July 31, 2025 • 26 mins
- Esther George, former President and CEO at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
- Jason Furman, Professor: Practice Economic Policy at Harvard Kennedy School
- Walter Piecyk, Partner at Lightshed Partners
- Gargi Chaudhuri, Chief Investment and Portfolio Strategist, Americas at BlackRock
Esther George, former President and CEO at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, joins to discuss Fed Chair Jay Powell's press conference yesterday and the outlook for rate cuts in 2025. Jason Furman, Professor: Practice Economic Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, joins to discuss the outlook for US growth ahead of President Trump's tariff policy deadline. Walter Piecyk, Partner at Lightshed Partners, joins to preview Apple earnings. Gargi Chaudhuri, Chief Investment and Portfolio Strategist, Americas at BlackRock, joins to talk the outlook for equities and the S&P.
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 am Marie 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
(00:33):
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. Joining us now
to discuss is the former Kansas City Fed President Esther.
George Esther, Welcome back to the program. I remember your
descent in twenty nineteen. I remember your descent. I think
it was in twenty twenty two. You've got some experience.
Can you describe for us what it's like entering the room,
the committee has a conversation and you say, you know what,
(00:53):
I disagree, I think we should be going in a
different direction.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Well, it is and parcel of decision making in a
large committee, in my view, and you approach those conversations,
those decisions in a way that I think is respectful
of what you're hearing around the table, that you've taken
into account, agree with the chairman. You want to acknowledge
(01:18):
that you are listening and understand what the arguments are.
But at the end of the day, decision making is difficult,
and I would argue it is particularly difficult in times
when the read of the data is not so clear
across the table, and I always felt it was as
much an obligation to the public to express.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Those views, to be.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Respectful again of what you've heard, but at the end
of the day, to really voice how you see the
economy and the appropriate stance of policy.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
We saw a pretty big divide represented by the views
of FED Governor Member Chris Waller as well as FED
chair Jap Powell. Both have a very different view of
the labor market, and John's been really good about accentuating
the point that we only have two months of data.
Do we have enough time to really bridge that gap
between the two men to really understand whether this labor
(02:13):
market truly is stable and solid or whether there are cracks.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, I heard earlier a comment on your program that
talked about each time you finish up one meeting and
think you have plenty of time to see the data
for the next that.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Is never conclusive.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
You will always face uncertainty around what the data is
telling you and whether the trends you're relying on are
about to shift or whether they will continue. And so
that of course is going to be the focus in
bringing these two views to some kind of consensus. I'd
be surprised if two months resolves that, but obviously both
(02:52):
we'll be looking very carefully to try to reconcile how
the economy's unfolding by that time.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Is your sense there's quite a bit of disagreement on
the ending point, because certainly on Wall Street there's a
great deal of uncertainty about whether the neutral rate is
something closer to four percent or whether it's closer to
three percent. Do you get the sense that there's that
type of disagreement just among FED members.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Well, at some level, Lisa, It is absolutely the issue
at hand, because when you are trying to specify your policy,
when you're trying to describe it, particularly after a time
when you brought down rates by one hundred basis points,
trying to calibrate around what is an equilibrium, what we
(03:38):
should we be expecting that the endgame is and so
you see that in a long run sense in the
dot plots. But of course, for any given stage in
the economic cycle, you'd be very hard pressed to know
exactly what you're looking for. So that I think, at
the end of the day is really the question is
this mildly restricted policy? Is it restrictive? Is it not
(04:00):
restrictive at all relative to the outcomes we're getting? Is
at the heart of what the committee is debating.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
There seems to be disagreements on both sides of the
mandate as the not just on the inflation story, but
also on the labor market. We have payrolls tomorrow. We've
heard from Governor Waller. He was pretty explicit. He came
on this program and said the same thing. He thinks
the labor market is on the edge. That was like
day and night compared to what we heard from Chairman
Pow yesterday when he talked about the labor market and
the Committee continues to call it solid. Can we get
(04:30):
your opinion how you view the labor market at the
moment and whether you'd characterize it as solid.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Well, I think this is a labor market that's shifting
and obviously in a macro sense. This is a committee
that is making macro policy has to rely on a
macro number, which the chairman said is going to be
the unemployment rate. So in that sense, they have explained
clearly in a broad sense, what they're looking at as
(04:57):
things move around. Though underneath the of that unemployment rate,
I think you have to be mindful that the Fed's
reaction to that cannot be a direct response. In other words,
if you're going to lower rates thinking you will arrest,
the changes that are going on under the covers not
likely to happen. And so in a time when your
(05:19):
backdrop is coming off of high inflation trying to get
back to that two percent target, it creates this weight
and see it creates a real sense of having to
have conviction around the next move in your policy rate
to know what you are responding to.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Esther, thanks for sharing some of your experience with us
this morning. We appreciate it as the judge that the
former Kansas City FED president to extend the conversation. Jason Furman,
the former economic advisor to President Obama, joins us now
(05:58):
for more. Jason, welcome back to the program. The data
seems to be okay. The Utning's from Corporate America better
than good. We're a few months into this process, and
I just wonder, from your point of view, Jason, whether
you believe it's premature to sound the or clear.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
I don't think the data is that terrific.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
In the first half of this year, the economy grew
at a one point two percent annual rate, that is
way below where we should be. Core inflation was a
three point zero percent annual rate. That's way above where
we should be. So no, it's not a catastrophe by
any stretch of the imagination. But you know, there's more
than a hint of stagflation in the numbers we saw
(06:36):
in the first half of this year.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
Looking at it together, it.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Was something Jason that Bob Michael was talking about. The
key question for a lot of people is how big
is the stag and how big is the flation? What
are you looking for to determine the answer to that question.
