May 19, 2025 • 24 mins
- Krishna Memani, CIO at Lafayette College
- Jeannette Lowe, Director: Policy Research at Strategas Securities
- Kathy Jones, Chief Fixed Income Strategist at Charles Schwab
- Neil Dutta, Head: US Economic Research at Renaissance Macro
Krishna Memani, CIO at Lafayette College and Kathy Jones, Chief Fixed Income Strategist at Charles Schwab, join to discuss the US economic outlook after the Moody's US credit downgrade and rise in long-term Treasury yields. Jeannette Lowe, Director: Policy Research at Strategas Securities, talks about the latest on tax bill negotiations and President Trump's economic agenda. Neil Dutta, Head: US Economic Research at Renaissance Macro, discusses US economic indicators and whether the US economy is weakening, as well as the outlook for rate cuts in 2025.
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. The White House
putting the pressure on Walmart, the President writing over the
weekend quote, Walmart should stop trying to blame tariffs as
the reason for raising prices, Eat the tariffs and not
charge valued customers anything. Neil Data of ronmac joint Us.
Now for more, Neil, welcome to the program. Lots to
get through. Let's start here. We know, by definition, the
(00:54):
importer pace the tariff. How are the costs shared? That's
the question. How do you think the cost will be
distributed in the month to account?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Well, I think the important thing here is the admission
that obviously the exporter is not the one that's paying, right.
I mean, that's an implicit subtext here. They're basically admitting
that it's American companies and consumers that will end up
eating the costs. So I think that's an important sort
of admission biomission there.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Look, I mean I.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Think some of it's going to get passed on to consumers,
maybe half. I just you know, obviously, retail profit margins
aren't especially high to begin with, so I think it's
going to be challenging for a company like Walmart to
not pass on at least some of the tariff burden.
(01:49):
But keep in mind that, you know, the bigger issue
is what that means down the line. I mean, if
corporate profit margins get squeezed, ultimately, they're going to have
to pay the piper somehow, and I mean consumers, and
that might show up in the form of weaker hiring,
weaker wage growth, and that's another sort of effect on
(02:10):
consumption in and of itself.
Speaker 6 (02:11):
Hold on a second, Yal, this is actually a really
important point, and there's a question about how much some
of these retailers can increase prices where it becomes not
necessarily inflationary, but disinflationary because it surprises demand. Are you
seeing any evidence that that's actually happening, given that reports
have been pretty mixed and dependent on just execution as
much as anything else.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Well, I think companies are going to find significant resistance
in terms of, you know, trying to pass on the
higher costs, because ultimately the inflationary story boils down to a.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
Household's budget constraint.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
And when you talk about tariffs, I mean whatever goes
I mean, think about price and quantity, whatever goes into
P is ultimately going to come out of Q. And
so you know, look, I mean right now, nominal GDP
growth is probably barely growing at four four and a
half percent, if you can maybe talk me into that,
So if you get a signify an increase in inflation,
you're going to get a big drop in real growth.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I mean it's as simple as that.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
So look, I mean, the household's budget constraint is getting worse,
not better, and I think that you know that ultimately
means that, you know, anything that's passed on to consumers
will mean weaker real economic activity.
Speaker 6 (03:15):
We've gotten a pretty big consumer stimulus over the past
month that's come in the form of significantly lower oil prices,
and this is something that we've heard the administration talk
about quite a bit, and I wonder how much that
offsets some of the constraints on household budgets and actually
allows more more money for retail, for retailers for goods,
for things that might be more expensive due to the terraffs.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Well, we I mean, we have seen a widening in spreads, right,
So it's not like the drop in oil prices has
translated sort of one for one to gasoline, so consumers
haven't really felt the benefits. But no, look at some level,
I mean, I agree with you that you know, the
drop in crude oil prices is meaningful and the FETs
should sort of take that into into their into account
when they think about how they're you know, looking at
(03:59):
interest rates policy setting, because you can't pick and choose
which supply shock you want to pay attention to. On
the one hand, you have a negative supply shock from terras,
on the other hand, you have a positive supply shock
from the energy markets.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
And you know, a.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Typical rule of thumb I believe is a twenty percent
drop and imprude prices takes about thirty to forty basis
points off of headline inflation, so that'll provide a meaningful
sort of tail into the disinflation story. And remember, oil
doesn't matter a lot for you know, underlying inflations, but
it does matter for sort of the monthly swings in
headline prices. So I think it's something to keep in
(04:38):
mind here.
Speaker 7 (04:39):
No, I want to get your take on what's going
on in Congress. We have this big, beautiful bill slowly
passing through the committee's potential is going to hit the
House floor by the end of the week. You've always
talked about the fact that this is just basically baked
into the market because it's an extension of TCJA. But
now potentially does this become a risk for financial markets?
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Well, I mean, I don't. I don't, I don't know.
I mean I always talk to you about what's going
on in DC. I don't really have many views on
that myself.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
We have a view of what it means for financial markets.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Well, I don't. I think basically what they're doing is
removing ahead wind, not putting in much tailwind. And so yeah,
I mean I don't think the uh. I guess my
sense is is that there's not much new coming from
this so if the bond market's keying off of the
fiscal negotiations, it doesn't really make that much sense to me,
(05:32):
you know. So I do think a lot of that
was already baked and you're seeing, you know, yields go
up globally. So I don't really think it's US fiscal
that's driving what's going on in the back end of the.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Treasury curve here, And then what do you think it is? Then?
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I just think that, you know, it's a that's a
good that's a good question. I mean, I think there's
some residual sort of you know, fading of recession risk.
