WEBVTT - Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jan Hatzius Talks Inflation

0:00:02.360 --> 0:00:06.680
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:06.800 --> 0:00:08.879
<v Speaker 2>We're going to bring Jan Hatis, of course, he's chief

0:00:08.880 --> 0:00:12.119
<v Speaker 2>economists at Goldman Sachs. When you think about the balance

0:00:12.119 --> 0:00:15.680
<v Speaker 2>of risks right now, we've had strong economic data keep

0:00:15.720 --> 0:00:17.800
<v Speaker 2>coming through the pipe for the last couple of weeks.

0:00:18.040 --> 0:00:20.080
<v Speaker 1>Are you more concerned about jobs or inflation?

0:00:21.520 --> 0:00:25.239
<v Speaker 3>I'm pretty optimistic on both. I think we're set up

0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 3>probably for another year of pretty strong growth. I mean,

0:00:29.200 --> 0:00:31.240
<v Speaker 3>we're at two and a half percent for this year

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:36.200
<v Speaker 3>again and above consensus forecast. Not by as much as

0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:38.760
<v Speaker 3>the last couple of years, when I think people were

0:00:39.040 --> 0:00:43.960
<v Speaker 3>really unreasonably pessimistic about recession. But I'm still a bit

0:00:44.000 --> 0:00:47.159
<v Speaker 3>more upbeat. But at the same time, I think inflation

0:00:47.320 --> 0:00:50.960
<v Speaker 3>can come down and can continue to come down. While

0:00:51.240 --> 0:00:54.120
<v Speaker 3>the droughts number this morning is a little stronger, we've

0:00:54.160 --> 0:01:00.680
<v Speaker 3>clearly seen a rebalancing in the labor market, andation is

0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:04.039
<v Speaker 3>a bit lower than it was back in twenty eighteen

0:01:04.080 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 3>or twenty and nineteen. So that's a that's a pretty

0:01:07.160 --> 0:01:10.800
<v Speaker 3>constructive environment both of growth and on inflation, in my view.

0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:12.560
<v Speaker 4>Do you First of all, I want to point out

0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:14.840
<v Speaker 4>that we did see a turnaround in the s and

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:17.280
<v Speaker 4>P five hundred, So we were looking at gains, now

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:18.200
<v Speaker 4>we're looking at losses.

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:19.759
<v Speaker 5>It's only a couple basis points in.

0:01:19.760 --> 0:01:22.440
<v Speaker 6>Videos down almost three percent, and videos flipped as well.

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:25.880
<v Speaker 4>That is huge, And I can't imagine how Jolts drives

0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:29.600
<v Speaker 4>in video down three percent, But maybe I'll figure out

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:30.920
<v Speaker 4>a way to how to make that connection.

0:01:32.000 --> 0:01:33.520
<v Speaker 5>I'm wondering about your.

0:01:33.440 --> 0:01:35.679
<v Speaker 4>Take on the FED because you expect, I think, still

0:01:35.680 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 4>three rate cuts this year, and I don't understand exactly

0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:42.600
<v Speaker 4>why the FED needs to cut.

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 5>Rates don't seem very restrictive.

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:46.680
<v Speaker 4>We have three to two and a half percent growth

0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:48.560
<v Speaker 4>I think is your forecast for twenty twenty five.

0:01:48.600 --> 0:01:51.440
<v Speaker 5>We have an S and P five hundred.

0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:54.520
<v Speaker 4>That's up another twenty four percent after a twenty four

0:01:54.560 --> 0:01:59.200
<v Speaker 4>percent gain. Unemployment is very low, still much lower than

0:01:59.240 --> 0:02:00.800
<v Speaker 4>the historical average.

0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:03.000
<v Speaker 5>Why does the FED need to continue.

0:02:02.680 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 3>To cut I'd say two things. One, the funds rate

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:08.400
<v Speaker 3>is still quite high. That I mean, we're still one

0:02:08.480 --> 0:02:13.720
<v Speaker 3>hundred basis points or so above many people's estimates of

0:02:14.240 --> 0:02:18.960
<v Speaker 3>the equilibrium funds rate, or we're in our case, seventy

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 3>five basis points. It's a little more than one hundred

0:02:21.240 --> 0:02:23.560
<v Speaker 3>basis points. In the Fed's case. So I think there's

0:02:23.560 --> 0:02:27.880
<v Speaker 3>a presumption that if nothing else happens, the funds rate's

0:02:27.919 --> 0:02:30.080
<v Speaker 3>more likely to come down just to get back to

0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:34.119
<v Speaker 3>something closer to equilibrium, at least as long as inflation