Speaker 6 (06:51):
Look, one of the confusing signals here is the disconnect
between GDP growth, which has been weak. It was even
negative in the first corridor, although some of that I
think was furious measurement issue, and the job market, which
if you look at the unemployment rate, which Jay Powell
rightly emphasized yesterday, has held up quite well. And you know,
(07:12):
you see consumers cutting their spending back but continuing to
get jobs, continuing to get raises, and that on the
stag side of the ledger is making things even more unclear.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
Well on the flation side of things right now, there's
a question about the trickle out effects of the tariffs,
whether we've seen the ramifications yet. A lot of economists
have been saying, wait until the third quarter, wait into
the fourth quarter, and see exactly how companies really managed
through this. Who do you think is a good example,
or is there an industry that you think is a
good example that might have given us an early look
(07:46):
at how this trickles out and what consumer receptivity is
to absorbing those price increases.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
Look, some of the lowest margin businesses like toys, you
see that passed on very quickly. At the other end
of the spectrum, cars where you have the President telling
them not to raise prices, their prices are very visible.
Speaker 5 (08:06):
They've been reluctant to do it.
Speaker 6 (08:08):
But it's not like General Motors is going to continue
to sell cars at a loss indefinitely. They're eventually going
to have to raise those prices.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Jason, do you see this being offset by what's developing
in services inflation at the moment? How are you reading
what's happening in one side versus the other?
Speaker 6 (08:26):
I mean, services is continuing to come down, but we
sort of always thought that was going to happen. That
was our path to two percent. That was the part
we were counting on. The problem is that the goods
deflation has reversed, and now we have goods inflation again.
And so one of those I take for granted doesn't
seem to me like the news. The other one the
good side. That's the unpleasant surprise here. Now, the idea
(08:49):
that it's transitory is not at all crazy. I think
there's even a very good chance it's true. But if
you're the Fed, do you want to bet everything on
a very good chance when you're definitely not sure?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
With that in mind, do you think two months of
dankster is enough danta to draw any conclusions before you
make a decision.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
I mean, you.
Speaker 6 (09:07):
Always think the two months from now everything's going to
be clear, and then two months from now everything is
still muddy, so it's going to be money two months
from now, they're going to be getting conflicting data, but yeah,
maybe it'll be a tiny bit clearer than it is now.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
I keep going back to the way that John opened
the show, which was Jay Who, and it raises the
question implicitly about how relevant the FED is at a
time of massive technological explosion, and we're seeing that in
the tech earnings. I mean, how much does the advancement,
the investment coming from some of the tech giants in
the United States overwhelm some of this discussion has certainly
overwhelmed the negative consequences from the tariffs, so a lot
(09:45):
of people had expected.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
It depends what you're talking about.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
If you're talking about the stock market, Yeah, a lot
of what's going on in the numerator, which is earnings,
rather than the denominator.
Speaker 5 (09:56):
The discount rate is what matters right now.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
If you're talking about GDP, we're not seeing a lot
of tech at least in the supply side. Frankly, we're
actually seeing it more on the demand side right now,
and so if anything, it might be inflationary. Upfront productivity
growth is basically right on the track we thought it
would be prior to the pandemic. So tech is helping
(10:20):
the stock market quite a lot. I'm optimistic and hopeful
it will help GDP, but right now it is not
having any real material impact.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
There, Jason, that's a strong fund of point. We'll leave
it there, Thank you, sir, Jason Furman. That at the
Harvard Kennedy School, Gagi Chantry with blankcropt writing, AI and
Tech continues to lead here pushing back on the broadening
(10:51):
out narrative yet again, as underpinned by strong beats from METSA, Microsoft,
and Google. Gagie joint is now for more Gaki, good.
Speaker 7 (10:57):
Monic, Hi, good morning.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Just phenomenal beats from these companies. How difficult is it
to leave the US behind and just pile into this
europe trade, pile into this everything else tride you now.
Speaker 7 (11:07):
One of the things that we've been talking to clients
about is the need for diversification, but at the same
time not giving up on the US dec AI theme.
And I think to the extent that investors have not
had any international exposure or massively underweight. For those investors,
(11:27):
having some exposure to quality international names does make sense.
But so important, as was made evident by yesterday's earnings.
What you need in your portfolio is parts of the
equity market that are continuing to have revenue growth, continuing
to throw out amazing amounts of free cash flow. And Chathan,
I think you made that point earlier that we're finally
(11:50):
getting an ROI on all of the capex that has
gone in over the last year, and we're seeing the
world's largest companies grow growing revenue at the high double digits,
which is amazing.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
In some ways. The least interesting thing about this week
is Tariff's at the trade deadline. Now, if you'd ask
me that on hyproback in July, whether that would be
the case July ninth, going into that deadline, I would
have said, well, you're talking about tariff is like the story.
Do you think that's going to reassert itself in a
month's account.
Speaker 7 (12:20):
I think we're all and I know I follow your show.
You're focusing in it as well. Obviously, some of the
headlines yesterday around copper, around India tariffs, those idiosyncratic stories
are going to drive certain markets and eventually in time,
when we realize what the landing zone of tariffs will be,
whether that's closer to a fifteen percent or a twenty percent,
(12:42):
Eventually we will see that feed through, and we're already
kind of seeing that in goods inflation, certain components of
goods inflation. So it will appear, it won't disappear. It
will appear in data, and it will appear in margins,
or it will appear in certain foreign companies reducing their prices.