There's I mean, it's not just the US, right, I mean,
it's also global in nature. I mean, you have a
lot of countries kind of stepping up in terms of
fiscal It's not just the US.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
You have it in Europe as well.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
But I think it's sort of it's a combination of
economic resilience, you know, people kind of getting tired of
betting on a recession that hasn't happened, and you know,
I think it's a.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
Sort of global fiscal story.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
So, you know, the US story, I think by comparison
to some of these other countries, there's not as much new.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
There, I think, as is the case for some of
these other countries.
Speaker 6 (06:25):
We've been trying to sell thirty year treasuries to some
people as are coming on the show to see who
wants to buy them, and so far nobody has wanted
to buy them, even those who believe in some of
the resilience of the US economics story. So are you
one of those who sees this as an opportunity to
invest in the dynamism of long term interest rates?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I mean, look, I mean, to me, there are too
many things in the economy that don't work with interest
rates up at these levels. Therefore interest rates will have
to come down. So yeah, I mean I'd be buying
duration here.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
I think it's sounds limitsing now. I think it's an
important point. You believe it's so limiting that the laws
of gravity still exists for the bond market.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
I mean, how long can you sustain a situation where Morgan,
where interest rates are running above the rate of nominal GDP?
Speaker 5 (07:12):
That's I mean.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
And as you know, my economic outlook is generally more
on the.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
Cautious side of the consensus.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
So I think if economic momentum is slowing down. Interest
rates will come down as a result.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
No data, No appreciate your thoughts as always, buddy, no
data there of Remaka, Let's extend the conversation with Janet
Low of Stratetiga is a bad company. Jenet, welcome to
the program. To events one event, one outcome. Let's talk
(07:47):
about the event the US losing its final triple A
credit rating, this one from Moody's and the outcome Treasury
yields back through five percent on a thirty year bond.
Did the fiscal hawks in Washington just get some extra fuel?
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Oh?
Speaker 8 (08:01):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
This was definitely something that bolsters their argument. They had
gone into this fight a haul along saying there needed
to be much more significant budget cuts. They were the
ones who were pushing for even larger budget cuts in
order to have larger tax cuts in place. And they're
still not satisfied with just overall where the fiscal situation is. Essentially,
(08:23):
they're looking at the federal spending levels and seeing that
it's essentially about still four percentage points higher than it
was pre COVID in our long term average, and so
that's something that they really want to tackle here. So
the fact that you had on Friday morning, the members
of the House Budget can made, the fiscal hawks on
that committee voting no against this bill to send a
(08:44):
signal that they wanted more significant cuts, they wanted to
accelerate them. And then on top of that you get
the Moodies downgrade in the afternoon. That really added some
fuel to their argument to say that we need to
do something even stronger because of the US fiscal situation.
Speaker 7 (08:57):
Did this up end Speaker Johnson's plan to get this
all on by Memorial Day?
Speaker 8 (09:02):
I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
I think that there is obviously some significant push here
to get this done. This is part of Trump's agenda.
He doesn't want this bill to get accomplished. There has
to be some compromises because obviously the fiscal conservatives do
not have a solid majority. They have to negotiate with
the moderates to run this through on a Republican only basis,
and failure means that if you would actually have to
(09:24):
do a compromise with Democrats towards the end of the year,
if you can't get it done through reconciliation, and that
means that you would probably have higher spending levels and
higher taxes, and that's something that the conservatives don't want well.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
To you and Jonathan's point, the fiscal hawks seem to
have some fuel right now after what happened with the
Moody's downgrade. Who else has leverage in this fight?
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Yes, I mean, obviously I think the moderates, do you
still have leverage because they are not going to vote
for things that are going to cost them their seats.
They are obviously the majority makers in this Congress, and
so that's going to be really important for them to
not have significantly drastic cuts. So that's why I think,
you know, having work requirements moved up to twenty twenty
seven rather than immediately makes a little bit more sense.
Speaker 9 (10:06):
You also do have the Salt Caucus, so the blue.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
State Republicans who are pushing for a higher salt deduction,
they believe that that's really important. So they're still going
to be pushing to get their leverage in here. And
then obviously we do need to watch the Senate as well.
The Senate is saying that they're signaling that they're not
happy with some of the provisions that the House is
put forward, but the House also does have and the
Senate does have to realize that the House has this
very slow majority. There's not a lot of wiggle room
(10:31):
to really make significant changes if you have to deal
with these competing factions in the House caucus. Toe.
Speaker 6 (10:37):
I love a good deficit debate. It's a great thing
to have. We discussed it all the time. Is there
enough discussion about the growth side of this bill, how
much it actually does boost growth and the other side
of the balance sheet. It's crucial to keep the deficit
in some sort of balance relative to GDP.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Yeah, And I think this is a really important piece
with the tax bill is we have two things that
are happening. First, they did include more pro growth tax
provisions in this bill, so they have foot media expensing
for CAPBEX, for R and D and for structures again
to kind of get more domestic manufacturing in the United
States in the midst of this tariff war that we're
essentially having. And in the same time too, the fact
(11:15):
that we now have we had the significant tear of
reduction on Chinese goods over the past week, so that
also plays into this. So now we can have a
tax bill that has more pro growth provisions in it
that can actually help to sterilize the tariffs that are
still in place. And that's important because we do have
essentially a two trillion dollar consumption tax that's put into
(11:37):
the economy. So having fiscal stimulus for consumers that will
hit next taxis and is important. Plus you have these
business investment incentives, and together we look at what we
have this the current bill in front of us, we're
looking at saying that that is going to increase or
boost GDP by one percent, and that is a really
important point to also keep in mind.
