WEBVTT - Schwab's Liz Ann Sonders Talks Inflation/Tariffs. 

0:00:02.440 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news, what you do and

0:00:08.039 --> 0:00:12.399
<v Speaker 1>this is a queen of bullet points. Excuse me, Lizzie

0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:15.560
<v Speaker 1>and Saunders out with not like a year foward's look,

0:00:15.600 --> 0:00:19.760
<v Speaker 1>but a bullet point view here, Lizzie Sanders, I was

0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>talking to the derivatives expert Amy wu Silverman about at

0:00:23.800 --> 0:00:28.080
<v Speaker 1>H what does all time high do to how we

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:29.560
<v Speaker 1>invest well?

0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:34.280
<v Speaker 2>It certainly works through the psychological channels, especially for individual investors,

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:37.560
<v Speaker 2>and I think it helps stribes some of the momentum.

0:00:37.640 --> 0:00:39.559
<v Speaker 2>But we also have to look at what's going on

0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:42.800
<v Speaker 2>underneath the surface. And that's been a story we've been

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:45.720
<v Speaker 2>speaking about and writing about really for the past couple

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:47.519
<v Speaker 2>of years. Kind of this idea of a tale of

0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:50.320
<v Speaker 2>two markets, or maybe the you know what Michael Kaine

0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:52.680
<v Speaker 2>used to say about the duck, you know, calm on

0:00:52.720 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 2>the surface and you know paddling like the dickens underneath.

0:00:55.680 --> 0:00:57.920
<v Speaker 2>And you know, over the past year on a year

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 2>to day basis, SMP hasn't even had ten percent correction.

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:03.840
<v Speaker 2>We've had you know, I tak a record breaking number

0:01:03.840 --> 0:01:06.399
<v Speaker 2>of all time highs, but the average member within the

0:01:06.480 --> 0:01:10.119
<v Speaker 2>SMP has had nearly a bear market level maximum draw down,

0:01:10.200 --> 0:01:12.800
<v Speaker 2>and it's even more extreme for the NASDAK The average

0:01:12.840 --> 0:01:16.320
<v Speaker 2>member maximum drawed down within the Nasdaq is forty seven

0:01:16.360 --> 0:01:19.039
<v Speaker 2>percent this year. It's just happened through a lot of

0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:22.800
<v Speaker 2>rotation and churn under the surface, which you wouldn't necessarily

0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:28.319
<v Speaker 2>notice if you're only focused on cap weighted index level games,

0:01:28.400 --> 0:01:31.520
<v Speaker 2>where we do sit still at our near all time highs.

0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:36.160
<v Speaker 1>Well, you just heard folks worldwide and particularly across American

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:41.520
<v Speaker 1>exceptionalism bottle that what you just heard from liz Ane Saunders, Paul,

0:01:41.640 --> 0:01:44.400
<v Speaker 1>you can be up this cap weighted, not cap weighted,

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:48.720
<v Speaker 1>but the internal churning, and you had that huge Nasdaq

0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:51.560
<v Speaker 1>negative forty six percent statistically.

0:01:50.960 --> 0:01:53.440
<v Speaker 3>Yep, Lizen. So if I just look at SBX up

0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:55.920
<v Speaker 3>twenty five percent in you today, but the equal weighted

0:01:56.320 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 3>S and P five hundred up eighteen percent, is that differential?

0:02:00.240 --> 0:02:03.280
<v Speaker 3>How concerning is that to you? Or is that more

0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 3>in line with what we typically see?

0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:08.280
<v Speaker 2>Well, really, since the mid July initial high in the

0:02:08.320 --> 0:02:11.800
<v Speaker 2>market that then was immediately followed by a correction in

0:02:11.840 --> 0:02:14.440
<v Speaker 2>the case of the Nasdaq and nearso in the case

0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:17.320
<v Speaker 2>of the S and P five hundred, that really kicked

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:21.480
<v Speaker 2>in a period of better performance and relative terms for

0:02:21.960 --> 0:02:24.520
<v Speaker 2>equal weight relative to cap weight. I think that that

0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:27.560
<v Speaker 2>story still has legs. That doesn't mean equal weight's going

0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:30.880
<v Speaker 2>to outperform cap weight, you know, every week or every month,

0:02:30.919 --> 0:02:33.880
<v Speaker 2>but I think that there is some momentum and likely

0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:36.440
<v Speaker 2>will continue to be in this I guess you would

0:02:36.480 --> 0:02:38.960
<v Speaker 2>call it a story of broadening out, but it's in

0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 2>the context of what we continue to think will be

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:47.120
<v Speaker 2>fierce rotations at the sector level. Sector dispersion is really high,

0:02:47.200 --> 0:02:50.760
<v Speaker 2>and I think taking an equal weight approach versus say,

0:02:50.919 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 2>taking a cap weight X some sort of group X

0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:57.359
<v Speaker 2>the magnificent seven, I think that's a little bit more

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:01.360
<v Speaker 2>dangerous and exercise if you're going to completely eliminate some

0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:06.120
<v Speaker 2>of those megacap names that are high contribution to capuited returns.

0:03:06.160 --> 0:03:08.880
<v Speaker 2>I think equal weight still gives you exposure there, but

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:11.000
<v Speaker 2>without that same concentration risk.

0:03:11.120 --> 0:03:13.440
<v Speaker 1>So I think we got seven trillion in cash? Is

0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:17.639
<v Speaker 1>that the number? Ziane Saunders? Do we enjoy eight trillion

0:03:17.680 --> 0:03:19.200
<v Speaker 1>in cash next year?

0:03:20.639 --> 0:03:22.920
<v Speaker 2>You know when you're in a FED cutting cycle. We

0:03:22.960 --> 0:03:25.120
<v Speaker 2>don't know whether we're still in a FED cutting cycle.

