Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
Speaker 2: with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hortern. Join us each day
Speaker 2: for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics
Speaker 2: from our global headquarters in New York City. We are
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine
Speaker 2: am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or
Speaker 2: anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. Any if you had
Speaker 2: any research rights in the data since the last meeting
Speaker 2: of the FMC suggests the fifty basis point cut that
Speaker 2: occurred was probably too much too soon. That raises the
Speaker 2: risk the price inflation might stop moderating and the stock
Speaker 2: prices might continue to melt up. Joined us now for
Speaker 2: more ed Welcome to the program sir. Let's start with
Speaker 2: the stock market. Are you calling this a melt up?
Speaker 3: I think it has been a bit of a melt up.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, we're looking at valuation multiples that are
Speaker 3: getting right up there close to where we were right
Speaker 3: before the tech wreck in the late nineteen nineties, we
Speaker 3: saw a melt up that got the forward pe s
Speaker 3: and P five hundred up to twenty five. Now we're
Speaker 3: at twenty two, so it's starting to look like it ed.
Speaker 2: We're seeing bond yields back up as well again this morning,
Speaker 2: by two basis points of four to twenty six. Can
Speaker 2: we sort of fold the election into this conversation as well?
Speaker 2: Do you think the election and the GOP suite potentially
Speaker 2: would open the way to a move back towards five
Speaker 2: percent on a ten year Unfortunately.
Speaker 3: It is a conceivable scenario that the bond vigilantes are
Speaker 3: are definitely mounting up. I mean, the low bond yield
Speaker 3: last a few weeks ago was three point sixty five percent,
Speaker 3: and now we're at four point two six percent. I
Speaker 3: think over night we got the four point four point
Speaker 3: eight four point two eight five percent. So yeah, I
Speaker 3: think there's a possibility here that if we get a
Speaker 3: sweep either the Democrats or the Republicans, the bond market
Speaker 3: will conclude that nothing will stop either party from spending
Speaker 3: a lot, maybe cutting taxes a lot for some folks,
Speaker 3: not for others, and all in all, continuing to widen
Speaker 3: the deficit and the debt. Meanwhile, the interest payments continue
Speaker 3: to accumulate, and we'll probably hit a trillion dollars, which
Speaker 3: will make lots of headlines within the next few months.
Speaker 4: And I have to say it's very compelling arguments. Me
Speaker 4: and I worry about the deficit, and I watch the
Speaker 4: bond auctions and I see the increasing size. And last
Speaker 4: week I was in Washington, d C. With all of
Speaker 4: these international central bankers, and these international bankers, and where
Speaker 4: do all of their clients want to put their money?
Speaker 4: Even with all these concerns, talking with the US election,
Speaker 4: the deficit, the United States, they still want to come here.
Speaker 4: So what is going to make people say, no, Moss,
Speaker 4: we're done.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a good point. I mean, the reality is
Speaker 3: that the dollars actually strengthened at the same time as
Speaker 3: the bond deal has gone up. So that's suggests that
Speaker 3: there are people that are concluding that if the Fed,
Speaker 3: if the bond vigilantis are getting the message out to
Speaker 3: the Fed that they don't want any more rate cuts,
Speaker 3: that they think it was premature. That strengthens the dollar,
Speaker 3: which means that people are buying these bonds. So I
Speaker 3: wouldn't get too excited about the bond you'll going up
Speaker 3: to five percent, But it's certainly looking more realistic than
Speaker 3: it did a few weeks ago. And a few weeks
Speaker 3: ago we thought that the Fed that the cut prematurely,
Speaker 3: that the economy was going to surprise them to the upside,
Speaker 3: and that's exactly what's happened.