But of right now, I think the bigger theme is
(13:02):
the two things. Number one, the ROI on Capex coming
through and large cap deck really a large cap deck
and AI really being the story that's going to propel
us exceptionalism forward. And I think the second one, which
is also less exciting this morning, which is that the Fed,
while I think they're both quite hawkish, they're still telling
(13:24):
us in their own way that if things wobble, especially
in the unemployment rate front, they are here to start
cutting rates. And I think that's something else that the
market will eventually care about as well.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
When you put these stories together, there's sort of this
big question underputting the market. What are we going to
get the trickling out of some of the benefits that
the hyperscalers are experiencing to the rest of the market.
When are you going to see a broadening out where
their leadership isn't just a ballast amid a storm, but
really something that is driving gains an efficiency and profitability
(13:56):
across corporate America. How far away from that away?
Speaker 7 (14:01):
So, I think depending on what people mean when they
mean broadening out, I would argue you're seeing some and
then at the same time you're obviously continuing to see
the largest companies throughout the largest revenue growth. So when
I say there is some amount of broadening out, I
would say when you look at something like financials, when
you look at different sectors or sub sectors within the
(14:22):
equity market, this year, you are seeing more of those
sectors being in positive territory. That could be called one
that could be one way of thinking about broadening. But
at the same time, obviously you have the largest hyperscalers
being the largest revenue growers, and I think that that
probably pushes back against the broadening out narrative. I think
(14:42):
the theme is clear. It is one of moving away
from small cap, unprofitable companies to large cap quality companies.
And that's what we've been talking about and many you know,
you guys have been having a lot of people on
your show. They've talked about that theme of large cap.
Perhaps it doesn't feel as comfortable to talk about it
(15:03):
it being also talked about it last year, but it's
still working and it will continue to work. I think
the theme going forward for the next six month is
finding pockets of diversification in your portfolio. In addition to
this AI and tech trade, international plays a role there.
Fixed income plays a role there, assets like inflation link bonds, gold,
(15:24):
and certainly market neutral strategies that aren't giving you too
much beta but at the same time giving you alpha
makes sense.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
International plays role and John was alluding to this earlier.
There was this belief that international was going to outperform
the US earlier this year, and it did, and a
lot of it was pegged the dollar, and when we
saw the weakening, there's been a huge and violent about face.
Do you think that there is staying power where the
first half was the rest of the world and the
second half is back to US exceptionalism.
Speaker 7 (15:53):
I think that a lot of that violent move that
you mentioned was very much around the underperformance, and obviously
with July, with the dollar coming back, rallying back has
led to a little bit of that reversal. I think
the path forward a big part of that story will
be what happens with the dollar. Frankly, what we're seeing
(16:14):
in flows and what we're seeing when we pull our
investors and our clients is a recognition of the need
to diversify away from a large gap because that's all
they have, not because it's not going to generate returns,
but because there is a need for getting that value
component into portfolios and getting that from international to the extent,
(16:38):
not just US investors, but global investors continue to move
away from US into going back to their home countries.
So we look at European investors and APAC investors, and
many of those investors are just being a little bit
more diversified away from the US. To the extent that happens,
I think that the international story can certainly have some legs,
(16:59):
but not at the expense of US large cap quality
and growth.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Let's just say, on the US, when you set diversify,
you set diversify the equity. So if I'm in the
US right now, I diversify my equity exposure to the
international story. Given where we are right now with the dollar,
is that something I need to currency hedge?
Speaker 7 (17:16):
You know, that's an interesting question, like a lot of
right now. The view for our firm is still that
the dollar can continue to depreciate. Usually, what we've seen
is that the dollar depreciations happen in these long cycles.
It's not just for one month or a week. It
happens over many months, eighteen to twenty four months, and
we're just in the beginning of that. In that case,
(17:38):
obviously you want some of those foreign exposures. You want
that exposure to some of the you know em as
well as DM currencies. Fixed income, though, is another story,
right So, usually what we've seen our clients do is
in fixed income allegations not necessarily taking the FCS risk,
actually hedging it back into US for that enhanced yield.
(18:03):
And that's something that you know, some of our portfolio managers,
especially in fixed income with products like bink, are doing
taking advantage of the hedged costs for European and other
areas credit markets.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Gaky appreciate it. It's got to see you. Thanks for
breaking it down, Gagy Chuntry there of Black Crook, what
pic of life Shed Partners has a neutral racing on Apple.
He came out in front in the last few months
or so, and so the tech gig I should also
(18:37):
consider a new CEO. What joins us now for more Well,
welcome back to the program. Let's talk about what you're
expecting from Apple later on this afternoon.
Speaker 8 (18:46):
Well, first, Jonathan, I just want to comment on your
last segment. The two things about those high moving stocks
is that they're investing in AI and that's really the
issue that we have with Apple in terms of the quarter.
You know, look there's a pull forward right and had
to announced tariffs. I think people went out and bought
iPhones ahead of the time. We've already seen this commentary
(19:06):
out of the major distribution channel for Apple, which is
the wireless operators for Verizon AT and T T Mobile
and others. So you are going to see a pull
forward of iPhone revenue this quarter. So then the question,
as it always is for Apple, is you know, what
is the guidance for next quarter? But again that's that
focuses on I think, you know the near term where
(19:26):
what investors are really wanting a note to know about
is what is the AI strategy for this company for
the long term because clearly the companies that are succeeding
in the markets today and seeing investor dollars flow into them.
