December 11, 2025 • 24 mins
Featuring:
- Howard Marks, Co-Founder & Co-Chairman, Oaktree
- Libby Cantrill, Managing Director - Head of Public Policy, PIMCO
- Michelle Meyer, Mastercard Chief Economist
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 (00:02):
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 Amerie 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.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Howard Marks, co founder and co chairman of oak Tree
Capital Market, issuing a warning at his latest memo, I
find the resulting outlook for employment terrifying. I am enormously
concerned about what will happen to the people whose jobs
AI renders unnecessary or who can't find jobs because of
it at this moment of transformation. Howard joins us now
after writing a memo that I really recommend everybody read.
(00:58):
It really was one of the absolute best you've ever written.
Thank you for being here with us, So I can
stop now, No, please don't, I want to keep reading
your membos. I want to start with this idea of
different types of bubbles, and you talk about there are
productive bubbles and unproductive bubbles. What's the difference and how
does that make it either something you want to invest
in or not.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Well.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
I think that the unproductive bubbles I would describe as
financial fads. Portfolio insurance was one, subprime mortgages was another.
Just you know, financial activities that become fashionable, zoom into popularity,
get over hyped, and then recede. But then there are
(01:44):
bubbles which are based on technological progress, the starting with
the steam engine, the railroad, the radio, the automobile, computers, internet, etc.
And these actually push society ahead and change it irreversibly.
But in the process there is a bubble surrounding their implementation,
(02:06):
which is overly accelerated and overly financed and goes to
excess and end up destroying a lot of capital, but
leave society greatly changed. And I'm sure that AI is
in the latter category in terms of effect on society.
And the question is will the implementation prove to have
(02:29):
been excessive in scope and in the way it's financed.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Just because something is excessive doesn't mean that you can't
invest in it.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
No, But.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
When investors hate everything and we'll touch it with the
ten foot poll, chances are it's going to be on
sale because nobody has pushed up the price. In fact,
their disinterest has pushed down the price. But when everybody
likes something, he's excited about something, chances are it may
be overhyped and overpriced.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
So you just have to be careful. So that's where
we are right now.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
You said you can invest and you campaticipate, but you
just have to be careful. What does being careful look like?
Does it mean focusing more on debt versus equities, more
on equities versus debt, more on small companies versus big ones.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
What does that look like?
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Well, what I say in the memo is that it's
okay to lend for activities even if they're uncertain, but
not if they are if the outcomes are purely conjectural.
I mean, in order to be a smart lender, you
have to have good visibility on the extent to which
(03:36):
the thing is likely to repay interest. In principle, if
it's just purely conjectural, it's not you shouldn't be a lender.
And in fact, I think the memo says that where
that's the case, you should actually, if you want to participate,
you should be in the equity so at least you
get the upside.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
The lender has no upside.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
You make it a nine percent own all you're going
to get is nine percent, no matter how well the
thing does.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
You certainly shouldn't do that in activities that have a high.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Probability of not paying off at all, because then you
have unlimited downside and limited upside. That's absolutely the wrong combination.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
So you think, right now, in some circumstances, the equity
might actually be a better option than the debt because
of that potential level.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Exactly, because the point is that if you go into
some startup which has a possibility, you know, let's say
a small possibility of a raging success, you know you
wouldn't lend to it because you have a high probability
of losing all your money and no probability of participating
in the success.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
That's a bad trade.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
So you always talk about this risk reward pendulum, the
risk and fear, this sort of fear and greed pendulum.
Right now, and yesterday we saw Oracle come out and
talk about having to borrow more money, having to spend
more and people are selling off the shares.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Does this make you feel good?
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Does this make you feel like there actually is some discretion?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well?
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Well, yeah, well I think that I think that it's
you know, Buffett says, the less prudence for which others
conductor affairs, the greater the prudence with which we must
conduct our own affairs. So when other people are acting
imprudently and mindlessly and care free, we should be worried.
When other people are showing appropriate concern, that's a positive
(05:28):
sign that the market is applying some discipline. The greatest
some of the greatest moments that I've seen, some of
the greatest signals of danger in the markets have been
when people were not applying any prudence at all, like
in six for example. So if people are reacting harshly
to aggressive, possibly risk indicating activities, yes, that's a healthy sign.
(05:56):
And this market is seems healthy year than the two
thousand market.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
To me, How concerned are you that we get a
federal reserve that's more accommodative for a variety of reasons
that leads to even more risk taking. This idea that
not only did the Fed cut rates indicated more rate
cuts but also is adding to its balance sheet in
a way that could potentially prop up demand.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
Well, you know, I was thinking about this when I
was waiting to see you today. You know, most of
the people listening to this program, including me and you,
are interested in the free markets, and we think free
markets should set the prices of things. And the FED
(06:40):
manipulations are a form of price controls. You know, they
control the price of money. And if the FED puts
money artificially cheap, then it induces behavior like risk taking.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
It forces people into risk.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Of your activities because the returns on safe activities are
so low. It tends to reinforce the view that there's
a FED put that if there's a problem, the FED
will solve it, and that contributes to risky behavior.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
These are all bad things.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
And you know, I believe that the FED should be
passive most of the time and only come to the
rescue if the market is if the economy is seriously
overheated and tending towards hyperinflation, or seriously under active and
(07:35):
not creating jobs. I don't think that's the case right now.