Speaker 4: There's also been a contradiction here. People used to think
Speaker 4: that higher bond yields would XCISEE a pretty big tax
Speaker 4: on equity valuations. What we've seen is this melts up
Speaker 4: continuing despite the melt up in yields. Yes, what we
Speaker 4: have seen though, is a change with that rotation being
Speaker 4: challenged to small caps and it's the other four hundred
Speaker 4: and ninety three stocks. Do you think that that is
Speaker 4: what this is going to look like into year end?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 3: I think if in fact, the market is starting to
Speaker 3: perceive that the Fed isn't going to ease as much
Speaker 3: as they thought after the fifty basis point cut on
Speaker 3: September eighteenth, then I think the market starts to get
Speaker 3: cool off to the idea that the Rustle two thousand
Speaker 3: is going to outperform and go back to the S
Speaker 3: and P five hundred and maybe even go back to
Speaker 3: just seven of those stocks, a so called Magnificent seven,
Speaker 3: and look to John's point, I don't want to get
Speaker 3: too worried about a melt up here an evaluation basis.
Speaker 3: If it turns out to be an earnings lead melt up,
Speaker 3: we certainly have had Tesla for example. Maybe it wasn't
Speaker 3: so much earnings as hype, but as you folks point out,
Speaker 3: this is going to be a busy week for earnings,
Speaker 3: and we could have some upside surprises from the Magnificent
Speaker 3: seven which would drive the NASZAC to further record hize,
Speaker 3: even in the face of bond yields going up.
Speaker 1: I want to get back to where you see bond
Speaker 1: yields going because you say that we could get higher
Speaker 1: yields regardless if it's a Republican or Democrats sweep. When
Speaker 1: you look at how the Senate races are looking to go,
Speaker 1: it looks like you can pretty much take the dem
Speaker 1: sweep off the table. If there's going to be a sweep,
Speaker 1: it's likely going to be read So tell us a
Speaker 1: little bit more what that could mean not just to
Speaker 1: yield short terms and long terms, but also other assets.
Speaker 3: Well, it gets as confusing as Trump's policies are confusing.
Speaker 3: You know, the idea of raising tariffs across the board
Speaker 3: by twenty percent and against China sixty percent is probably
Speaker 3: a bargaining position. I mean, it's hard to imagine that
Speaker 3: this administration would get advice from its own economists saying
Speaker 3: that that would be a good idea because it certainly
Speaker 3: would be inflationary, so bargaining chip for the deal maker
Speaker 3: Trump would make sense, But as a realistic alternative to
Speaker 3: taxes and incomes, that doesn't make that much sense. On
Speaker 3: the other hand, Trump wants to produce more oil, which
Speaker 3: would be disinflationary for the US, but there's no discussion
Speaker 3: by either candidate about doing anything to reduce the deficits,
Speaker 3: to deal with the debt, to deal with the exploding,
Speaker 3: exploding interest and that interest expense of the government. So
Speaker 3: I think the bond reaction to a sweep, as I said,
Speaker 3: by either side. I want to be balanced about this,
Speaker 3: but you're right, the sweep is looking increasingly if it's
Speaker 3: going to happen, it would happen with Trump winning because
Speaker 3: of what you said about the Senate and the House,
Speaker 3: and in that scenario of the bond yield, I think
Speaker 3: easily goes to four and a half percent.
Speaker 1: Take us through what can happen if this election drags on,
Speaker 1: or if it's contested.
Speaker 3: I don't even want to think about that possibility. The
Speaker 3: country is so partisan that, you know, we've been kind
Speaker 3: of driving ourselves mad here with the political partisanship, and
Speaker 3: to have a closely contested election, we'd be very unsettling
Speaker 3: to the bond market, to the stock market, to all
Speaker 3: of us. I think it would be resolved of obviously
Speaker 3: at some point we will have a president, but if
Speaker 3: it takes months, it could mean that the rest of
Speaker 3: the year will not be a great one for the
Speaker 3: financial markets.
Speaker 2: That is the market nightmare very few want to see.
Speaker 2: And thank you, sir if you HADENTNY research. Dollar strengthening
Speaker 2: heading into the final week of the US election has
Speaker 2: tried its way the economic impact of both candidates. Mark
Speaker 2: McCormick of TD writing, we have painted the election as
Speaker 2: a binary event, with massive tale rists on either side.
