we came off the gold standard. There was a strong
argument there about an unbalanced of payments. Then in nineteen
seventy four, Congress passed a trade Act that said, if
there is an uneven balance of payments, the president's authority
(12:17):
is to use what's known as Section one twenty two,
where you can put a tariff on for one hundred
and fifty days up to fifteen percent one to five.
This is not what the president did here. So did
the president violate the congressional intent? Did the president use
emergency authority when there isn't the subcontext for an emergency authority?
Speaker 1 (12:35):
The problem for me.
Speaker 8 (12:37):
Is that the courts, almost exclusively never say that the
president's emergency action was not legitimate, and that the beef
might be with Congress that the Congress has to make
their action under the National Emergencies Act to turn off
the emergency.
Speaker 7 (12:52):
Saying in Congress, some good news for the administration was
the fact that the Senate passed this budget is going
to go to the House this week. When do you
think we will see extension of tax cuts?
Speaker 8 (13:01):
So I'm always looking for a crisis or deadline in
DC before we act. You look at Republicans and they're
trying to do this with the debt limit. So to me,
that goes right up to the August recess, so probably.
Speaker 6 (13:13):
The June July time period.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
And when you look at that bill, what passed in
the Senate was at least five trillion dollars worth of
tax cuts over the next decade, a three hundred billion
dollar increase in defense, in immigration spending. That would be
the single largest bill in the history of the United States.
And a lot of people look at this and say,
all right, well, this is not going to be stimulative
because it's a continuation of current policy. But when you
(13:36):
add in the changes to no tax on tips, overtime
social security, extension of salt, extension of the child tax credit,
in the business tax credits, I can come up with
a reasonable argument that over the next year or two
that's somewhere between five hundred billion in a trillion dollars
of additional stimulus. That's where the market is going to say,
that's the bull case from here, especially if we start
(13:57):
getting some of these trade deals struck.
Speaker 1 (13:59):
Ed wills, Thank you so much from Raymond.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Jeans Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan writing, these
tariffs are going to hurt a lot. They're going to
reshape your life in much more fundamental ways, and pleased
to say that Justin has given us some time this
(14:21):
morning just thin good morning to you, sir. Let's just
breath some life into that quote. When you say this
is going to change people's lives in fundamental ways, what
do you.
Speaker 9 (14:29):
Mean Next time you walk through the supermarket, just pick
up that box of cookies or their pastor or that avocado,
and just look on the side for where it's made.
Even when it says whether it's made in America, think
about whether or ingredients came from and very quickly you'll
discover that every part of our lives is profoundly integrated
(14:50):
with the global economy. And what we now have is
on average twenty percent tax on every interaction we have
with the rest of the world. So we're going to
have to shift what we buy, we shift how much
we can afford, and you know, the rest of the
world's off doing business with each other. This is a
shock very much on Americans.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Justin.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
You said, small tariffs create small problems, and big tariffs
create huge ones. How much of this is just simply
price increases. How much is this a real crimping in
the economy, and how much is this actual supply chain disruptions?
It kin to what we saw during the pandemic.
Speaker 9 (15:27):
Yeah, so Lisa, this one of a few networks so
I can actually come on and talk about it this way.
There's something I hope your viewers remember from when they
took introductory economics, which is that the cost of a
tariff rises in the square of the tariff. So you know,
when we move from one percent to two percent tariffs,
(15:47):
which is basically what we did under the first Trump administration,
it's just not a big deal. You know, if our
two percent tariff can lead you to switch off buying something,
you probably didn't want it that much anyway. But now
we're moving all the way up to twenty percent tariffs.
And so by my calculation, that means that the second
set of the tariffs in the second Trump administration will
(16:09):
literally be fifty times more painful. To put it in
simpler language. In the first Trump administration, if things became
a little bit more expensive, you know, you could sort
of soldier on and a percentage point here, and then
you're not really going to notice here. Every time you
go to purchase something, every part of your supply chain,
every store you visit, you want to ask yourself a
(16:30):
question before you walk in hey to these prices make sense?
Can I afford to keep doing this? Ought to be
looking at a substitute even if it's a substitute I
don't like as much. And that's the sense in which
this is really fundamentally going to change every part of
our lives.
Speaker 4 (16:44):
Which raises the question of what the bigger risk is
right now? Is it stay fleation or is it recession?
And people have been asking this question initially is stay
fleation was the main case? If this really does suppress demand,
at what point are we just talking out a recession?
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Listen.
Speaker 9 (17:01):
I think one of the hard things to do right
now is to interpret the news that we're getting. So
realize that stocks have fallen twelve thirteen percent over the
past a few trading days, but realize they'd already priced
in their best guess at what the Trump tariffs would
look like, and even right now they're pricing in a
very large probability that Trump backs off. So if you
(17:23):
took all of that out, that suggests that markets believe
that the cost of these tariffs are much much larger
than the ten than the twelve or thirteen percent that
markets have subtracted as a result so if they got
clarity that Trump were going to stick with this, it
would be even more calamitous. Look, you raise a really
important question, which is it's a very very asymmetric set
(17:45):
of risks. And so here's the thing Trump doesn't understand,
which is he remembers from when he was young that
there were very not very large, there were large trading
barriers within a number of countries. That's simply not true.