I don't think there's a and you can see in
the divided Open Market Committee that there's a difference of opinion.
So I don't think that action on the part of
the Fed is compelling right now. And you know, there
are people who think that rates should be a lot
lower than they are today.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
I just don't see that the merit in that right now.
Going forward.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I remember back in two thousand and fifteen, sixteen seventeen,
more rates were incredibly low. You were saying people just
need to lower their expectations for returns because ultimately you
have to look at the risk free rate. You don't
want to reach too much at a time where people
are greedy. Where are we right now in terms of
what types of returns people ought to expect based on
(08:20):
the current income rates?
Speaker 4 (08:22):
Well, the lower base interest rates are everything scales off that,
so you know, I mean the FED funds rate at
three and a half is below history. It's these are
not high rates, They're only high relatives the last fifteen years.
But this is a low rate, So everything scales off that.
(08:47):
Most things will give moderate returns in the dead area.
I think prospective returns are moderate, okay, not lush, but
not inadequate. The trouble is that the S and P,
based on its pe ratio relative to history, appears to
(09:08):
be priced to provide a very low prospective return. Historically,
if you bought at this pe ratio, your return over
the next ten years averaged in the very low single digits.
So I think we're in a moderate return scenario. The
(09:29):
problem is that how do you get a high return
in a moderate return scenario? And most people's resort is
to take a lot more risk, and that's something I
don't like to do, other than when it's compelling.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
You had a personal note in a dentum at the end,
and we let off with that idea of what artificial
intelligence and machine learning will do to the labor market,
it's something clearly on the Fed's mind, clearly on investor's mind,
talking about concerns that there is going to be cannibalization
from human jobs. How do you see this playing out?
How are you kind of grappling with this when you
(10:06):
look at investments, when you look at fiscal deficit, when
you look at the backdrop for the financial system.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Well, look, Lisa, here, I'm not talking about investing or economics.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
I'm talking about society. And it's very worrying to me.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
And you know, I've gotten some very nice response from
people I respect to the memo, and one of them
said he thinks we've seen this in response to the
Internet over the last twenty five years, but it has
not raised unemployment because the Internet eliminated white collar jobs
(10:40):
that were replaced by blue collar jobs, like you know,
people who pick stuff in warehouses and send it out
in e commerce. So the job count is not down,
but job quality is down. And I think that this
is very worrisome. And as I said the addendum, when
(11:05):
we lost jobs to automation and offshoring, I think that
that coincided with the opiate epidemic, and not only in
the amount, but also in location. And I think it's
a natural consequence of people sitting around all day. And
(11:29):
even if we we can find a replace, a way
to replace their income, I worry about purposelessness. And you know,
we get so much job, so much from our jobs
other than a paycheck, and you can't replace that stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
So I worry for society.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Stay with us more Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Joining us now for more, Libby, thank you so much
for being here.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Why not just give the role to.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
Kevin Hassett at this point, Well, I mean, look, I
think that this is obviously President Trump loves a horse race,
and I think he loves the drama. And of course
he doesn't need to nominate anybody until Powell's term is up,
which is, of course, as you know, until May of
twenty twenty six, and so there really is no rush here.
But I do think this is, you know, sort of
(12:26):
speaks to the dramatic that the president, that the President likes.
I mean, I do you know, you're kind of a
broader issue though, is sort of this these rumors that
there has been kind of pushed back on on Hassett.
I think it does show that even though the market
has been pretty sanguine about FED independence, that there may
be some concerns and that when you have somebody from
(12:47):
the White House that then rotates to the FED, that
there could be some politicization of the institution.
Speaker 6 (12:54):
Libya here from the President saying that what he cares
about somebody honest about interest rates. There's more to it
than that, of course, and I think that there was
a narrative for a while that this was going to
be a reformer, and I think Kevin Warsh represents that
he somebody's talked a lot about the way the FED
is structured and what could change. Do other candidates share
those same inclinations. How much does the president price I
should say, weve heard from the Treasury Secretary he's interested
(13:14):
in reforming the way the whole system is set up.
Who can be regional presidents and the like. How big
an issue is that? Do you think for the presidents
he goes through the search?