Speaker 2: The data currently favors the dollar regardless of who wins,
Speaker 2: suggesting to buy dollar dips into twenty twenty five, even
Speaker 2: if Harris wins. Mark joined US now for more Mark,
Speaker 2: welcome to the program. Let's just look ahead to next week,
Speaker 2: give us the best case outcome for the stellar and
Speaker 2: give us the worst case outcome for the US stella
Speaker 2: which ones which.
Speaker 5: Well, Like I said, it's a binary event with like
Speaker 5: two large tail rists on either side. So obviously the
Speaker 5: most bullish for the dollars of red wave, largely again
Speaker 5: because number one, you get tariffs immediately on day one,
Speaker 5: as soon as Trump takes over. The second thing is
Speaker 5: you can have fiscal support and deregulation and all the
Speaker 5: things that are great ingredients that are cocktails for outperformance
Speaker 5: US equities. And I'd say on the other side, the
Speaker 5: thing that kind of confuses the market the most, or
Speaker 5: is probably the most bearish for the dollar, is a
Speaker 5: blue wave, but it's probably the most unlikely scenario. Betting
Speaker 5: markets have it about ten percent, largely again because what
Speaker 5: you could do is you undermine the equity market. I
Speaker 5: think the most important thing to think about for this
Speaker 5: election is the number one thing that's been driving the
Speaker 5: currency market is not rates differentials, it's equity market performance.
Speaker 2: With that in mind, then Mark, what do you think
Speaker 2: is actually outperforming already in pricing gain the election outcome?
Speaker 2: Because a lot of people in the equity market are
Speaker 2: look into financials and saying that maybe that's a lean
Speaker 2: to a Trump wain and maybe that's so for done
Speaker 2: and maybe we get reversal of that through next week.
Speaker 2: Do you see any sign if that taking place in
Speaker 2: fas with that in mind.
Speaker 5: Well, I think one component. It's been really interesting. We
Speaker 5: talked about this a lot this entire year. There's really
Speaker 5: no macro theme that's driving markets. Like for the first
Speaker 5: start of the year, we talked about inflation, then we
Speaker 5: talked about growth. Now we're talking about inflation again, probably
Speaker 5: because we forgot to talk about inflation for a little while.
Speaker 5: So the number one factor that we see that is
Speaker 5: kind of underscoring what's driving market performance is mean reversion
Speaker 5: expressed or positioning. So I would highlight that through the
Speaker 5: move that we saw recently in the dollar, the dollar
Speaker 5: was basically short on our positioning models, so we had
Speaker 5: a very like we had a perfect storm of US
Speaker 5: data outperforming the rest of the world, which has actually
Speaker 5: been happening through most of the summer, but the market's
Speaker 5: woken up to it. We've also seen again the FED
Speaker 5: took a huge risk by cutting fifty basis points and
Speaker 5: now we're starting to see that could backlash a little bit.
Speaker 5: And also again the positioning was built into a single
Speaker 5: narrative which was only about the slowdown in Theo's economy,
Speaker 5: and now all these things have come back to mark
Speaker 5: they were positioned incorrectly. Data dependence leaves us again very
Speaker 5: focused on a month or six weeks of data that
Speaker 5: basically in turn catches markets offt guard when the pendulum
Speaker 5: SLINKs too far in the other direction. So I think
Speaker 5: a big piece of this right now is that the
Speaker 5: dollar looks fundamentally positive. Data is doing better than what
Speaker 5: we're seeing in Europe and China. And I know markets
Speaker 5: are like very focused on the China Simules package, but
Speaker 5: to me, the China Simuls package is a second half
Speaker 5: of twenty twenty five story that things are going to
Speaker 5: get worse before they get better. So again the key
Speaker 5: theme here is that the macro situation is evolving into
Speaker 5: what is a more bullish fundamental story for the dollar,
Speaker 5: regardless of who wins.
Speaker 4: Some people who are skeptical of the dollar point to gold,
Speaker 4: and they say gold's been a moonshop because people are
Speaker 4: worried about the dollar and worried about the idea of
Speaker 4: people having faith that this truly can be the reserve currency.