Are those that have a clear AI strategy.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Well, this just points to the idea that we might
see their expense costs go down because they've lost a
couple of pretty high profile AI technicians and strategists to
the likes of Meta, which is offering one hundred million
dollar payouts. I just wonder how important it's going to
be for investors to see spending by Apple, to see
that they are working on getting back some of that
(20:04):
promise from this latest technology.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
I mean, there's two lines of spending.
Speaker 8 (20:09):
You have capital investment, where they're investing in the stuff
that supports in LLM. It's probably too late for Apple
to do that now. But there's another line of spending,
and that's R and D which is over thirty billion
dollars a year that the company invests. In the old days,
when they would have analysts on that would ask tough questions,
you would have people ask and say like, hey, where
(20:29):
are you spending the thirty billion? There'd be some response
in terms of the mix of R and D investment
in new products versus old products, and there'd be some
indication to give investors some hope that there would be
new products or services incoming. Then we know what happened, right,
Things like Project Titan that would have gotten them into
autonomy were killed, and we saw other products products that
(20:49):
came to market like the Vision pro that really didn't
find a market opportunity. So I think hopefully we have
some analysts on the call tonight during that Q and
A session that will ask about where are you investing
that thirty billion in R and D, what are some
of the new products we can invest in? What is
the AI strategy for the company going forward?
Speaker 4 (21:08):
Well, you've mentioned this a couple of times, so we
have to go there. You think that the analyst community
hasn't done a good enough job holding the feet to
the fire of Apple at a time when it seems
like maybe some of their strategies were overly complacent.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
I think it's a problem with earnings calls in general.
These days. We do, at lea Shay, we do a
quarterly review of this.
Speaker 8 (21:25):
We count the number of times analysts get on call
and say great quarter, guys. I saw I heard it
last night on another call again for a company that
had a one million dollars in revenue, and an analyst
was congratulating them on a great quarter. And they do
that because they get on the calls right, and then
when they get on the calls, they don't ask the
tough questions that management need to be asked that investors
(21:47):
want to here to figure out what that long term
strategy is.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
It's very frustrating.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Well, I see this with journalists too. How do we
fix it?
Speaker 8 (21:56):
I mean, investors themselves have to put pressure on there.
I certainly never want for incremental regulation, but I think
the investors, the people that actually own the stock, need
to start pressuring the companies or you know, look to
us or others to provide. Maybe Bloomberg should start doing
their own quarterly review like we do, evaluating which analysts
(22:16):
are getting on the call, which have buy ratings versus
holds or sells.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
For asking questions on these calls, Well.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Apple was an odd one. It's probably the most well
researched company on the planet. There's only three cells on it.
And to your point, it's a company in a difficult
spot that should face some difficult questions later on this afternoon,
and well maybe won't. The issue that I have with
some of the balls is they often come on the
program and talk about the same thing over and over again.
They'll talk about growth that's coming further down the line.
(22:42):
They'll talk about an upgrade cycle that doesn't seem to
be happening. Well, when do they capitulate on that? At
what point do you think they have to?
Speaker 8 (22:50):
I mean, to me, that's just laughable, right, I mean,
you're exactly right, John. I mean, it's the five percent
growth that it doesn't happen next quarter in the guidance,
So they just say, oh, it's going to come the
quarter after that or the quarter after that. But I
think again, look at look at Apple's performance relative to
the mag seven. You know, it's it still has a
multiple that's a premium, right, It's still a good brand
(23:11):
in the market. There's still an opportunity I think for
them to get out of this if they get more
focused on products and developing, you know, some type of
AI strategy. I've suggested that may require a change in
the management, a change in the CEO specifically. There's others
that think that they can be they can do it
with the existing CEO and just give them another year.
(23:33):
But the problem with that is a year from now,
what is the market going to look like? You know,
what products are going to be in the market that
are already disrupting Apple. The pace of innovation because of
AI is faster than anything we've ever seen. Everyone agrees
right more or less, that AI is going to be
something that's have a bigger impact on our economy than
(23:55):
even the Internet did. And yet you know, we're still
not getting the questions asked of them and terms of
you know, what's.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Going on with AI?
Speaker 8 (24:02):
Why do I when I still use Siri today, why
does it still work the same it did?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
You know three years ago?
Speaker 8 (24:07):
It's seemingly to me when I can pick up chat
ept press their audio button and it works great.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Well.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Before I let you go, I'd love to hear your
take on China and India and the manufacturing pathway for Apple.
How much visibility do you think they're going to give?
Will people be making iPhones in New Jersey?
Speaker 8 (24:28):
I mean, there was some excitement about some shift of
manufacturing to India, but there's there's been a great book
I forget the name of the author, but that came
out recently talking about how Apple has moved manufacturing to
China has enabled that country to be a manufacturing powerhouse
and the difficulty that exist in trying to move that,
(24:49):
you know, to other countries, whether it's India, the United.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
States or elsewhere.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
So obviously that remains there's always these like existential or
you know, existing risks, whether it's manufacturer in China. The
twenty billion dollar plus that Google pays them for search,
which is obviously under scrutiny of the government because it
was it was used as a way to keep Apple
out of search. There are these big ticket items in
(25:13):
terms of events that can certainly you know, still happen.
That's not a way to invest on these break ticket
items that you know that may or may not happen.
We should be focused on at least where the AI
strategy is. And look, you're right, like, you know, I
don't know what they can update us on in China.