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Yeah, I mean, maybe not for the president himself, but
I do think for this administration, and I think for
you know, many folks on the Hill as well. I mean,
this has been a long time in coming. Obviously, Congress
has tried to pass legislation to reform the FED that
requires sixty votes, so they haven't been able to get
kind of by a partisan support. But I do think
we could see some reforms. But I do you know,
(13:42):
it's important to contextualize what the reforms could be and
what is possible. There's just not as much that the
president or a FED chair can do unilaterally without actually
changing the law, and of course you need Congress to
change the law. So could we see sort of incrementally
how reserved presidents are chosen, maybe a little bit more
(14:03):
pressure on reserve presidents. Of course, the FED Board does
have authority over who stays as a regional president. But
I think just by and large, there's probably I think,
you know, we're expecting more incremental reform, if any, just
given some of those constraints.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Let's say cast as the front runner, which Bloomberg has reported,
and you point out the fact there's been this kind
of growing concern within the bond mark about him as
potential FED share that kind of became so we first
saw on the ftpiece a couple of days ago. Now
seeing that brought in a little bit more. What does
the bond market want to see? I think of what
Anna Wong, our colleague at Bloomberg Economics roads, saying she
knows Kevin Asse, She's worked alongside him.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Actions speak louder than words.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
He's somebody who has talked a lot about fit independent
since prized it through the entirety of his career. He
did advise some more traditional Republicans in years past. What
does he have to do to kind of assuage or
pacify those who are concerned about the prospects of him
being the next.
Speaker 5 (14:53):
FED shir Yeah, I think, as you know, there's what
he says publicly, and what he says, you know, to
the media and in this you should he get nominated,
That all important confirmation hearing, but also what he says
privately and to the very key Republican senators who will
effectively cast sort of the vote whether he gets nominated
(15:17):
or not. So I think what they want to see
is again just reassurances that they know that he will
uphold independence, that he will not be sort of suaged
by the whomever is in the president who's ever in
the White House beaks. Of course, this next FED chair
will outlive President Trump's term and will be in for
whomever is president in twenty twenty nine. And then also
(15:39):
that some of these rumors about the regional presidents and
what have you may again maybe the reforms will be
more incremental and not necessarily existential.
Speaker 7 (15:48):
I mean, how do you think about the bond market
and it's reaction all of this, For all the kind
of rumors of pushback since Bloomberg broke the kind of
hasset news, ten year yield has been relatively well behaved,
two year yields relatively well behaved. I think, you know,
the work is still pricing in kind of a three
percent terminal rate. It seems like the bond market is
(16:08):
taking the kind of measure of Hassett and saying it's
not a really significant shift in policy, and bond market
seems relatively comfortable. How do you.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
React to that?
Speaker 5 (16:18):
Yeah, I think we do what I just said earlier.
I mean, I do think the bond market has been
relatively sanguine about this is just about in general, this
fear about FED independence, and I think that you know,
kind of you know, maybe underscores two things. One is
that oftentimes the market doesn't believe anything until they actually
see it, and so they're not going to necessarily just
trade on speculation or on rumor. And of course we
(16:39):
don't even have a FED chair nomine yet. It's all
just been kind of those and of course you know
the drama. But I also think the number two is
that the market understands some of these guardrails that are
in place, and that while the chair, of course is
very important, the chair is not kind of almighty in
terms of changing monetary policy, and that of course it
(16:59):
is the majority of as you know, the FOMC twelve members,
not just the seven FED Board governors. And then also
not to overstate the sort of confirmation process. But something I,
maybe to their chagrin, always reinforce to our Investment Committee
is that this advice and consent role that the US
Senate plays is very important. And actually, if you just
(17:21):
look at the number of nominees that this president has
had to withdraw, it's really unprecedented, and it's all kind
of been backchanneling and private. But that sort of speaks
to the fact that the Senate, they have not had
the votes in the Senate to confirm those nominees. So
I think if somebody were to be nominated, who would
be too political, who would really compromise the independence of
the foot I think the bomb market is reassured that
(17:43):
the Senate would push back.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
This goes to a bigger question, and I was glad
that you went there about how much Republicans are starting
to push back on President Trump after some of the
recent elections and some of the recent losses on the
part of certain Republican candidates. Do you get the sense
that there is a greater constraining of some of the
more extreme policies by Congress as a result of some
of the recent elections, You.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Know, I do.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
I think the political runway for this president is absolutely shortening.
But I would also say that this is very consistent
with history. If you look at Biden's administration, you know,
the Democrats, of course had both the House and the
Senate in his first two years, and they basically allowed
Biden to do whatever he kind of wanted to do,
(18:26):
right to really advance his policy agenda that first year. However,
as you got closer to the midterms, as you had
some of these off cycle elections, the Democrats really did
start pushing back on President Biden. I think that's the
corollary here. The kind of the parallel is that, you know,
Republicans have been pushing back on the president sort of privately,
but I think we expected them to do that more
(18:48):
more publicly. But again, this is not necessarily President Trump's specific.
This is kind of just the political cycle in Washington.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Stay with US multlempag Savannah's coming up of this.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
The team at MasterCards Economic Institute predicting moderate global GDP
growth at three point one percent and twenty twenty six.
A key dynamic is continued trade realignment between the US
and China. Joining US now is Michelle Meyer and Michelle
wonderful to see you as always. I would love to
get your take on what Steve Shiverin was just talking about,
which is he thinks the stealth story is the recovery
(19:30):
and acceleration in the consumer in twenty twenty six. Are
you seeing that in any of the data that you're collecting.