Speaker 6 (11:57):
How much does that offset the increases to the deficit
on a sort of relative basis at a time where
people are saying at the same time, growth is going
to slow as a result of some of these tariffs.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Yeah, I mean, so I think we still think that
the deficit is on a improving trajectory. You do have
tariff income coming into the US treasury that won't obviously
count for this tax bill, but we are going to
see some improvement in the deficit. Obviously, it's not significant
for especially priscal conservatives, and so that's something that comes
into play.
Speaker 9 (12:26):
But if we were looking at.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
The fact that maybe we would have significant tariffs in place,
and maybe this tax bill would have been delayed that
wouldn't have helped.
Speaker 9 (12:34):
To boost the US economy. It could have been worse situation.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
If you actually have some of these pro growth tax
policies in place and they happen before the stronger tariffs hit,
that actually provides boost to do the US economy and
then actually can help with the growth over the long
term and then help with the deficit.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Jennet, just finally, just to wrap it up, do you
thinem they get this done a wait today?
Speaker 4 (12:56):
I do. I do think that they will get this
stead line is very strong in the House. Now. Maybe
it's not done by Thursday, maybe it's done by Friday,
or it gets pushed into that holiday weekend. But I
do think there's a strong effort to get this done.
And the fact that you had the Budget Committee meeting
at ten o'clock at night on a Sunday is really
important to show that they really do want to get
momentum voting present obviously with them backing down to some
(13:21):
extent to allow.
Speaker 9 (13:22):
The bill to move forward.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
And now they have a couple of days before they
do that one am Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Jeannette, appreciate your time. Thank you. Janet Low there thost fatiguas,
let's turn to markets. Bomb your tire across the curve
the dollar weaker, equity is lower as Moody strips the
US gouvernment of its top credit writing. Kathy John's are
(13:49):
child swap writing. This is not a case of the
US not having the capacity to pay the debt. It's
the willingness to reduce the deficit that is the issue.
Kathy joins us now for more. Kathy, welcome to the
Just your initial reactions to the needs from Moodies over
a weekend.
Speaker 9 (14:04):
Yeah, it really wasn't a big surprise.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
As you indicated earlier, they had them on negative watch.
Speaker 9 (14:09):
They're following s and p and pitch.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
As I watched the negotiations over the tax bill or
the budget bill, I thought, oh, well, we're not getting
anywhere we need to go to get our house in order.
Speaker 9 (14:23):
So not a big surprise.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
But it does bring forward all the issues that you've
been talking about that we're not enough path to sustainability,
something we need to address, but Congress doesn't seem willing
to address.
Speaker 6 (14:37):
I feel like every couple of years we talk about
the bond vigilantes grabbing their pitchforks and getting ready to
go out there and pick it, and it never actually
has any staying power because other people say, actually, well
you don't want we love. How close are we to
the bond vigilantes getting the upperhand and really shaping the
narrative here.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Yeah, I've never been a big fan of the bond
vigilante story because I remember the eighties and it was
more about inflation than it was about the budget.
Speaker 9 (15:02):
But that being said, in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Five we've got sequestration, which which actually did help get
the budget back in order.
Speaker 9 (15:09):
How close are we?
Speaker 1 (15:10):
You know, I don't think that we're looking at a
stampede out of treasuries, but I do think that.
Speaker 9 (15:15):
When you combine the whole policy mix.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
We have tariffs, a lower dollar that goes with that,
and this sort of deglobalization trend, then you get a
steady march higher in long term yields because you're discouraging inflow.
Speaker 9 (15:33):
Of capital capital that we need.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
So I think that we just continue to see a
steady climb in yields from here until something changes, either
the economy gets a lot weaker and we look at
more federy cuts, or we get some sort of you know,
fiscal deal that actually makes.
Speaker 7 (15:51):
Sense, Kathy, when it comes to a fiscal deal that
actually makes sense, what are you talking about? Is there
anything you see right now on the policy proposals?
Speaker 5 (15:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (15:59):
I mean I'm not a plicy analysts, but if I
sat down with a spreadsheet today and said how do
I get back to three percent deficit relative to GDP,
I wouldn't be cutting taxes on everybody, and I would,
you know, have to look hard at some of the
spending that we're doing.
Speaker 9 (16:19):
But that's not what's going on. You know, now we're
giving tax cuts, and on top of tax.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Cuts and spending is maybe trimmed a little around the
edges on Medicaid, but really all that does is on Medicaid,
you're just going to limit access. You're not, they're already
Medicaid spending to hospitals and to.
Speaker 9 (16:39):
Doctors is at a bare minimum level.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
So you're just limiting access to healthcare for part of
the population. And yeah, maybe that gets you a little ways,
but it's not going to the turn the dial.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
He Kathy.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
In the grund scheme of things, we're having this conversation
when things are good, the hot dates is still okay,
The hot date is still okay, and we will un
budget deficits north of six percent. Through the previous administration,
when the economy was an expansion in GDP was running
at three percent. Kathy, how much confidence do you have
that if we do indeed go into an economic dancer,
the dispawn market rallies and yields full.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Well, I think they'll fall, just not as much as
they would otherwise if we didn't have such a heavy
download and we weren't due pursuing these policies that are
in conflict again, trying to get a weaker dollar, limiting trade, deglobalizing,
all of that is going to be negative for getting
the capital inflows. We need to attract buyers of our bonds,
(17:38):
so we can cut rates, but we in line with
slower growth and lower inflation.
Speaker 9 (17:42):
But they're not going to go back to levels that
you might otherwise.
Speaker 6 (17:45):
Have thought given that, Kathy, does that limit the argument
for bonds just as you talk to potential clients as
a counter cyclical hedge the way that they have been traditionally.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Yeah, you know, I was looking at the correlations between
SO equities and over the weekend, and we had that
big dislocation in April, and now we've gone back to
a more normal out correlation. I think we may see
more of those dislocations. So what does that mean is
bonds don't provide as good a hedge as.