How quickly they could get out of China. It's doubtful
they would have anything that would make the market, you know,
(25:36):
the concerns go away that all of a sudden, you're
going to move this amount of volume out of China
back to a different market.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Well, I appreciate your time.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Well PI sec of Lifshed.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
This is the Bloomberg Seventans podcast bringing you the best
in markets, economics, and Giet 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 own
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 am Marie 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
(00:33):
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. Joining us now
to discuss is the former Kansas City Fed President Esther.
George Esther, Welcome back to the program. I remember your
descent in twenty nineteen. I remember your descent. I think
it was in twenty twenty two. You've got some experience.
Can you describe for us what it's like entering the room,
the committee has a conversation and you say, you know what,
(00:53):
I disagree, I think we should be going in a
different direction.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Well, it is and parcel of decision making in a
large committee, in my view, and you approach those conversations,
those decisions in a way that I think is respectful
of what you're hearing around the table, that you've taken
into account, agree with the chairman. You want to acknowledge
(01:18):
that you are listening and understand what the arguments are.
But at the end of the day, decision making is difficult,
and I would argue it is particularly difficult in times
when the read of the data is not so clear
across the table, and I always felt it was as
much an obligation to the public to express.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Those views, to be.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Respectful again of what you've heard, but at the end
of the day, to really voice how you see the
economy and the appropriate stance of policy.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
We saw a pretty big divide represented by the views
of FED Governor Member Chris Waller as well as FED
chair Jap Powell. Both have a very different view of
the labor market, and John's been really good about accentuating
the point that we only have two months of data.
Do we have enough time to really bridge that gap
between the two men to really understand whether this labor
(02:13):
market truly is stable and solid or whether there are cracks.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Well, I heard earlier a comment on your program that
talked about each time you finish up one meeting and
think you have plenty of time to see the data
for the next that.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Is never conclusive.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
You will always face uncertainty around what the data is
telling you and whether the trends you're relying on are
about to shift or whether they will continue. And so
that of course is going to be the focus in
bringing these two views to some kind of consensus. I'd
be surprised if two months resolves that, but obviously both
(02:52):
we'll be looking very carefully to try to reconcile how
the economy's unfolding by that time.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Is your sense there's quite a bit of disagreement on
the ending point, because certainly on Wall Street there's a
great deal of uncertainty about whether the neutral rate is
something closer to four percent or whether it's closer to
three percent. Do you get the sense that there's that
type of disagreement just among FED members.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Well, at some level, Lisa, It is absolutely the issue
at hand, because when you are trying to specify your policy,
when you're trying to describe it, particularly after a time
when you brought down rates by one hundred basis points,
trying to calibrate around what is an equilibrium, what we
(03:38):
should we be expecting that the endgame is and so
you see that in a long run sense in the
dot plots. But of course, for any given stage in
the economic cycle, you'd be very hard pressed to know
exactly what you're looking for. So that I think, at
the end of the day is really the question is
this mildly restricted policy? Is it restrictive? Is it not
(04:00):
restrictive at all relative to the outcomes we're getting? Is
at the heart of what the committee is debating.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
There seems to be disagreements on both sides of the
mandate as the not just on the inflation story, but
also on the labor market. We have payrolls tomorrow. We've
heard from Governor Waller. He was pretty explicit. He came
on this program and said the same thing. He thinks
the labor market is on the edge. That was like
day and night compared to what we heard from Chairman
Pow yesterday when he talked about the labor market and
the Committee continues to call it solid. Can we get
(04:30):
your opinion how you view the labor market at the
moment and whether you'd characterize it as solid.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Well, I think this is a labor market that's shifting
and obviously in a macro sense. This is a committee
that is making macro policy has to rely on a
macro number, which the chairman said is going to be
the unemployment rate. So in that sense, they have explained
clearly in a broad sense, what they're looking at as
(04:57):
things move around. Though underneath the of that unemployment rate,
I think you have to be mindful that the Fed's
reaction to that cannot be a direct response. In other words,
if you're going to lower rates thinking you will arrest,
the changes that are going on under the covers not
likely to happen. And so in a time when your
(05:19):
backdrop is coming off of high inflation trying to get
back to that two percent target, it creates this weight
and see it creates a real sense of having to
have conviction around the next move in your policy rate
to know what you are responding to.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
Esther, thanks for sharing some of your experience with us
this morning. We appreciate it as the judge that the
former Kansas City FED president to extend the conversation. Jason Furman,
the former economic advisor to President Obama, joins us now
(05:58):
for more. Jason, welcome back to the program. The data
seems to be okay. The Utning's from Corporate America better
than good. We're a few months into this process, and
I just wonder, from your point of view, Jason, whether
you believe it's premature to sound the or clear.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
I don't think the data is that terrific.
Speaker 6 (06:14):
In the first half of this year, the economy grew
at a one point two percent annual rate, that is
way below where we should be. Core inflation was a
three point zero percent annual rate. That's way above where
we should be. So no, it's not a catastrophe by
any stretch of the imagination. But you know, there's more
than a hint of stagflation in the numbers we saw
(06:36):
in the first half of this year.
Speaker 5 (06:37):
Looking at it together, it.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Was something Jason that Bob Michael was talking about. The
key question for a lot of people is how big
is the stag and how big is the flation? What
are you looking for to determine the answer to that question.
Speaker 6 (06:51):
Look, one of the confusing signals here is the disconnect
between GDP growth, which has been weak. It was even
negative in the first corridor, although some of that I
think was furious measurement issue, and the job market, which
if you look at the unemployment rate, which Jay Powell
rightly emphasized yesterday, has held up quite well. And you know,
(07:12):
you see consumers cutting their spending back but continuing to
get jobs, continuing to get raises, and that on the
stag side of the ledger is making things even more unclear.