Speaker 4: Not necessarily next year, the year after, but say in
Speaker 4: ten twenty years. Do you look at gold, given the
Speaker 4: fact that it's almost doubled in price since the beginning
Speaker 4: of over over the past five years, if you take
Speaker 4: a look at that, does that make you at all
Speaker 4: concerned about this dollar call?
Speaker 2: It doesn't.
Speaker 5: I think what's interesting is again you have to think about, like,
Speaker 5: what are the assets that people want to hold in
Speaker 5: an environment where there's geopolitical uncertainty we're dealing with, with
Speaker 5: my opinion, structurally higher inflation than what we saw before
Speaker 5: the pandemic, in a world where what are your bigger
Speaker 5: risks towards a recession or higher inflation? And I think
Speaker 5: in that environment, like more people are focused on hard assets,
Speaker 5: and those hard assets provide a decent hedge relative to
Speaker 5: say fixed income. So I think if you were to
Speaker 5: think about what's my asset allocation mix, and still you
Speaker 5: want to belong yous equities, which gives you an exposure
Speaker 5: to bus dollar. If you think about even an asset
Speaker 5: allocation mix we talked about in our election piece for
Speaker 5: next year is yes, Asia has the ability to grow
Speaker 5: their economy. They have savings that they've exported to the
Speaker 5: rest of the world. Europe does not have the ability
Speaker 5: to grow to economies you've talked about this morning. I've
Speaker 5: hurt in prior pieces. But like France is spending too much,
Speaker 5: Germany doesn't spend enough. And again, if you look at
Speaker 5: if you think about the dragging report, everything that's been
Speaker 5: coming out of Europe is focused on the industrial audio sector,
Speaker 5: which is something that there's a reason why there's terarifs
Speaker 5: being put in these sectors. And there's a reason why
Speaker 5: China is the world's largest export of automobiles right now.
Speaker 5: So if you think about the growth and the equity
Speaker 5: and all these stories, the US equity market still offers
Speaker 5: probably the best risk adjusted performance relative.
Speaker 6: To other classes.
Speaker 5: We could see a rotation to Asian equities where currencies
Speaker 5: are undervalued, but that still leaves Europe somewhere far behind
Speaker 5: everywhere else. And gold is still an asset that you
Speaker 5: want to hold onto.
Speaker 6: Because what we're.
Speaker 5: Seeing is coordinated fiscal and monetary policy with inflation above.
Speaker 2: Target mark, We've got to leave it there. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Stain just got some breaking news on blowing care. Matt McCormick,
Speaker 2: the of TD. We're just over a week until election
Speaker 2: deck Blimberg reporting more registered Republicans have already voted in Arizona, Nevada,
Speaker 2: and North Carolina. They're Democrats, Henrietta Trace of Vada. Palmer's writing,
Speaker 2: it is distinctly possible that a victor is named in
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty four election by Wednesday. If not. The
Speaker 2: worst case scenario pandemic year level disruption suggests developments could
Speaker 2: come through Friday and possibly Saturday, as was the case
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty. Henrietta joins US now for more So, Henrietta,
Speaker 2: so let's get to your base case. Do we get
Speaker 2: at twenty sixteen or a twenty twenty.
Speaker 6: I think we're looking more at twenty sixteen.
Speaker 7: I think a lot of the disparities, discrepancies, any concerns
Speaker 7: at the local and county level amongst the electors.
Speaker 6: You know, they're fully stabbed.
Speaker 7: They have gone through the twenty twenty two midterm elections,
Speaker 7: They've gone through all these lawsuits. I think all the
Speaker 7: teaser crossed and the eyes are dotted, and we will
Speaker 7: have an outcome on Wednesday. I'm optimistic, Henrietta, But what do.
Speaker 1: You make of Maricopa County election officials saying could take
Speaker 1: anywhere from ten to thirteen days.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, they're definitely preparing us for the worst.
Speaker 7: But I believe Arizona and Nevada in particular were uniquely
Speaker 7: sort of embarrassed by the way the twenty twenty election
Speaker 7: took so long to call, and a lot of that
Speaker 7: disruption came from the occupant of the White House. So
Speaker 7: I think that this time around they will be very
Speaker 7: diligent and careful about how they're reporting, and then hopefully
Speaker 7: we won't have to depend on just one state to
Speaker 7: decide or to know who wins the election. Maybe in
Speaker 7: the House for sure, I think it'll take all week
Speaker 7: to get a solution, but I'm hopeful that the rest
Speaker 7: of the country will give us a decisive solution.