Speaker 9 (18:14):
They once did.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
But I think that it's going to be periodic dislocations
rather than long term dislocation because eventually the policies will
probably send the stock market lower and you'll need to
be somewhere, and frankly, a four and a half to
five percent treasure yield is not a bad place to sit.
We've been just advocating staying shorter, you know, benchmark a
(18:37):
shorter duration and up in credit quality because we're not
willing to take a lot of duration risk in this environment.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
You're not alone, Kathy, that's for sure.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
Kathy.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
John's a child swabbing. We need to turn to the
bond market. Christian Mammali of Lafat College with this to say,
I still like bonds despite the recent pain, for the
simple reason that I think inflation will not be as
significant an issue as the markets expect. Kristna joins us
(19:08):
now for more Christian, Welcome to the program, sir. Before
we get to tarifs and inflation, downgrades. How relevant is
that downgrade from Moody's ever at all?
Speaker 8 (19:17):
Well, so, I think your vestent is right on this kind.
Speaker 10 (19:22):
That is, the downgrade itself should have happened a while ago,
and it really isn't much of a driver of anything
in the market. I think if the downgrade had come
when S and P. Five hundred was at let's say,
fifty four hundred and fifty six hundred, I don't think
we'll be talking about in terms of impacting equities and
(19:42):
risk assets very much.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
But Krishna, as you know, it's coming after a big
conversation through much of April about the future of the
safe haven status of the United States following a big
policy shock on the trade front, and that's raising questions
about the future of a tax bill advancing down in Washington, DC,
and what it means for fixed income coming forward from here.
What do you think it does mean?
Speaker 10 (20:03):
Well, So, I think the real issue for the economy
right now is as Yelena was talking about, is really
the slowdown and the tax bill. But it isn't tariffs,
and it isn't really the impact of the fiscal deficit
that much on the state of the economy or even
the dollar.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
For that much.
Speaker 10 (20:21):
So I think what we are talking about here is
the tariff situation will get resolved, the tax will probably
gets passed, but with lower level of fiscal expansion in
twenty six twenty seven than what we are expecting right now,
that's really not a bad environment for bonds, and especially
in the light of the fact that inflation is really
(20:41):
not going to be that big a deal. It's you know,
tariff's impact in price levels, but it's really not as
inflationary as people are thinking in terms of it's a
consumption tax rather than inflationary.
Speaker 8 (20:53):
So if that is the case, inflation is.
Speaker 10 (20:55):
Not a big deal and real rates are high, and
you end up with a tax package that is more
reasonable rather than meaningfully expansionary, I think that's not too
bad for the bond market.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
So, Krishna, are you buying thirty year bonds?
Speaker 10 (21:08):
Well, so, you know, in our allocation, for example, for
an endowment, for example, what we are focused on is
really the long term return of equities and private equities
in particular, So bonds, you know, bonds are interesting, but
we can generate bond type returns out of low wall
(21:29):
hedge funds just as much. So no, we are not
buying it in my private portfolio.
Speaker 6 (21:33):
Yes, all right, So here's my question, Krishna, why does
it not concern you at all that we have a
toxic brew right now where you have bond selling off,
stock selling off, and the dollar selling off in tandem
at a time where people are making a lot of
noise about the fiscal deficit.
Speaker 10 (21:47):
Well, so I would say that you have to put
it in a bit of a context. That is, all
of this is happening after a significant rally on all
of those things over the last month, month and a half.
So you know, if we are giving, we are making
profits rather than rethinking the basic strategy here.
Speaker 7 (22:04):
Chris, Now, will you talk about in your notes that
you don't foresee a recession but a slow down. What
would make you reconsider that actually the US could tip
into a recession.
Speaker 10 (22:13):
Well, if the tax bill doesn't pass and tariffs get implemented,
that's a fiscal consolidation for the history book. So I
think that really would get us into a recession. If
we have a reasonable tax package and the fiscal consolidation
is or that there isn't as much fiscal expansion, I
(22:34):
don't think we get a recession.
Speaker 7 (22:35):
Well, that's already baked in that this we're going to
get an extension of TCJA. The issue right now is
potentially a lot of people talked about how this was
a removal of a headwind, but does this actually offer
some risk given the fact that we have this Moody's downgrade.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
Well, so I.
Speaker 10 (22:49):
Would say the fiscal consolidator or the tax impact effectively
off tariffs, let's say a percent in GDP without any
corresponding expansion on the tax package. If it is just
a renewal of TJSEA, then that's a different equation than
what we are talking about right now with the current bill.
Speaker 6 (23:09):
So right now you see that there's a downside risk
to growth. You see it because there is not necessarily
more fiscal impulse coming from the from Washington DC going forward.
Is this going to be something that can sustain some
of the private credit, the private investment that's been ongoing
in the US economy, or do you see something of
(23:29):
a very difficult time the fact that you are going
to private assets.
Speaker 8 (23:33):
Well, so, you know, I think private credit and.
Speaker 10 (23:38):
Things like that are really a reflection of credit growth
and the fact the disintermediation at the bank level. If
the FED is really effective in changing bank regulations in
a meaningful way, again, it's an open question whether they
will away from, you know, just giving them a little
bit of room to buy treasuries. I think if that happens,
(23:59):
the expansion private credit probably comes to, you know, the
growth that probably stops to some extent because banks will
have an opportunity to do a lot.
Speaker 8 (24:06):
Of things, you know, without that.