Speaker 8 (19:37):
Yeah, I would say it's probably not a stealth story.
It's a reality, and I think it has been the
reality that consumer has been extraordinarily engaged. You just heard
it from Robert Eisam in the interview you aired that
consumers are still traveling, You are still seeing the embrace
of discretionary spending in addition to the necessities. So it's
(19:57):
consumers that you know, again it's going to vary depending
on income cohort. It's a big part of the narrative
that it's not even It never is even, frankly, but
you have consumer spending that is still running at a
healthy clip. For the holiday shopping season. We're looking for
a mid three percent pace for holiday sales. Black Friday
came in with our data. We saw a four point
one percent increase in spending on Black Friday.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
How much is this inflationary? How much is this because
simply the prices were higher, not necessarily more items for ticketed.
Speaker 8 (20:25):
So you know, we'll find out for sure once we
get the CPI report at some point.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Do you know when it's going to be bad?
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Well, no, at some point.
Speaker 8 (20:34):
But in the inrum, what we know as of now
in terms of the basket of holiday shopping items that
we typically see inflations running maybe around two percent or
so year of the year. So certainly there's very much
still real spending and growth.
Speaker 6 (20:50):
In terms of volume. Would you look at where people
are spending money, what's the story that emerges from that?
So you talk about how kind of discerning consumers are
being about where they're spending it on?
Speaker 1 (21:00):
What?
Speaker 6 (21:00):
Yeah, can you break that down by I don't know,
strato or sector? What can that tell us just about
people's habits at this moment.
Speaker 8 (21:07):
Yeah, So I certainly think that consumers are savvy. I
think they have been savvy this whole period of time
coming out of the pandemic. Once they experienced that price
level shock that was, you know, challenging for them. It
was a first time consumers are a significant increase in
the price of goods across the board, and since then,
(21:27):
I think consumers have been really mindful in terms of
what they buy, when they buy, why they buy it.
They certainly concentrate spending around promotional periods, which is what
we saw during the Black Friday period, But you know,
making those choices, making those choices that work for them.
Speaker 6 (21:41):
As you look at kind of the evolution of consumer
psychology in this moment, I think there was a lot
of anxiety surrounding the prospect of what tariffs might mean
for all of us. Has that eroded it' staved just
a moment ago talking about how people might feel once
these tax benefits come into effect. Are we at a
point where the immediate effects of those tariffs are now
not front of mine? And for a lot of consumers,
it's not as big of kind of psychic wight as
(22:02):
it was at the beginning of the Liberation Day and
the like.
Speaker 8 (22:05):
Well, I think we've moved from the headlines the uncertainty
to the reality right so now we're actually seeing that
enter into the economy. It's still happening, but there's a
little bit more stability in terms of the.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Process.
Speaker 8 (22:23):
And I think for consumers what they're focus on is
when they walk into the store, they try to purchase
something online, what is the price and does it make
sense for their budget? And if it's an item that
prices have increased, whether it's because of tariffs or because
of other reasons, they might say, you know what, does
it make sense? How badly do I want to or
can I buy something else where I feel like I
get better value? So that decision is always happening. And
in a world where there's more digitalization, where you have
(22:44):
a greater share of spending that's happening online, more choices
that are out there for consumers, I think they have
a little bit more power to navigate this environment.
Speaker 7 (22:55):
You talked about the kind of unevenness of consumer spending
by kind of income cohort, and I'm interested in what
trends you're seeing, at least over the holiday season. You know,
is the high end focusing they're spending in a particular place.
Is the lower end consumer? Are they still healthy? Where
are they spending? Break that down for us a little bit,
give us an understanding of kind of how the high
end and low end consumer behaving through this holiday season.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Sure, so, I.
Speaker 8 (23:18):
Mean we don't have the ability to break that down
specifically with our own aggregated data, But what we do
look at is different baske sets of spending and how
that varies across the US in terms of different locations,
which could be a nice proxy for income spending. And
you know, this holiday season, I would say it has
been and a lead in has been experienced. Spending has
(23:40):
done well, So we've seen a good amount of spending
on restaurants, travel, lodging, a bit weaker in terms of furniture,
home improvement, footwear, so some of the more discretionary gooes
categories that may have tariff impacts where perhaps the value
isn't as notable. And then apparel has been a really
strong one this season feels like kind of across the
(24:03):
board as well, where we're seeing this engagement in terms
of greater spending on apparel.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
So we shouldn't necessarily look at all the sales as
being just people trying to reel in consumers that are reluctant.
I mean, when you have things in your basket in
Amazon or some other company, how many times you get emails,
often from people say you haven't checked out, the deal's
still there fifteen days and how long Frida at work?