Speaker 1: A theme that I've been hearing from sources a lot
Speaker 1: on both sides that Democrats are actually running a very
Speaker 1: good ground game, especially in these swing states. But you're
Speaker 1: actually seeing, and so are we. A lot of Republicans
Speaker 1: are going out and voting early. Are they catching up
Speaker 1: to that ground game.
Speaker 7: It's the ground game right now, and the pull forward
Speaker 7: vote is incredible in a number of states, including Nevada,
Speaker 7: there are double the amount of election day Republicans from
Speaker 7: twenty twenty voting early this cycle. So this message that
Speaker 7: you saw on the Big Joe Botron at MSG last
Speaker 7: night was vote early. The Republican Party across various swing states,
Speaker 7: including Pennsylvania and Georgia as well, have spent millions of
Speaker 7: dollars trying to educate their voters to vote early, vote
Speaker 7: in person. Democrats still predominantly vote early in mail in ballots,
Speaker 7: So we're waiting for that data, for example, out of
Speaker 7: Clark County in Nevada, to catch up. But what we're
Speaker 7: going to need and what Democrats will need going forward,
Speaker 7: is to see what the turnout is on election day,
Speaker 7: and in particular this week, this is a week where
Speaker 7: a lot of the younger voters turnout early if they're
Speaker 7: going to vote. Mostly right now, it's rural, white, older
Speaker 7: voters who are turning.
Speaker 8: Out, which is a disproportionately Republican demographic, Henrietta, we know
Speaker 8: that once you go out and vote early, then whether
Speaker 8: Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, you could focus on some
Speaker 8: of those margins potentially to get out then on election Day,
Speaker 8: and you say this all comes down to the suburbs.
Speaker 6: Who wins the suburbs, Yeah, that is the game.
Speaker 7: In twenty sixteen, Hillary Clinton lost the suburbs, and I
Speaker 7: think it was only by about two points, but it
Speaker 7: was enough to lose the entire election. This is your
Speaker 7: suburbs outside of Philadelphia, outside of Pittsburgh, key portions of
Speaker 7: Michigan and Wisconsin. In twenty twenty, Joe Biden narrowly won
Speaker 7: them back again by I think two points, so he
Speaker 7: was able to claw back those suburban voters. Kamala Harris
Speaker 7: currently leads nationally with suburban voters by six points. So
Speaker 7: we spend a lot of time talking about the youth
Speaker 7: Latino and youth mail vote. Obviously they'll be a part
Speaker 7: of the conversation as we're talking about Puerto Rico being
Speaker 7: a floating pile of garbage and things like that. But
Speaker 7: that is what turns off the suburban married voter, and
Speaker 7: they disproportionately vote in elections, and they have been the
Speaker 7: clincher for either candidate in the last two cycles and
Speaker 7: probably will be again in this third cycle. They're voting
Speaker 7: more than they did in twenty twenty, while cities and
Speaker 7: urban dwellers are voting less and Royal voters are voting.
Speaker 6: More than they did in twenty twenty.
Speaker 7: So it's the suburban vote that is integral and critical.
Speaker 6: To this election right now.
Speaker 4: So you push that forward, Henriette. Are you saying that
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris is more support than the polls are giving her?
Speaker 7: Harris has more support with voters who matter more again,
Speaker 7: because they vote more. They are a larger demographic, and
Speaker 7: they are the ones that are persuadable more than anything else.
Speaker 7: You know, you've lost the cities that those voters are
Speaker 7: going to Democrats, and you've lost the rols those voters
Speaker 7: are going far to Donald Trump. It's the voters in
Speaker 7: the middle in suburbia that are swinging back and forth
Speaker 7: between twenty sixteen being pro Trump and then twenty twenty
Speaker 7: decided they didn't like what they had gotten for the
Speaker 7: last four years, and now under Kamala Harris running at
Speaker 7: the top of the ticket, they have swung pretty substantially
Speaker 7: in her direction and away from Donald Trump. And their
Speaker 7: turnout is what's going to be the biggest bang for
Speaker 7: your back population wise, to split these states.