Speaker 10 (24:08):
You know, if the US economy and US corporate sector
is as good in the shape as it has been
over the last two three years, I think private markets
probably continue to do from a growth standpoint, as opposed
to return standpoint right now, probably continue to do just fine.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Krishna always wonderful to hear from his Christian Mamali there
of La Fat College. This is the Bloomberg Seventans podcast,
bringing you the best in markets, economics, anchier politics. You
can watch the show live on bloombag TV weekday mornings
from six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the
podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and
(24:46):
as always on the bloom Black Terminal and the Bloomberg
Business Amp
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. The White House
putting the pressure on Walmart, the President writing over the
weekend quote, Walmart should stop trying to blame tariffs as
the reason for raising prices, Eat the tariffs and not
charge valued customers anything. Neil Data of ronmac joint Us.
Now for more, Neil, welcome to the program. Lots to
get through. Let's start here. We know, by definition, the
(00:54):
importer pace the tariff. How are the costs shared? That's
the question. How do you think the cost will be
distributed in the month to account?
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Well, I think the important thing here is the admission
that obviously the exporter is not the one that's paying, right.
I mean, that's an implicit subtext here. They're basically admitting
that it's American companies and consumers that will end up
eating the costs. So I think that's an important sort
of admission biomission there.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Look, I mean I.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
Think some of it's going to get passed on to consumers,
maybe half. I just you know, obviously, retail profit margins
aren't especially high to begin with, so I think it's
going to be challenging for a company like Walmart to
not pass on at least some of the tariff burden.
(01:49):
But keep in mind that, you know, the bigger issue
is what that means down the line. I mean, if
corporate profit margins get squeezed, ultimately, they're going to have
to pay the piper somehow, and I mean consumers, and
that might show up in the form of weaker hiring,
weaker wage growth, and that's another sort of effect on
(02:10):
consumption in and of itself.
Speaker 6 (02:11):
Hold on a second, Yal, this is actually a really
important point, and there's a question about how much some
of these retailers can increase prices where it becomes not
necessarily inflationary, but disinflationary because it surprises demand. Are you
seeing any evidence that that's actually happening, given that reports
have been pretty mixed and dependent on just execution as
much as anything else.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Well, I think companies are going to find significant resistance
in terms of, you know, trying to pass on the
higher costs, because ultimately the inflationary story boils down to a.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
Household's budget constraint.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
And when you talk about tariffs, I mean whatever goes
I mean, think about price and quantity, whatever goes into
P is ultimately going to come out of Q. And
so you know, look, I mean right now, nominal GDP
growth is probably barely growing at four four and a
half percent, if you can maybe talk me into that,
So if you get a signify an increase in inflation,
you're going to get a big drop in real growth.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I mean it's as simple as that.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
So look, I mean, the household's budget constraint is getting worse,
not better, and I think that you know that ultimately
means that, you know, anything that's passed on to consumers
will mean weaker real economic activity.
Speaker 6 (03:15):
We've gotten a pretty big consumer stimulus over the past
month that's come in the form of significantly lower oil prices,
and this is something that we've heard the administration talk
about quite a bit, and I wonder how much that
offsets some of the constraints on household budgets and actually
allows more more money for retail, for retailers for goods,
for things that might be more expensive due to the terraffs.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Well, we I mean, we have seen a widening in spreads, right,
So it's not like the drop in oil prices has
translated sort of one for one to gasoline, so consumers
haven't really felt the benefits. But no, look at some level,
I mean, I agree with you that you know, the
drop in crude oil prices is meaningful and the FETs
should sort of take that into into their into account
when they think about how they're you know, looking at
(03:59):
interest rates policy setting, because you can't pick and choose
which supply shock you want to pay attention to. On
the one hand, you have a negative supply shock from terras,
on the other hand, you have a positive supply shock
from the energy markets.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
And you know, a.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Typical rule of thumb I believe is a twenty percent
drop and imprude prices takes about thirty to forty basis
points off of headline inflation, so that'll provide a meaningful
sort of tail into the disinflation story. And remember, oil
doesn't matter a lot for you know, underlying inflations, but
it does matter for sort of the monthly swings in
headline prices. So I think it's something to keep in
(04:38):
mind here.
Speaker 7 (04:39):
No, I want to get your take on what's going
on in Congress. We have this big, beautiful bill slowly
passing through the committee's potential is going to hit the
House floor by the end of the week. You've always
talked about the fact that this is just basically baked
into the market because it's an extension of TCJA. But
now potentially does this become a risk for financial markets?
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Well, I mean, I don't. I don't, I don't know.
I mean I always talk to you about what's going
on in DC. I don't really have many views on
that myself.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
We have a view of what it means for financial markets.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Well, I don't. I think basically what they're doing is
removing ahead wind, not putting in much tailwind. And so yeah,
I mean I don't think the uh. I guess my
sense is is that there's not much new coming from
this so if the bond market's keying off of the
fiscal negotiations, it doesn't really make that much sense to me,
(05:32):
you know. So I do think a lot of that
was already baked and you're seeing, you know, yields go
up globally. So I don't really think it's US fiscal
that's driving what's going on in the back end of the.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Treasury curve here, And then what do you think it is? Then?
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I just think that, you know, it's a that's a
good that's a good question. I mean, I think there's
some residual sort of you know, fading of recession risk.
There's I mean, it's not just the US, right, I mean,
it's also global in nature. I mean, you have a
lot of countries kind of stepping up in terms of
fiscal It's not just the US.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
You have it in Europe as well.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
But I think it's sort of it's a combination of
economic resilience, you know, people kind of getting tired of
betting on a recession that hasn't happened, and you know,
I think it's a.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
Sort of global fiscal story.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
So, you know, the US story, I think by comparison
to some of these other countries, there's not as much new.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
There, I think, as is the case for some of
these other countries.
Speaker 6 (06:25):
We've been trying to sell thirty year treasuries to some
people as are coming on the show to see who
wants to buy them, and so far nobody has wanted
to buy them, even those who believe in some of
the resilience of the US economics story. So are you
one of those who sees this as an opportunity to
invest in the dynamism of long term interest rates?