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Well, that's true.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
This is the Bloomberg Survendans podcast, bringing you the best
in markets, economics, antient politics. You can watch the show
live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify,
or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app
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 Amerie 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.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Howard Marks, co founder and co chairman of oak Tree
Capital Market, issuing a warning at his latest memo, I
find the resulting outlook for employment terrifying. I am enormously
concerned about what will happen to the people whose jobs
AI renders unnecessary or who can't find jobs because of
it at this moment of transformation. Howard joins us now
after writing a memo that I really recommend everybody read.
(00:58):
It really was one of the absolute best you've ever written.
Thank you for being here with us, So I can
stop now, No, please don't, I want to keep reading
your membos. I want to start with this idea of
different types of bubbles, and you talk about there are
productive bubbles and unproductive bubbles. What's the difference and how
does that make it either something you want to invest
in or not.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
Well.
Speaker 4 (01:19):
I think that the unproductive bubbles I would describe as
financial fads. Portfolio insurance was one, subprime mortgages was another.
Just you know, financial activities that become fashionable, zoom into popularity,
get over hyped, and then recede. But then there are
(01:44):
bubbles which are based on technological progress, the starting with
the steam engine, the railroad, the radio, the automobile, computers, internet, etc.
And these actually push society ahead and change it irreversibly.
But in the process there is a bubble surrounding their implementation,
(02:06):
which is overly accelerated and overly financed and goes to
excess and end up destroying a lot of capital, but
leave society greatly changed. And I'm sure that AI is
in the latter category in terms of effect on society.
And the question is will the implementation prove to have
(02:29):
been excessive in scope and in the way it's financed.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Just because something is excessive doesn't mean that you can't
invest in it.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
No, But.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
When investors hate everything and we'll touch it with the
ten foot poll, chances are it's going to be on
sale because nobody has pushed up the price. In fact,
their disinterest has pushed down the price. But when everybody
likes something, he's excited about something, chances are it may
be overhyped and overpriced.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
So you just have to be careful. So that's where
we are right now.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
You said you can invest and you campaticipate, but you
just have to be careful. What does being careful look like?
Does it mean focusing more on debt versus equities, more
on equities versus debt, more on small companies versus big ones.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
What does that look like?
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Well, what I say in the memo is that it's
okay to lend for activities even if they're uncertain, but
not if they are if the outcomes are purely conjectural.
I mean, in order to be a smart lender, you
have to have good visibility on the extent to which
(03:36):
the thing is likely to repay interest. In principle, if
it's just purely conjectural, it's not you shouldn't be a lender.
And in fact, I think the memo says that where
that's the case, you should actually, if you want to participate,
you should be in the equity so at least you
get the upside.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
The lender has no upside.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
You make it a nine percent own all you're going
to get is nine percent, no matter how well the
thing does.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
You certainly shouldn't do that in activities that have a high.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Probability of not paying off at all, because then you
have unlimited downside and limited upside. That's absolutely the wrong combination.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
So you think, right now, in some circumstances, the equity
might actually be a better option than the debt because
of that potential level.
Speaker 4 (04:24):
Exactly, because the point is that if you go into
some startup which has a possibility, you know, let's say
a small possibility of a raging success, you know you
wouldn't lend to it because you have a high probability
of losing all your money and no probability of participating
in the success.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
That's a bad trade.
Speaker 1 (04:47):
So you always talk about this risk reward pendulum, the
risk and fear, this sort of fear and greed pendulum.
Right now, and yesterday we saw Oracle come out and
talk about having to borrow more money, having to spend
more and people are selling off the shares.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Does this make you feel good?
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Does this make you feel like there actually is some discretion?
Speaker 3 (05:05):
Well?
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Well, yeah, well I think that I think that it's
you know, Buffett says, the less prudence for which others
conductor affairs, the greater the prudence with which we must
conduct our own affairs. So when other people are acting
imprudently and mindlessly and care free, we should be worried.
When other people are showing appropriate concern, that's a positive
(05:28):
sign that the market is applying some discipline. The greatest
some of the greatest moments that I've seen, some of
the greatest signals of danger in the markets have been
when people were not applying any prudence at all, like
in six for example. So if people are reacting harshly
to aggressive, possibly risk indicating activities, yes, that's a healthy sign.
(05:56):
And this market is seems healthy year than the two
thousand market.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
To me, How concerned are you that we get a
federal reserve that's more accommodative for a variety of reasons
that leads to even more risk taking. This idea that
not only did the Fed cut rates indicated more rate
cuts but also is adding to its balance sheet in
a way that could potentially prop up demand.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
Well, you know, I was thinking about this when I
was waiting to see you today. You know, most of
the people listening to this program, including me and you,
are interested in the free markets, and we think free
markets should set the prices of things. And the FED
(06:40):
manipulations are a form of price controls. You know, they
control the price of money. And if the FED puts
money artificially cheap, then it induces behavior like risk taking.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
It forces people into risk.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Of your activities because the returns on safe activities are
so low. It tends to reinforce the view that there's
a FED put that if there's a problem, the FED
will solve it, and that contributes to risky behavior.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
These are all bad things.