Speaker 4: It's pretty controversial, Henrietta. What you're saying, based in the
Speaker 4: polling that we've seen in just sort of the momentum
Speaker 4: and what we've seen embedding markets which have given Donald
Speaker 4: Trump the clear lead. Where are people wrong in their analysis?
Speaker 4: Is it just a suburban voter or is there something
Speaker 4: else in terms of what the deciding factors really are.
Speaker 6: Well, I spent all.
Speaker 7: Week last week with investors up in New York, and
Speaker 7: I would say that the street is even more bullish
Speaker 7: on Trump winning than the predictive markets are. Last I
Speaker 7: check pridtive markets, where like sixty one percent that Trump
Speaker 7: would win, I'd say on the street it's more.
Speaker 6: Like seventy percent.
Speaker 7: So there is this high degree of conviction, and the
Speaker 7: early voting data out of Nevada is painting a very
Speaker 7: leak picture for Democrats.
Speaker 6: So there's reason to be excited.
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, it's just too early to get fully on board
Speaker 7: the Trump train and put your bets on the market
Speaker 7: right now in a way that suggests that there is
Speaker 7: no time for change. There is a whole another week
Speaker 7: of early voting in most states, and then obviously we
Speaker 7: have election Day where turnout is going to be the
Speaker 7: name of the game. So I think that the street
Speaker 7: is picking up accurately on state of Nevada.
Speaker 6: But that's not the story that the rest of the
Speaker 6: nation is telling us. Yeah, it could be, but it's
Speaker 6: pretty early.
Speaker 2: Henry. So we spoke to against this morning that said,
Speaker 2: for the business world, for the tech titans, the writing
Speaker 2: might be on the wall. Let's talk about some of
Speaker 2: the tech titans. After the assessmin attempt on Donald Trump
Speaker 2: back in the summer, we had an interview. We spoke
Speaker 2: to the Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, who referred to that
Speaker 2: as being badass. And then we saw Jeff Bezos's Washington
Speaker 2: Post over the weekend failed to endorse a candidate, some
Speaker 2: people suggesting that maybe it's because Bezos was worried about
Speaker 2: an incoming Trump administration. And then we heard on the
Speaker 2: Rogan podcast, so the Alphabet ceo had given the former
Speaker 2: president at call as well to congratulate him on his
Speaker 2: campaign event A McDonald to what a hit it was
Speaker 2: on Google. What do you think that they sense is
Speaker 2: coming from the Republican leadership that might affect them?
Speaker 7: That's a great question. I mean, you're going to have
Speaker 7: anti trust on the docket next year. We have a
Speaker 7: massive tax bill that we have to write. The taras
Speaker 7: are also going to be a concern, not just that,
Speaker 7: but expert control restrictions, inbound and outbound investment restrictions. I
Speaker 7: think all those pieces are really integral. But the reality
Speaker 7: is there's a five trillion dollar tax bill that we're
Speaker 7: going to be writing next year, and all these corporations,
Speaker 7: particularly any that are Ali national, have a lot of
Speaker 7: skin in the game on this one, So it makes
Speaker 7: sense to try to make sure you have bridges mended
Speaker 7: with everybody potentially that could win. I think there should
Speaker 7: be a lot of focus on the House members and
Speaker 7: the House races. Those are pretty predominantly in coastal states
Speaker 7: this year, so New York and California. If I were
Speaker 7: those tech titans that I was trying to really influence
Speaker 7: the outcome of the election and focus on the House
Speaker 7: members just as much as.
Speaker 6: The White House.
Speaker 2: Im Retta, appreciate your views and your perspective the analysis
Speaker 2: there from Henrita Trace of Vader Partners. This is the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics,
Speaker 2: angiot politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg
Speaker 2: TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else
Speaker 2: you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Business Amp.