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:28.840
<v Speaker 2>I suppose we'll know more at the December meeting. Surprisingly,

0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:32.520
<v Speaker 2>perhaps flows tend to continue to be positive into money

0:03:32.520 --> 0:03:35.960
<v Speaker 2>market funds. So when I hear this sort of cash

0:03:36.000 --> 0:03:39.560
<v Speaker 2>on the sideline story suggesting that some are a lot

0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 2>of that money sitting in money market funds, is some

0:03:42.320 --> 0:03:45.400
<v Speaker 2>immediate we're near term fuel for the equity market. I'm

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:49.560
<v Speaker 2>not so sure about that, especially now, given stickiness on

0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:53.960
<v Speaker 2>the high side across the sort of yield structure, and

0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:57.280
<v Speaker 2>I think some of that money may have actually come

0:03:57.400 --> 0:04:01.280
<v Speaker 2>from riskier parts of the market, includingquities, when interest rates

0:04:01.280 --> 0:04:03.880
<v Speaker 2>were moving up, and I'm not sure that that money

0:04:03.960 --> 0:04:07.160
<v Speaker 2>quickly moves back into the equity market. So I think

0:04:07.160 --> 0:04:09.720
<v Speaker 2>at least the money there there that's sticky. But I

0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:12.520
<v Speaker 2>think if the FED it goes into pause mode and

0:04:12.560 --> 0:04:15.240
<v Speaker 2>we don't see a continuation of this easing cycle, yes,

0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:17.040
<v Speaker 2>I do think there could be more money that moves

0:04:17.040 --> 0:04:17.920
<v Speaker 2>into my markets.

0:04:18.600 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 3>Lizen talk to us about kind of your view of

0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:22.600
<v Speaker 3>the earnings. We're just finishing up this earning cycle, and

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:25.560
<v Speaker 3>we've got a lot of companies or some companies providing

0:04:25.560 --> 0:04:29.920
<v Speaker 3>guidance for the future. Did you take we're earning strong

0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:32.039
<v Speaker 3>enough to support this market here or you have some

0:04:32.080 --> 0:04:32.920
<v Speaker 3>concerns coming out.

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:36.720
<v Speaker 2>Of earnings well, you know, you saw estimates really get

0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:39.120
<v Speaker 2>cut when you were in the aftermath of second quarter

0:04:39.200 --> 0:04:42.120
<v Speaker 2>reporting season four third quarter. So we came into third

0:04:42.160 --> 0:04:45.680
<v Speaker 2>quarter reporting season with an estimate of only four percent growth.

0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:47.720
<v Speaker 2>We ended up more than doubling that when all was

0:04:47.760 --> 0:04:50.719
<v Speaker 2>said and done. And that's just the classic example of

0:04:50.800 --> 0:04:52.800
<v Speaker 2>the bar gets set low and the companies are able

0:04:52.800 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 2>to exceed that bar. But you did see downward trend

0:04:55.880 --> 0:04:58.920
<v Speaker 2>to fourth quarter estimates. There hasn't been much cutting yet

0:04:59.120 --> 0:05:01.479
<v Speaker 2>for twenty twenty five estimates. I think that's the mo

0:05:01.680 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 2>these days of analysts, they're kind of keeping those adjustments

0:05:04.920 --> 0:05:08.080
<v Speaker 2>closer to the vest in terms of an out time frame.

0:05:08.120 --> 0:05:10.520
<v Speaker 2>They'll make adjustments to one quarter out. What concerns me

0:05:10.560 --> 0:05:14.279
<v Speaker 2>about twenty twenty five estimates is they're double digit for

0:05:14.320 --> 0:05:17.640
<v Speaker 2>all four quarters and it assumes record breaking profit margins.

0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:20.680
<v Speaker 2>That may be a bit tricky, especially given the uncertainty

0:05:20.720 --> 0:05:22.200
<v Speaker 2>with regard to Tariff's.

0:05:21.720 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Two quick questions, what's your number one factor to study

0:05:24.839 --> 0:05:27.600
<v Speaker 1>to analyze into twenty twenty.

0:05:27.279 --> 0:05:32.159
<v Speaker 2>Five rate of change in terms of profitability factors versus level?

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:34.559
<v Speaker 1>Do you do cash flow as well?

0:05:35.760 --> 0:05:39.200
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, you know, strong free cash flow, a high interest coverage,

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:42.640
<v Speaker 2>strong return on equity, those quality factors, I think, but

0:05:42.680 --> 0:05:45.360
<v Speaker 2>I think the rate of change versus level is maybe

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:46.440
<v Speaker 2>more important this year.

0:05:46.560 --> 0:05:49.480
<v Speaker 1>Hot Stovely, Kevin Gordon's a free agent. Are you going

0:05:49.520 --> 0:05:50.880
<v Speaker 1>to bring him back for two thousand?

0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:55.880
<v Speaker 2>Of course I'm bringing him back to twenty twenty five. Absolutely,

0:05:56.440 --> 0:05:57.080
<v Speaker 2>does it charge?

0:05:57.160 --> 0:05:59.279
<v Speaker 1>I mean, she's out there, you know, liz Ane's listening

0:05:59.279 --> 0:06:02.279
<v Speaker 1>to led Zeppa. Gordon's doing all the work. That's the

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:06.240
<v Speaker 1>way it's Lizzie Saunders, Kevin Gordon, thank you so much.

0:06:06.600 --> 0:06:10.640
<v Speaker 1>With Charles Schwab and Sanders as chief investment strategists there

0:06:11.200 --> 0:06:11.720
<v Speaker 1>as well,