Speaker 4 (07:14):
And you know, I believe that the FED should be
passive most of the time and only come to the
rescue if the market is if the economy is seriously
overheated and tending towards hyperinflation, or seriously under active and
(07:35):
not creating jobs. I don't think that's the case right now.
I don't think there's a and you can see in
the divided Open Market Committee that there's a difference of opinion.
So I don't think that action on the part of
the Fed is compelling right now. And you know, there
are people who think that rates should be a lot
lower than they are today.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
I just don't see that the merit in that right now.
Going forward.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I remember back in two thousand and fifteen, sixteen seventeen,
more rates were incredibly low. You were saying people just
need to lower their expectations for returns because ultimately you
have to look at the risk free rate. You don't
want to reach too much at a time where people
are greedy. Where are we right now in terms of
what types of returns people ought to expect based on
(08:20):
the current income rates?
Speaker 4 (08:22):
Well, the lower base interest rates are everything scales off that,
so you know, I mean the FED funds rate at
three and a half is below history. It's these are
not high rates, They're only high relatives the last fifteen years.
But this is a low rate, So everything scales off that.
(08:47):
Most things will give moderate returns in the dead area.
I think prospective returns are moderate, okay, not lush, but
not inadequate. The trouble is that the S and P,
based on its pe ratio relative to history, appears to
(09:08):
be priced to provide a very low prospective return. Historically,
if you bought at this pe ratio, your return over
the next ten years averaged in the very low single digits.
So I think we're in a moderate return scenario. The
(09:29):
problem is that how do you get a high return
in a moderate return scenario? And most people's resort is
to take a lot more risk, and that's something I
don't like to do, other than when it's compelling.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
You had a personal note in a dentum at the end,
and we let off with that idea of what artificial
intelligence and machine learning will do to the labor market,
it's something clearly on the Fed's mind, clearly on investor's mind,
talking about concerns that there is going to be cannibalization
from human jobs. How do you see this playing out?
How are you kind of grappling with this when you
(10:06):
look at investments, when you look at fiscal deficit, when
you look at the backdrop for the financial system.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Well, look, Lisa, here, I'm not talking about investing or economics.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
I'm talking about society. And it's very worrying to me.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
And you know, I've gotten some very nice response from
people I respect to the memo, and one of them
said he thinks we've seen this in response to the
Internet over the last twenty five years, but it has
not raised unemployment because the Internet eliminated white collar jobs
(10:40):
that were replaced by blue collar jobs, like you know,
people who pick stuff in warehouses and send it out
in e commerce. So the job count is not down,
but job quality is down. And I think that this
is very worrisome. And as I said the addendum, when
(11:05):
we lost jobs to automation and offshoring, I think that
that coincided with the opiate epidemic, and not only in
the amount, but also in location. And I think it's
a natural consequence of people sitting around all day. And
(11:29):
even if we we can find a replace, a way
to replace their income, I worry about purposelessness. And you know,
we get so much job, so much from our jobs
other than a paycheck, and you can't replace that stuff.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
So I worry for society.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
Stay with us more Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Joining us now for more, Libby, thank you so much
for being here.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
Why not just give the role to.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
Kevin Hassett at this point, Well, I mean, look, I
think that this is obviously President Trump loves a horse race,
and I think he loves the drama. And of course
he doesn't need to nominate anybody until Powell's term is up,
which is, of course, as you know, until May of
twenty twenty six, and so there really is no rush here.
But I do think this is, you know, sort of
(12:26):
speaks to the dramatic that the president, that the President likes.
I mean, I do you know, you're kind of a
broader issue though, is sort of this these rumors that
there has been kind of pushed back on on Hassett.
I think it does show that even though the market
has been pretty sanguine about FED independence, that there may
be some concerns and that when you have somebody from
(12:47):
the White House that then rotates to the FED, that
there could be some politicization of the institution.
Speaker 6 (12:54):
Libya here from the President saying that what he cares
about somebody honest about interest rates. There's more to it
than that, of course, and I think that there was
a narrative for a while that this was going to
be a reformer, and I think Kevin Warsh represents that
he somebody's talked a lot about the way the FED
is structured and what could change. Do other candidates share
those same inclinations. How much does the president price I
should say, weve heard from the Treasury Secretary he's interested
(13:14):
in reforming the way the whole system is set up.
Who can be regional presidents and the like. How big
an issue is that? Do you think for the presidents
he goes through the search?