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I mean, look, I mean, to me, there are too
many things in the economy that don't work with interest
rates up at these levels. Therefore interest rates will have
to come down. So yeah, I mean I'd be buying
duration here.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
I think it's sounds limitsing now. I think it's an
important point. You believe it's so limiting that the laws
of gravity still exists for the bond market.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
I mean, how long can you sustain a situation where Morgan,
where interest rates are running above the rate of nominal GDP?
Speaker 5 (07:12):
That's I mean.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
And as you know, my economic outlook is generally more
on the.
Speaker 5 (07:16):
Cautious side of the consensus.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
So I think if economic momentum is slowing down. Interest
rates will come down as a result.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
No data, No appreciate your thoughts as always, buddy, no
data there of Remaka, Let's extend the conversation with Janet
Low of Stratetiga is a bad company. Jenet, welcome to
the program. To events one event, one outcome. Let's talk
(07:47):
about the event the US losing its final triple A
credit rating, this one from Moody's and the outcome Treasury
yields back through five percent on a thirty year bond.
Did the fiscal hawks in Washington just get some extra fuel?
Speaker 4 (08:00):
Oh?
Speaker 8 (08:01):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
This was definitely something that bolsters their argument. They had
gone into this fight a haul along saying there needed
to be much more significant budget cuts. They were the
ones who were pushing for even larger budget cuts in
order to have larger tax cuts in place. And they're
still not satisfied with just overall where the fiscal situation is. Essentially,
(08:23):
they're looking at the federal spending levels and seeing that
it's essentially about still four percentage points higher than it
was pre COVID in our long term average, and so
that's something that they really want to tackle here. So
the fact that you had on Friday morning, the members
of the House Budget can made, the fiscal hawks on
that committee voting no against this bill to send a
(08:44):
signal that they wanted more significant cuts, they wanted to
accelerate them. And then on top of that you get
the Moodies downgrade in the afternoon. That really added some
fuel to their argument to say that we need to
do something even stronger because of the US fiscal situation.
Speaker 7 (08:57):
Did this up end Speaker Johnson's plan to get this
all on by Memorial Day?
Speaker 8 (09:02):
I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
I think that there is obviously some significant push here
to get this done. This is part of Trump's agenda.
He doesn't want this bill to get accomplished. There has
to be some compromises because obviously the fiscal conservatives do
not have a solid majority. They have to negotiate with
the moderates to run this through on a Republican only basis,
and failure means that if you would actually have to
(09:24):
do a compromise with Democrats towards the end of the year,
if you can't get it done through reconciliation, and that
means that you would probably have higher spending levels and
higher taxes, and that's something that the conservatives don't want well.
Speaker 7 (09:35):
To you and Jonathan's point, the fiscal hawks seem to
have some fuel right now after what happened with the
Moody's downgrade. Who else has leverage in this fight?
Speaker 4 (09:45):
Yes, I mean, obviously I think the moderates, do you
still have leverage because they are not going to vote
for things that are going to cost them their seats.
They are obviously the majority makers in this Congress, and
so that's going to be really important for them to
not have significantly drastic cuts. So that's why I think,
you know, having work requirements moved up to twenty twenty
seven rather than immediately makes a little bit more sense.
Speaker 9 (10:06):
You also do have the Salt Caucus, so the blue.
Speaker 4 (10:08):
State Republicans who are pushing for a higher salt deduction,
they believe that that's really important. So they're still going
to be pushing to get their leverage in here. And
then obviously we do need to watch the Senate as well.
The Senate is saying that they're signaling that they're not
happy with some of the provisions that the House is
put forward, but the House also does have and the
Senate does have to realize that the House has this
very slow majority. There's not a lot of wiggle room
(10:31):
to really make significant changes if you have to deal
with these competing factions in the House caucus. Toe.
Speaker 6 (10:37):
I love a good deficit debate. It's a great thing
to have. We discussed it all the time. Is there
enough discussion about the growth side of this bill, how
much it actually does boost growth and the other side
of the balance sheet. It's crucial to keep the deficit
in some sort of balance relative to GDP.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Yeah, And I think this is a really important piece
with the tax bill is we have two things that
are happening. First, they did include more pro growth tax
provisions in this bill, so they have foot media expensing
for CAPBEX, for R and D and for structures again
to kind of get more domestic manufacturing in the United
States in the midst of this tariff war that we're
essentially having. And in the same time too, the fact
(11:15):
that we now have we had the significant tear of
reduction on Chinese goods over the past week, so that
also plays into this. So now we can have a
tax bill that has more pro growth provisions in it
that can actually help to sterilize the tariffs that are
still in place. And that's important because we do have
essentially a two trillion dollar consumption tax that's put into
(11:37):
the economy. So having fiscal stimulus for consumers that will
hit next taxis and is important. Plus you have these
business investment incentives, and together we look at what we
have this the current bill in front of us, we're
looking at saying that that is going to increase or
boost GDP by one percent, and that is a really
important point to also keep in mind.
Speaker 6 (11:57):
How much does that offset the increases to the deficit
on a sort of relative basis at a time where
people are saying at the same time, growth is going
to slow as a result of some of these tariffs.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
Yeah, I mean, so I think we still think that
the deficit is on a improving trajectory. You do have
tariff income coming into the US treasury that won't obviously
count for this tax bill, but we are going to
see some improvement in the deficit. Obviously, it's not significant
for especially priscal conservatives, and so that's something that comes
into play.
Speaker 9 (12:26):
But if we were looking at.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
The fact that maybe we would have significant tariffs in place,
and maybe this tax bill would have been delayed that
wouldn't have helped.