We had decades and decades of aid liberalization and it's
no longer true. So look, heads we win, we can
get a country like Vietnam to get rid of its tariffs,
(18:07):
but realize the gain there is Vietnam is going to
reduce its tariffreate from one point one percent to zero.
Tales we lose. We're facing thirty four percent tariffs on
trying to export stuff from China. So this is a
game where there's not much to win, but there's a
whole heck of a lot to lose.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Justin can we sit on the sources of inflation and
the potential for further price increases when you look across
the economy of various industries, and you mentioned food production
repeatedly through this conversation, are there certain industries where demand
will be high but capacity will continue to be low
and constrained here domestically in the United States that you
would worry about in the coming months.
Speaker 9 (18:46):
Man, I'm just going to tell you, I'm not very
good getting down to the sector bisector staff. So you've
got all sorts of really smart analysts, and so I
reckon you oud oppose it to them.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
I'm sure I'll ask them that question and they would
probably point to what you've pointed to food production, and
that could be the issue going forward from here. That
raises the question about consumer price tolerance justin and maybe
you can speak to that. This is going to be
the interesting interplay for us as we watch financial markets
and how corporations respond in the coming days, the interplay
between margins whether they'll absorb some of this or whether
(19:14):
they'll pass it on consumer price tolerance. Are we in
a different phase of the economic cycle compared to where
we were several years ago, when consumers could absorb some
of the higher costs.
Speaker 9 (19:23):
Made were in a very different place. So, first of all,
during the last downturn, we had enormous amounts of government
support coming and more to the point, we had you know,
through twenty twenty one, a government that, whether you like
it or not, appeared to be competent on its face,
we had no surge in economic uncertainty. Look, one of
(19:46):
the things that's really unnerved to all of us over
the past few days is not just the tariffs. It's
the clown show that's come with it. It's tariff's on penguins,
it's setting tariffs proportional to the bilateral trade deficit, which
Noah on Earth will tell you it's defensible. And then
it's sending out the entire cabinet to the Sunday shows,
where each one of them, on a different network gave
(20:08):
a different rationale for what's going on, basically leaving us
all with the conclusion that the global economy is being
held hostage by the whims of just one man, which
is not usually how we like democracies or economies to work.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
Justin, I appreciate your time, sir, as always, and your
honor's response as always, Justin Wolferstan at the University of Michigan.
Macan Draper Barkley's writing this coinflation will likely rise markedly
over the coming months as taris are implemented, labor report
(20:44):
needs to weaken materially for the fat to cut as
much as it's currently priced then by the market. Maganjoin's
is now for more. Megan, gim morning, get to see you,
Good morning, to see you. What changed the chairman pal
over the last week.
Speaker 10 (20:55):
Oh, I mean things have become much cloudier. I think
it's a much more complicated hand that he's been delt.
And frankly, we've downgraded our growth forecast I think in
good company across the street over the course of the
last forty eight hours. So calling for two periods of
negative growth in the second half of this year, or
calling for unemployment to tick back up to four point
six by year end. But the bigger problem for the
(21:17):
Fed is that we're calling for an increase in inflation.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
So it's up four percent on.
Speaker 10 (21:22):
The course EPI number by your end, three seven on
core PCE. But to your point earlier, you know, it's
not really about where inflation is today. I think for Powell,
he's looking out where is inflation a year from now
or two years from now, and looking his legacy as a.
Speaker 5 (21:35):
Piece of that.
Speaker 6 (21:36):
You're running deck capital markets.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
How well supplied does this market been in the lead
up to this and what kind of issuance are you
expecting in the next few months.
Speaker 10 (21:44):
Now, Yeah, you know, this is an a liquidity event
and I think that's the net positive. So if we
look at investment grade markets, is really becoming a safe
harbor for issuers and investors. We started out the year
with a record amount of supply, an all time record.
Why is that it's front loading. It's not a nominal
increase in funding needs, but it was a defensive posturing
(22:05):
I think heading into expectations that this year would be
choppy to navigate, and so you think about you know,
the issuers we're talking to as on the road the
last week, talking to CFOs and treasures, they're very defensively
positioned heading into this, which netnet is a positive. You know,
they have extended their maturity profiles. You're watching EBITDAH margins
(22:25):
that are upwards of thirty percent still in it's far
above two thousand and four highs, and you know, at
the end of the day, they're appealing to investors who
are flushed with liquidity.
Speaker 5 (22:36):
So you talk to the buy side.