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Yeah, I mean, maybe not for the president himself, but
I do think for this administration, and I think for
you know, many folks on the Hill as well. I mean,
this has been a long time in coming. Obviously, Congress
has tried to pass legislation to reform the FED that
requires sixty votes, so they haven't been able to get
kind of by a partisan support. But I do think
we could see some reforms. But I do you know,
(13:42):
it's important to contextualize what the reforms could be and
what is possible. There's just not as much that the
president or a FED chair can do unilaterally without actually
changing the law, and of course you need Congress to
change the law. So could we see sort of incrementally
how reserved presidents are chosen, maybe a little bit more
(14:03):
pressure on reserve presidents. Of course, the FED Board does
have authority over who stays as a regional president. But
I think just by and large, there's probably I think,
you know, we're expecting more incremental reform, if any, just
given some of those constraints.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
Let's say cast as the front runner, which Bloomberg has reported,
and you point out the fact there's been this kind
of growing concern within the bond mark about him as
potential FED share that kind of became so we first
saw on the ftpiece a couple of days ago. Now
seeing that brought in a little bit more. What does
the bond market want to see? I think of what
Anna Wong, our colleague at Bloomberg Economics roads, saying she
knows Kevin Asse, She's worked alongside him.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
Actions speak louder than words.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
He's somebody who has talked a lot about fit independent
since prized it through the entirety of his career. He
did advise some more traditional Republicans in years past. What
does he have to do to kind of assuage or
pacify those who are concerned about the prospects of him
being the next.
Speaker 5 (14:53):
FED shir Yeah, I think, as you know, there's what
he says publicly, and what he says, you know, to
the media and in this you should he get nominated,
That all important confirmation hearing, but also what he says
privately and to the very key Republican senators who will
effectively cast sort of the vote whether he gets nominated
(15:17):
or not. So I think what they want to see
is again just reassurances that they know that he will
uphold independence, that he will not be sort of suaged
by the whomever is in the president who's ever in
the White House beaks. Of course, this next FED chair
will outlive President Trump's term and will be in for
whomever is president in twenty twenty nine. And then also
(15:39):
that some of these rumors about the regional presidents and
what have you may again maybe the reforms will be
more incremental and not necessarily existential.
Speaker 7 (15:48):
I mean, how do you think about the bond market
and it's reaction all of this, For all the kind
of rumors of pushback since Bloomberg broke the kind of
hasset news, ten year yield has been relatively well behaved,
two year yields relatively well behaved. I think, you know,
the work is still pricing in kind of a three
percent terminal rate. It seems like the bond market is
(16:08):
taking the kind of measure of Hassett and saying it's
not a really significant shift in policy, and bond market
seems relatively comfortable. How do you.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
React to that?
Speaker 5 (16:18):
Yeah, I think we do what I just said earlier.
I mean, I do think the bond market has been
relatively sanguine about this is just about in general, this
fear about FED independence, and I think that you know,
kind of you know, maybe underscores two things. One is
that oftentimes the market doesn't believe anything until they actually
see it, and so they're not going to necessarily just
trade on speculation or on rumor. And of course we
(16:39):
don't even have a FED chair nomine yet. It's all
just been kind of those and of course you know
the drama. But I also think the number two is
that the market understands some of these guardrails that are
in place, and that while the chair, of course is
very important, the chair is not kind of almighty in
terms of changing monetary policy, and that of course it
(16:59):
is the majority of as you know, the FOMC twelve members,
not just the seven FED Board governors. And then also
not to overstate the sort of confirmation process. But something I,
maybe to their chagrin, always reinforce to our Investment Committee
is that this advice and consent role that the US
Senate plays is very important. And actually, if you just
(17:21):
look at the number of nominees that this president has
had to withdraw, it's really unprecedented, and it's all kind
of been backchanneling and private. But that sort of speaks
to the fact that the Senate, they have not had
the votes in the Senate to confirm those nominees. So
I think if somebody were to be nominated, who would
be too political, who would really compromise the independence of
the foot I think the bomb market is reassured that
(17:43):
the Senate would push back.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
This goes to a bigger question, and I was glad
that you went there about how much Republicans are starting
to push back on President Trump after some of the
recent elections and some of the recent losses on the
part of certain Republican candidates. Do you get the sense
that there is a greater constraining of some of the
more extreme policies by Congress as a result of some
of the recent elections, You.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
Know, I do.
Speaker 5 (18:06):
I think the political runway for this president is absolutely shortening.
But I would also say that this is very consistent
with history. If you look at Biden's administration, you know,
the Democrats, of course had both the House and the
Senate in his first two years, and they basically allowed
Biden to do whatever he kind of wanted to do,
(18:26):
right to really advance his policy agenda that first year. However,
as you got closer to the midterms, as you had
some of these off cycle elections, the Democrats really did
start pushing back on President Biden. I think that's the
corollary here. The kind of the parallel is that, you know,
Republicans have been pushing back on the president sort of privately,
but I think we expected them to do that more
(18:48):
more publicly. But again, this is not necessarily President Trump's specific.
This is kind of just the political cycle in Washington.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Stay with US multlempag Savannah's coming up of this.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
The team at MasterCards Economic Institute predicting moderate global GDP
growth at three point one percent and twenty twenty six.
A key dynamic is continued trade realignment between the US
and China. Joining US now is Michelle Meyer and Michelle
wonderful to see you as always. I would love to
get your take on what Steve Shiverin was just talking about,
which is he thinks the stealth story is the recovery
(19:30):
and acceleration in the consumer in twenty twenty six. Are
you seeing that in any of the data that you're collecting.