Speaker 9 (12:34):
To boost the US economy. It could have been worse situation.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
If you actually have some of these pro growth tax
policies in place and they happen before the stronger tariffs hit,
that actually provides boost to do the US economy and
then actually can help with the growth over the long
term and then help with the deficit.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Jennet, just finally, just to wrap it up, do you
thinem they get this done a wait today?
Speaker 4 (12:56):
I do. I do think that they will get this
stead line is very strong in the House. Now. Maybe
it's not done by Thursday, maybe it's done by Friday,
or it gets pushed into that holiday weekend. But I
do think there's a strong effort to get this done.
And the fact that you had the Budget Committee meeting
at ten o'clock at night on a Sunday is really
important to show that they really do want to get
momentum voting present obviously with them backing down to some
(13:21):
extent to allow.
Speaker 9 (13:22):
The bill to move forward.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
And now they have a couple of days before they
do that one am Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
Jeannette, appreciate your time. Thank you. Janet Low there thost fatiguas,
let's turn to markets. Bomb your tire across the curve
the dollar weaker, equity is lower as Moody strips the
US gouvernment of its top credit writing. Kathy John's are
(13:49):
child swap writing. This is not a case of the
US not having the capacity to pay the debt. It's
the willingness to reduce the deficit that is the issue.
Kathy joins us now for more. Kathy, welcome to the
Just your initial reactions to the needs from Moodies over
a weekend.
Speaker 9 (14:04):
Yeah, it really wasn't a big surprise.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
As you indicated earlier, they had them on negative watch.
Speaker 9 (14:09):
They're following s and p and pitch.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
As I watched the negotiations over the tax bill or
the budget bill, I thought, oh, well, we're not getting
anywhere we need to go to get our house in order.
Speaker 9 (14:23):
So not a big surprise.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
But it does bring forward all the issues that you've
been talking about that we're not enough path to sustainability,
something we need to address, but Congress doesn't seem willing
to address.
Speaker 6 (14:37):
I feel like every couple of years we talk about
the bond vigilantes grabbing their pitchforks and getting ready to
go out there and pick it, and it never actually
has any staying power because other people say, actually, well
you don't want we love. How close are we to
the bond vigilantes getting the upperhand and really shaping the
narrative here.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Yeah, I've never been a big fan of the bond
vigilante story because I remember the eighties and it was
more about inflation than it was about the budget.
Speaker 9 (15:02):
But that being said, in nineteen eighty.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
Five we've got sequestration, which which actually did help get
the budget back in order.
Speaker 9 (15:09):
How close are we?
Speaker 1 (15:10):
You know, I don't think that we're looking at a
stampede out of treasuries, but I do think that.
Speaker 9 (15:15):
When you combine the whole policy mix.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
We have tariffs, a lower dollar that goes with that,
and this sort of deglobalization trend, then you get a
steady march higher in long term yields because you're discouraging inflow.
Speaker 9 (15:33):
Of capital capital that we need.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
So I think that we just continue to see a
steady climb in yields from here until something changes, either
the economy gets a lot weaker and we look at
more federy cuts, or we get some sort of you know,
fiscal deal that actually makes.
Speaker 7 (15:51):
Sense, Kathy, when it comes to a fiscal deal that
actually makes sense, what are you talking about? Is there
anything you see right now on the policy proposals?
Speaker 5 (15:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (15:59):
I mean I'm not a plicy analysts, but if I
sat down with a spreadsheet today and said how do
I get back to three percent deficit relative to GDP,
I wouldn't be cutting taxes on everybody, and I would,
you know, have to look hard at some of the
spending that we're doing.
Speaker 9 (16:19):
But that's not what's going on. You know, now we're
giving tax cuts, and on top of tax.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Cuts and spending is maybe trimmed a little around the
edges on Medicaid, but really all that does is on Medicaid,
you're just going to limit access. You're not, they're already
Medicaid spending to hospitals and to.
Speaker 9 (16:39):
Doctors is at a bare minimum level.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
So you're just limiting access to healthcare for part of
the population. And yeah, maybe that gets you a little ways,
but it's not going to the turn the dial.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
He Kathy.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
In the grund scheme of things, we're having this conversation
when things are good, the hot dates is still okay,
The hot date is still okay, and we will un
budget deficits north of six percent. Through the previous administration,
when the economy was an expansion in GDP was running
at three percent. Kathy, how much confidence do you have
that if we do indeed go into an economic dancer,
the dispawn market rallies and yields full.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Well, I think they'll fall, just not as much as
they would otherwise if we didn't have such a heavy
download and we weren't due pursuing these policies that are
in conflict again, trying to get a weaker dollar, limiting trade, deglobalizing,
all of that is going to be negative for getting
the capital inflows. We need to attract buyers of our bonds,
(17:38):
so we can cut rates, but we in line with
slower growth and lower inflation.
Speaker 9 (17:42):
But they're not going to go back to levels that
you might otherwise.
Speaker 6 (17:45):
Have thought given that, Kathy, does that limit the argument
for bonds just as you talk to potential clients as
a counter cyclical hedge the way that they have been traditionally.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Yeah, you know, I was looking at the correlations between
SO equities and over the weekend, and we had that
big dislocation in April, and now we've gone back to
a more normal out correlation. I think we may see
more of those dislocations. So what does that mean is
bonds don't provide as good a hedge as.
Speaker 9 (18:14):
They once did.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
But I think that it's going to be periodic dislocations
rather than long term dislocation because eventually the policies will
probably send the stock market lower and you'll need to
be somewhere, and frankly, a four and a half to
five percent treasure yield is not a bad place to sit.