Speaker 4 (07:24):
Well on the flation side of things right now, there's
a question about the trickle out effects of the tariffs,
whether we've seen the ramifications yet. A lot of economists
have been saying, wait until the third quarter, wait into
the fourth quarter, and see exactly how companies really managed
through this. Who do you think is a good example,
or is there an industry that you think is a
good example that might have given us an early look
(07:46):
at how this trickles out and what consumer receptivity is
to absorbing those price increases.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
Look, some of the lowest margin businesses like toys, you
see that passed on very quickly. At the other end
of the spectrum, cars where you have the President telling
them not to raise prices, their prices are very visible.
Speaker 5 (08:06):
They've been reluctant to do it.
Speaker 6 (08:08):
But it's not like General Motors is going to continue
to sell cars at a loss indefinitely. They're eventually going
to have to raise those prices.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Jason, do you see this being offset by what's developing
in services inflation at the moment? How are you reading
what's happening in one side versus the other?
Speaker 6 (08:26):
I mean, services is continuing to come down, but we
sort of always thought that was going to happen. That
was our path to two percent. That was the part
we were counting on. The problem is that the goods
deflation has reversed, and now we have goods inflation again.
And so one of those I take for granted doesn't
seem to me like the news. The other one the
good side. That's the unpleasant surprise here. Now, the idea
(08:49):
that it's transitory is not at all crazy. I think
there's even a very good chance it's true. But if
you're the Fed, do you want to bet everything on
a very good chance when you're definitely not sure?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
With that in mind, do you think two months of
dankster is enough danta to draw any conclusions before you
make a decision.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
I mean, you.
Speaker 6 (09:07):
Always think the two months from now everything's going to
be clear, and then two months from now everything is
still muddy, so it's going to be money two months
from now, they're going to be getting conflicting data, but yeah,
maybe it'll be a tiny bit clearer than it is now.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
I keep going back to the way that John opened
the show, which was Jay Who, and it raises the
question implicitly about how relevant the FED is at a
time of massive technological explosion, and we're seeing that in
the tech earnings. I mean, how much does the advancement,
the investment coming from some of the tech giants in
the United States overwhelm some of this discussion has certainly
overwhelmed the negative consequences from the tariffs, so a lot
(09:45):
of people had expected.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
It depends what you're talking about.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
If you're talking about the stock market, Yeah, a lot
of what's going on in the numerator, which is earnings,
rather than the denominator.
Speaker 5 (09:56):
The discount rate is what matters right now.
Speaker 6 (10:00):
If you're talking about GDP, we're not seeing a lot
of tech at least in the supply side. Frankly, we're
actually seeing it more on the demand side right now,
and so if anything, it might be inflationary. Upfront productivity
growth is basically right on the track we thought it
would be prior to the pandemic. So tech is helping
(10:20):
the stock market quite a lot. I'm optimistic and hopeful
it will help GDP, but right now it is not
having any real material impact.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
There, Jason, that's a strong fund of point. We'll leave
it there, Thank you, sir, Jason Furman. That at the
Harvard Kennedy School, Gagi Chantry with blankcropt writing, AI and
Tech continues to lead here pushing back on the broadening
(10:51):
out narrative yet again, as underpinned by strong beats from METSA, Microsoft,
and Google. Gagie joint is now for more Gaki, good.
Speaker 7 (10:57):
Monic, Hi, good morning.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Just phenomenal beats from these companies. How difficult is it
to leave the US behind and just pile into this
europe trade, pile into this everything else tride you now.
Speaker 7 (11:07):
One of the things that we've been talking to clients
about is the need for diversification, but at the same
time not giving up on the US dec AI theme.
And I think to the extent that investors have not
had any international exposure or massively underweight. For those investors,
(11:27):
having some exposure to quality international names does make sense.
But so important, as was made evident by yesterday's earnings.
What you need in your portfolio is parts of the
equity market that are continuing to have revenue growth, continuing
to throw out amazing amounts of free cash flow. And Chathan,
I think you made that point earlier that we're finally
(11:50):
getting an ROI on all of the capex that has
gone in over the last year, and we're seeing the
world's largest companies grow growing revenue at the high double digits,
which is amazing.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
In some ways. The least interesting thing about this week
is Tariff's at the trade deadline. Now, if you'd ask
me that on hyproback in July, whether that would be
the case July ninth, going into that deadline, I would
have said, well, you're talking about tariff is like the story.
Do you think that's going to reassert itself in a
month's account.
Speaker 7 (12:20):
I think we're all and I know I follow your show.
You're focusing in it as well. Obviously, some of the
headlines yesterday around copper, around India tariffs, those idiosyncratic stories
are going to drive certain markets and eventually in time,
when we realize what the landing zone of tariffs will be,
whether that's closer to a fifteen percent or a twenty percent,
(12:42):
Eventually we will see that feed through, and we're already
kind of seeing that in goods inflation, certain components of
goods inflation. So it will appear, it won't disappear. It
will appear in data, and it will appear in margins,
or it will appear in certain foreign companies reducing their prices.