Speaker 8 (19:37):
Yeah, I would say it's probably not a stealth story.
It's a reality, and I think it has been the
reality that consumer has been extraordinarily engaged. You just heard
it from Robert Eisam in the interview you aired that
consumers are still traveling, You are still seeing the embrace
of discretionary spending in addition to the necessities. So it's
(19:57):
consumers that you know, again it's going to vary depending
on income cohort. It's a big part of the narrative
that it's not even It never is even, frankly, but
you have consumer spending that is still running at a
healthy clip. For the holiday shopping season. We're looking for
a mid three percent pace for holiday sales. Black Friday
came in with our data. We saw a four point
one percent increase in spending on Black Friday.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
How much is this inflationary? How much is this because
simply the prices were higher, not necessarily more items for ticketed.
Speaker 8 (20:25):
So you know, we'll find out for sure once we
get the CPI report at some point.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
Do you know when it's going to be bad?
Speaker 2 (20:33):
Well, no, at some point.
Speaker 8 (20:34):
But in the inrum, what we know as of now
in terms of the basket of holiday shopping items that
we typically see inflations running maybe around two percent or
so year of the year. So certainly there's very much
still real spending and growth.
Speaker 6 (20:50):
In terms of volume. Would you look at where people
are spending money, what's the story that emerges from that?
So you talk about how kind of discerning consumers are
being about where they're spending it on?
Speaker 1 (21:00):
What?
Speaker 6 (21:00):
Yeah, can you break that down by I don't know,
strato or sector? What can that tell us just about
people's habits at this moment.
Speaker 8 (21:07):
Yeah, So I certainly think that consumers are savvy. I
think they have been savvy this whole period of time
coming out of the pandemic. Once they experienced that price
level shock that was, you know, challenging for them. It
was a first time consumers are a significant increase in
the price of goods across the board, and since then,
(21:27):
I think consumers have been really mindful in terms of
what they buy, when they buy, why they buy it.
They certainly concentrate spending around promotional periods, which is what
we saw during the Black Friday period, But you know,
making those choices, making those choices that work for them.
Speaker 6 (21:41):
As you look at kind of the evolution of consumer
psychology in this moment, I think there was a lot
of anxiety surrounding the prospect of what tariffs might mean
for all of us. Has that eroded it' staved just
a moment ago talking about how people might feel once
these tax benefits come into effect. Are we at a
point where the immediate effects of those tariffs are now
not front of mine? And for a lot of consumers,
it's not as big of kind of psychic wight as
(22:02):
it was at the beginning of the Liberation Day and
the like.
Speaker 8 (22:05):
Well, I think we've moved from the headlines the uncertainty
to the reality right so now we're actually seeing that
enter into the economy. It's still happening, but there's a
little bit more stability in terms of the.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Process.
Speaker 8 (22:23):
And I think for consumers what they're focus on is
when they walk into the store, they try to purchase
something online, what is the price and does it make
sense for their budget? And if it's an item that
prices have increased, whether it's because of tariffs or because
of other reasons, they might say, you know what, does
it make sense? How badly do I want to or
can I buy something else where I feel like I
get better value? So that decision is always happening. And
in a world where there's more digitalization, where you have
(22:44):
a greater share of spending that's happening online, more choices
that are out there for consumers, I think they have
a little bit more power to navigate this environment.
Speaker 7 (22:55):
You talked about the kind of unevenness of consumer spending
by kind of income cohort, and I'm interested in what
trends you're seeing, at least over the holiday season. You know,
is the high end focusing they're spending in a particular place.
Is the lower end consumer? Are they still healthy? Where
are they spending? Break that down for us a little bit,
give us an understanding of kind of how the high
end and low end consumer behaving through this holiday season.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Sure, so, I.
Speaker 8 (23:18):
Mean we don't have the ability to break that down
specifically with our own aggregated data, But what we do
look at is different baske sets of spending and how
that varies across the US in terms of different locations,
which could be a nice proxy for income spending. And
you know, this holiday season, I would say it has
been and a lead in has been experienced. Spending has
(23:40):
done well, So we've seen a good amount of spending
on restaurants, travel, lodging, a bit weaker in terms of furniture,
home improvement, footwear, so some of the more discretionary gooes
categories that may have tariff impacts where perhaps the value
isn't as notable. And then apparel has been a really
strong one this season feels like kind of across the
(24:03):
board as well, where we're seeing this engagement in terms
of greater spending on apparel.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
So we shouldn't necessarily look at all the sales as
being just people trying to reel in consumers that are reluctant.
I mean, when you have things in your basket in
Amazon or some other company, how many times you get emails,
often from people say you haven't checked out, the deal's
still there fifteen days and how long Frida at work?
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Well, that's true.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
This is the Bloomberg Survendans podcast, bringing you the best
in markets, economics, antient politics. You can watch the show
live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify,
or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.