We've been just advocating staying shorter, you know, benchmark a
(18:37):
shorter duration and up in credit quality because we're not
willing to take a lot of duration risk in this environment.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
You're not alone, Kathy, that's for sure.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
Kathy.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
John's a child swabbing. We need to turn to the
bond market. Christian Mammali of Lafat College with this to say,
I still like bonds despite the recent pain, for the
simple reason that I think inflation will not be as
significant an issue as the markets expect. Kristna joins us
(19:08):
now for more Christian, Welcome to the program, sir. Before
we get to tarifs and inflation, downgrades. How relevant is
that downgrade from Moody's ever at all?
Speaker 8 (19:17):
Well, so, I think your vestent is right on this kind.
Speaker 10 (19:22):
That is, the downgrade itself should have happened a while ago,
and it really isn't much of a driver of anything
in the market. I think if the downgrade had come
when S and P. Five hundred was at let's say,
fifty four hundred and fifty six hundred, I don't think
we'll be talking about in terms of impacting equities and
(19:42):
risk assets very much.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
But Krishna, as you know, it's coming after a big
conversation through much of April about the future of the
safe haven status of the United States following a big
policy shock on the trade front, and that's raising questions
about the future of a tax bill advancing down in Washington, DC,
and what it means for fixed income coming forward from here.
What do you think it does mean?
Speaker 10 (20:03):
Well, So, I think the real issue for the economy
right now is as Yelena was talking about, is really
the slowdown and the tax bill. But it isn't tariffs,
and it isn't really the impact of the fiscal deficit
that much on the state of the economy or even
the dollar.
Speaker 5 (20:20):
For that much.
Speaker 10 (20:21):
So I think what we are talking about here is
the tariff situation will get resolved, the tax will probably
gets passed, but with lower level of fiscal expansion in
twenty six twenty seven than what we are expecting right now,
that's really not a bad environment for bonds, and especially
in the light of the fact that inflation is really
(20:41):
not going to be that big a deal. It's you know,
tariff's impact in price levels, but it's really not as
inflationary as people are thinking in terms of it's a
consumption tax rather than inflationary.
Speaker 8 (20:53):
So if that is the case, inflation is.
Speaker 10 (20:55):
Not a big deal and real rates are high, and
you end up with a tax package that is more
reasonable rather than meaningfully expansionary, I think that's not too
bad for the bond market.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
So, Krishna, are you buying thirty year bonds?
Speaker 10 (21:08):
Well, so, you know, in our allocation, for example, for
an endowment, for example, what we are focused on is
really the long term return of equities and private equities
in particular, So bonds, you know, bonds are interesting, but
we can generate bond type returns out of low wall
(21:29):
hedge funds just as much. So no, we are not
buying it in my private portfolio.
Speaker 6 (21:33):
Yes, all right, So here's my question, Krishna, why does
it not concern you at all that we have a
toxic brew right now where you have bond selling off,
stock selling off, and the dollar selling off in tandem
at a time where people are making a lot of
noise about the fiscal deficit.
Speaker 10 (21:47):
Well, so I would say that you have to put
it in a bit of a context. That is, all
of this is happening after a significant rally on all
of those things over the last month, month and a half.
So you know, if we are giving, we are making
profits rather than rethinking the basic strategy here.
Speaker 7 (22:04):
Chris, Now, will you talk about in your notes that
you don't foresee a recession but a slow down. What
would make you reconsider that actually the US could tip
into a recession.
Speaker 10 (22:13):
Well, if the tax bill doesn't pass and tariffs get implemented,
that's a fiscal consolidation for the history book. So I
think that really would get us into a recession. If
we have a reasonable tax package and the fiscal consolidation
is or that there isn't as much fiscal expansion, I
(22:34):
don't think we get a recession.
Speaker 7 (22:35):
Well, that's already baked in that this we're going to
get an extension of TCJA. The issue right now is
potentially a lot of people talked about how this was
a removal of a headwind, but does this actually offer
some risk given the fact that we have this Moody's downgrade.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
Well, so I.
Speaker 10 (22:49):
Would say the fiscal consolidator or the tax impact effectively
off tariffs, let's say a percent in GDP without any
corresponding expansion on the tax package. If it is just
a renewal of TJSEA, then that's a different equation than
what we are talking about right now with the current bill.
Speaker 6 (23:09):
So right now you see that there's a downside risk
to growth. You see it because there is not necessarily
more fiscal impulse coming from the from Washington DC going forward.
Is this going to be something that can sustain some
of the private credit, the private investment that's been ongoing
in the US economy, or do you see something of
(23:29):
a very difficult time the fact that you are going
to private assets.
Speaker 8 (23:33):
Well, so, you know, I think private credit and.
Speaker 10 (23:38):
Things like that are really a reflection of credit growth
and the fact the disintermediation at the bank level. If
the FED is really effective in changing bank regulations in
a meaningful way, again, it's an open question whether they
will away from, you know, just giving them a little
bit of room to buy treasuries. I think if that happens,
(23:59):
the expansion private credit probably comes to, you know, the
growth that probably stops to some extent because banks will
have an opportunity to do a lot.
Speaker 8 (24:06):
Of things, you know, without that.
Speaker 10 (24:08):
You know, if the US economy and US corporate sector
is as good in the shape as it has been
over the last two three years, I think private markets
probably continue to do from a growth standpoint, as opposed
to return standpoint right now, probably continue to do just fine.
Speaker 2 (24:26):
Krishna always wonderful to hear from his Christian Mamali there
of La Fat College. This is the Bloomberg Seventans podcast,
bringing you the best in markets, economics, anchier politics. You
can watch the show live on bloombag TV weekday mornings
from six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the
podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and
(24:46):
as always on the bloom Black Terminal and the Bloomberg
Business Amp
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.