But of right now, I think the bigger theme is
(13:02):
the two things. Number one, the ROI on Capex coming
through and large cap deck really a large cap deck
and AI really being the story that's going to propel
us exceptionalism forward. And I think the second one, which
is also less exciting this morning, which is that the Fed,
while I think they're both quite hawkish, they're still telling
(13:24):
us in their own way that if things wobble, especially
in the unemployment rate front, they are here to start
cutting rates. And I think that's something else that the
market will eventually care about as well.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
When you put these stories together, there's sort of this
big question underputting the market. What are we going to
get the trickling out of some of the benefits that
the hyperscalers are experiencing to the rest of the market.
When are you going to see a broadening out where
their leadership isn't just a ballast amid a storm, but
really something that is driving gains an efficiency and profitability
(13:56):
across corporate America. How far away from that away?
Speaker 7 (14:01):
So, I think depending on what people mean when they
mean broadening out, I would argue you're seeing some and
then at the same time you're obviously continuing to see
the largest companies throughout the largest revenue growth. So when
I say there is some amount of broadening out, I
would say when you look at something like financials, when
you look at different sectors or sub sectors within the
(14:22):
equity market, this year, you are seeing more of those
sectors being in positive territory. That could be called one
that could be one way of thinking about broadening. But
at the same time, obviously you have the largest hyperscalers
being the largest revenue growers, and I think that that
probably pushes back against the broadening out narrative. I think
(14:42):
the theme is clear. It is one of moving away
from small cap, unprofitable companies to large cap quality companies.
And that's what we've been talking about and many you know,
you guys have been having a lot of people on
your show. They've talked about that theme of large cap.
Perhaps it doesn't feel as comfortable to talk about it
(15:03):
it being also talked about it last year, but it's
still working and it will continue to work. I think
the theme going forward for the next six month is
finding pockets of diversification in your portfolio. In addition to
this AI and tech trade, international plays a role there.
Fixed income plays a role there, assets like inflation link bonds, gold,
(15:24):
and certainly market neutral strategies that aren't giving you too
much beta but at the same time giving you alpha
makes sense.
Speaker 4 (15:31):
International plays role and John was alluding to this earlier.
There was this belief that international was going to outperform
the US earlier this year, and it did, and a
lot of it was pegged the dollar, and when we
saw the weakening, there's been a huge and violent about face.
Do you think that there is staying power where the
first half was the rest of the world and the
second half is back to US exceptionalism.
Speaker 7 (15:53):
I think that a lot of that violent move that
you mentioned was very much around the underperformance, and obviously
with July, with the dollar coming back, rallying back has
led to a little bit of that reversal. I think
the path forward a big part of that story will
be what happens with the dollar. Frankly, what we're seeing
(16:14):
in flows and what we're seeing when we pull our
investors and our clients is a recognition of the need
to diversify away from a large gap because that's all
they have, not because it's not going to generate returns,
but because there is a need for getting that value
component into portfolios and getting that from international to the extent,
(16:38):
not just US investors, but global investors continue to move
away from US into going back to their home countries.
So we look at European investors and APAC investors, and
many of those investors are just being a little bit
more diversified away from the US. To the extent that happens,
I think that the international story can certainly have some legs,
(16:59):
but not at the expense of US large cap quality
and growth.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Let's just say, on the US, when you set diversify,
you set diversify the equity. So if I'm in the
US right now, I diversify my equity exposure to the
international story. Given where we are right now with the dollar,
is that something I need to currency hedge?
Speaker 7 (17:16):
You know, that's an interesting question, like a lot of
right now. The view for our firm is still that
the dollar can continue to depreciate. Usually, what we've seen
is that the dollar depreciations happen in these long cycles.
It's not just for one month or a week. It
happens over many months, eighteen to twenty four months, and
we're just in the beginning of that. In that case,
(17:38):
obviously you want some of those foreign exposures. You want
that exposure to some of the you know em as
well as DM currencies. Fixed income, though, is another story,
right So, usually what we've seen our clients do is
in fixed income allegations not necessarily taking the FCS risk,
actually hedging it back into US for that enhanced yield.
(18:03):
And that's something that you know, some of our portfolio managers,
especially in fixed income with products like bink, are doing
taking advantage of the hedged costs for European and other
areas credit markets.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Gaky appreciate it. It's got to see you. Thanks for
breaking it down, Gagy Chuntry there of Black Crook, what
pic of life Shed Partners has a neutral racing on Apple.
He came out in front in the last few months
or so, and so the tech gig I should also
(18:37):
consider a new CEO. What joins us now for more Well,
welcome back to the program. Let's talk about what you're
expecting from Apple later on this afternoon.
Speaker 8 (18:46):
Well, first, Jonathan, I just want to comment on your
last segment. The two things about those high moving stocks
is that they're investing in AI and that's really the
issue that we have with Apple in terms of the quarter.
You know, look there's a pull forward right and had
to announced tariffs. I think people went out and bought
iPhones ahead of the time. We've already seen this commentary
(19:06):
out of the major distribution channel for Apple, which is
the wireless operators for Verizon AT and T T Mobile
and others. So you are going to see a pull
forward of iPhone revenue this quarter. So then the question,
as it always is for Apple, is you know, what
is the guidance for next quarter? But again that's that
focuses on I think, you know the near term where
(19:26):
what investors are really wanting a note to know about
is what is the AI strategy for this company for
the long term because clearly the companies that are succeeding
in the markets today and seeing investor dollars flow into them.
Are those that have a clear AI strategy.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Well, this just points to the idea that we might
see their expense costs go down because they've lost a
couple of pretty high profile AI technicians and strategists to
the likes of Meta, which is offering one hundred million
dollar payouts. I just wonder how important it's going to
be for investors to see spending by Apple, to see
that they are working on getting back some of that
(20:04):
promise from this latest technology.