Speaker 10 (22:37):
You know, the silver lining, the bright spot, and the
noise we saw in the last forty eight hours. Is
that investors continue to have cash to spend. Why there's
four hundred billion of coupon and come back coming back
into investor's hands this year, they've got record COVID debt maturing.
That's all cash coming back into investors pockets. And so
we saw actually net buying over the course of Friday session,
(22:58):
as bad as it felt in their places, you know,
two and a half billion of net buying.
Speaker 5 (23:03):
It's pretty astonishing.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
Well, we've also seen deals pulled. People have been companies
have been planning to issue certain deals and have decided
maybe they ought to wait till another time because this
might not be the best week in the world. Does
that concern you or is this just a timing for
the best price kind of issue? And if they needed
to and wanted to, they probably could just a small
haircut to what they would like.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 10 (23:23):
I mean in investment grade, we haven't had deals pulled,
but they've been postponed. So we're evaluating entry points. And
it's really three camps I think emerging as I talked
to issuers. The first are yield centric investors, and so
you look at these moves and underlying treasury yields.
Speaker 5 (23:37):
It's more than offset spread widening.
Speaker 10 (23:40):
We've seen an investment grade, so you know, in mid January,
you know, four seventy eight on the tenure note. You know,
four percent or sub four percent feels like a reasonably
good entry point, even if you need to pay higher
new issue concessions to appeal to some of that liquidity.
Speaker 5 (23:55):
Then you got spread focused borrowers.
Speaker 10 (23:57):
I think there it's a bit more defensive shelter in place,
if you will. But in talking to what are largely
bank buyers in that subset of issuers, many of them
are already forty to sixty percent through their funding needs
for the year.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
There's no real urgency here. We're not seeing any signs
of panic.
Speaker 10 (24:13):
And then there are others that are just flush with
cash and I think maybe disappointed that business investment is slowing,
but all in all, I think well positioned and willing
to write out the storm.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
There's a larger question here. You said that there's plenty
of cash in the investor base is looking for good investments.
A lot of the investor base used to be overseas,
Japan in particular, and there's a real question, and John
was alluding to it, earlier. Will some international buyers withdraw
their interest from the US markets on the heels of
a whole host of different policies as well as currency differentials.
(24:45):
Are you seeing any signs of that.
Speaker 10 (24:48):
It's a great point, and I think it's something we
need to continue to closely monitor. So retaliation may not
be just as it relates to tariffs, may actually be
as it relates to investment in US assets.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
And the largest growth of.
Speaker 10 (25:00):
Underpinning to demand an investment grade credit has come from
overseas investors. It's twenty to twenty five percent of the market,
so not insubstantial. On the new issue side, it's probably
fifteen percent of the order books that we'll be seeing.
It's about forty percent of that is Europe, about twenty
five percent of that it's Asia, and then you've got
ten percent or so from Canada. The mitigans to that
(25:20):
money moving away from investment grade credit are really two
or threefold. One is they already own twenty to twenty
five percent. So are you really working against your own
book by pairing back or not showing up to not
showing up to the new issues that emerge here. On
the other hand, it's one of the few places you
can source duration, and it's also the most liquid market
(25:41):
around the globe, so eight and a half trillion of assets,
it would be difficult, I think, to move back to
their whole markets. We did see one or two instances
of smaller size real money pension investors on principle stepping
back from the market last week, but it's a small
fraction and net net six and a half of net
buying over the course of the week says it was
dropping the bucket in terms of those who paired back.
Speaker 5 (26:02):
But certainly something we need to keep an eye on.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Race is the question where asked you go my gape
and it was just on just pig me on the
Bloomberg terminal said trades only a fraction of US GDP
compared to other countries. The larger revisions may come outside
the US, and it may be more of a global
recession story than a US one.
Speaker 6 (26:18):
That's something we have to think about. I think.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
Over the last two months or so, we just talked
about trade, looked at the market move. The market was
basically the bias for everyone to frame their own view
on what was happening at the moment. Equities were under
performing in America outperforming in Europe. Everyone talked about the
pain in the United States over the past week or so.
We've only just started to talk about the pain abroad
in Europe, stocks down hard, Japan, in China.
Speaker 6 (26:40):
That's a new phase of this story.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
This was what people thought would happen, like late last year,
where they were looking at a potential terror regime, the
US sneezes and the rest of the world catches it
called that was upended partly because people a didn't believe
that these tariffs would go on, and B we're so
excited about the idea that Germany was going to spend
money that it seemed like the whole world could be
a brighter place with fiscal stimulus. On some level, there
(27:02):
is this issue of whether this is the right sizing
and the unwind of some of that capital shift that
we saw.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
Earlier this year.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Megan, this was a clinic. It's great to cant show
with you. Thanks for your time, Thank you very much,
making great for their of Barclays. This is the Bloomberg
Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angiot 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,
(27:30):
and as always, on the Bloomberg terminal and the Bloomberg
Business app.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.