Speaker 3 (20:07):
I mean, there's two lines of spending.
Speaker 8 (20:09):
You have capital investment, where they're investing in the stuff
that supports in LLM. It's probably too late for Apple
to do that now. But there's another line of spending,
and that's R and D which is over thirty billion
dollars a year that the company invests. In the old days,
when they would have analysts on that would ask tough questions,
you would have people ask and say like, hey, where
(20:29):
are you spending the thirty billion? There'd be some response
in terms of the mix of R and D investment
in new products versus old products, and there'd be some
indication to give investors some hope that there would be
new products or services incoming. Then we know what happened, right,
Things like Project Titan that would have gotten them into
autonomy were killed, and we saw other products products that
(20:49):
came to market like the Vision pro that really didn't
find a market opportunity. So I think hopefully we have
some analysts on the call tonight during that Q and
A session that will ask about where are you investing
that thirty billion in R and D, what are some
of the new products we can invest in? What is
the AI strategy for the company going forward?
Speaker 4 (21:08):
Well, you've mentioned this a couple of times, so we
have to go there. You think that the analyst community
hasn't done a good enough job holding the feet to
the fire of Apple at a time when it seems
like maybe some of their strategies were overly complacent.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
I think it's a problem with earnings calls in general.
These days. We do, at lea Shay, we do a
quarterly review of this.
Speaker 8 (21:25):
We count the number of times analysts get on call
and say great quarter, guys. I saw I heard it
last night on another call again for a company that
had a one million dollars in revenue, and an analyst
was congratulating them on a great quarter. And they do
that because they get on the calls right, and then
when they get on the calls, they don't ask the
tough questions that management need to be asked that investors
(21:47):
want to here to figure out what that long term
strategy is.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
It's very frustrating.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Well, I see this with journalists too. How do we
fix it?
Speaker 8 (21:56):
I mean, investors themselves have to put pressure on there.
I certainly never want for incremental regulation, but I think
the investors, the people that actually own the stock, need
to start pressuring the companies or you know, look to
us or others to provide. Maybe Bloomberg should start doing
their own quarterly review like we do, evaluating which analysts
(22:16):
are getting on the call, which have buy ratings versus
holds or sells.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
For asking questions on these calls, Well.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Apple was an odd one. It's probably the most well
researched company on the planet. There's only three cells on it.
And to your point, it's a company in a difficult
spot that should face some difficult questions later on this afternoon,
and well maybe won't. The issue that I have with
some of the balls is they often come on the
program and talk about the same thing over and over again.
They'll talk about growth that's coming further down the line.
(22:42):
They'll talk about an upgrade cycle that doesn't seem to
be happening. Well, when do they capitulate on that? At
what point do you think they have to?
Speaker 8 (22:50):
I mean, to me, that's just laughable, right, I mean,
you're exactly right, John. I mean, it's the five percent
growth that it doesn't happen next quarter in the guidance,
So they just say, oh, it's going to come the
quarter after that or the quarter after that. But I
think again, look at look at Apple's performance relative to
the mag seven. You know, it's it still has a
multiple that's a premium, right, It's still a good brand
(23:11):
in the market. There's still an opportunity I think for
them to get out of this if they get more
focused on products and developing, you know, some type of
AI strategy. I've suggested that may require a change in
the management, a change in the CEO specifically. There's others
that think that they can be they can do it
with the existing CEO and just give them another year.
(23:33):
But the problem with that is a year from now,
what is the market going to look like? You know,
what products are going to be in the market that
are already disrupting Apple. The pace of innovation because of
AI is faster than anything we've ever seen. Everyone agrees
right more or less, that AI is going to be
something that's have a bigger impact on our economy than
(23:55):
even the Internet did. And yet you know, we're still
not getting the questions asked of them and terms of
you know, what's.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Going on with AI?
Speaker 8 (24:02):
Why do I when I still use Siri today, why
does it still work the same it did?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
You know three years ago?
Speaker 8 (24:07):
It's seemingly to me when I can pick up chat
ept press their audio button and it works great.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
Well.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
Before I let you go, I'd love to hear your
take on China and India and the manufacturing pathway for Apple.
How much visibility do you think they're going to give?
Will people be making iPhones in New Jersey?
Speaker 8 (24:28):
I mean, there was some excitement about some shift of
manufacturing to India, but there's there's been a great book
I forget the name of the author, but that came
out recently talking about how Apple has moved manufacturing to
China has enabled that country to be a manufacturing powerhouse
and the difficulty that exist in trying to move that,
(24:49):
you know, to other countries, whether it's India, the United.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
States or elsewhere.
Speaker 8 (24:52):
So obviously that remains there's always these like existential or
you know, existing risks, whether it's manufacturer in China. The
twenty billion dollar plus that Google pays them for search,
which is obviously under scrutiny of the government because it
was it was used as a way to keep Apple
out of search. There are these big ticket items in
(25:13):
terms of events that can certainly you know, still happen.
That's not a way to invest on these break ticket
items that you know that may or may not happen.
We should be focused on at least where the AI
strategy is. And look, you're right, like, you know, I
don't know what they can update us on in China.
How quickly they could get out of China. It's doubtful
they would have anything that would make the market, you know,
(25:36):
the concerns go away that all of a sudden, you're
going to move this amount of volume out of China
back to a different market.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Well, I appreciate your time.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Well PI sec of Lifshed.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
This is the Bloomberg Seventans podcast bringing you the best
in markets, economics, and Giet 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 own
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!