0:02:34.240 --> 0:02:37.400
<v Speaker 3>still trends down, which is our expectation. And number two,

0:02:37.800 --> 0:02:41.600
<v Speaker 3>we have seen a labor market rebalancing and in fact

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 3>some signs of weaker labor market activity, certainly on the

0:02:46.760 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 3>hiring front. We're also looking for a somewhat softer employment

0:02:51.639 --> 0:02:54.400
<v Speaker 3>number on Friday. Obviously that's only one report, we'll see

0:02:54.400 --> 0:02:57.480
<v Speaker 3>what it prints. We're at one twenty five for payrolls,

0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:00.679
<v Speaker 3>and we think that the unemployment rate might edge up

0:03:00.760 --> 0:03:03.799
<v Speaker 3>to four point three percent, right, and you know, four

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:08.040
<v Speaker 3>point three is low, but it's not super low. It's

0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:09.959
<v Speaker 3>no longer in the three and a half percent range,

0:03:10.040 --> 0:03:12.520
<v Speaker 3>and it would be a touch above the Fed's estimate

0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:15.400
<v Speaker 3>of the natural rate of unemployment.

0:03:15.520 --> 0:03:18.200
<v Speaker 6>So, just to clarify quickly, so three rate cuts in

0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:20.880
<v Speaker 6>twenty twenty five that would be normalizing. It wouldn't necessarily

0:03:20.960 --> 0:03:22.520
<v Speaker 6>be easy from the Federal Reserve.

0:03:23.000 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean that's the question of terminology, but I

0:03:25.400 --> 0:03:27.880
<v Speaker 3>think you could put it that way, that it's normalizing

0:03:28.000 --> 0:03:29.200
<v Speaker 3>rather than really easing.

0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:32.760
<v Speaker 6>Okay, so maybe a distinction without difference. But words matter here, Yan,

0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:35.400
<v Speaker 6>And we haven't talked about Donald Trump yet, and it

0:03:35.400 --> 0:03:37.520
<v Speaker 6>feels like when you talk about the FED, when you

0:03:37.520 --> 0:03:41.000
<v Speaker 6>talk about the inflationary outlook, even when you talk about growth,

0:03:41.040 --> 0:03:44.040
<v Speaker 6>you have to talk about tariffs. What is your base

0:03:44.160 --> 0:03:46.280
<v Speaker 6>case for tariffs right now? And I know it's hard

0:03:46.320 --> 0:03:49.080
<v Speaker 6>before the man even gets into the office, but what

0:03:49.160 --> 0:03:50.320
<v Speaker 6>are you expecting there?

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:55.160
<v Speaker 3>We're building in tariffs on China, so a twenty percentage

0:03:55.200 --> 0:03:59.040
<v Speaker 3>point increase on average in US tariff rates on China,

0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:02.960
<v Speaker 3>and we're build building in auto tariffs on the European

0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:08.440
<v Speaker 3>Union and Mexico beyond that, and that gives us a

0:04:08.600 --> 0:04:13.720
<v Speaker 3>modest negative impulse to growth, I mean in its by itself.

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:16.280
<v Speaker 3>There are some other changes in policy that are more

0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:20.080
<v Speaker 3>growth positive, but a few tenths of of growth. And

0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:24.440
<v Speaker 3>we have about three or four tenths of additional inflation

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:28.479
<v Speaker 3>in two thousand and twenty five because of the tariffs.

0:04:28.760 --> 0:04:29.760
<v Speaker 1>With that, we still have.

0:04:29.720 --> 0:04:32.400
<v Speaker 3>Inflation coming down from two point eight percent now to

0:04:32.400 --> 0:04:34.159
<v Speaker 3>two point four percent by the end of the year,

0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:36.880
<v Speaker 3>but we'd be very close to two percent if it

0:04:36.960 --> 0:04:39.719
<v Speaker 3>wasn't for the tariff impact, so it's a sort of

0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:46.280
<v Speaker 3>mixed impact. I think markets have very much focused on

0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:48.880
<v Speaker 3>the fact that you know, you probably will see somewhat

0:04:48.920 --> 0:04:51.240
<v Speaker 3>more inflation in the short term. They've taken that as

0:04:51.320 --> 0:04:55.039
<v Speaker 3>quite hawkish, but it's double sided. I mean, you have

0:04:55.120 --> 0:04:58.120
<v Speaker 3>it on the one hand, you have an inflationary impact.

0:04:58.200 --> 0:05:00.600
<v Speaker 3>On the other hand, there are also some risks to

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:04.159
<v Speaker 3>markets if we were to see a more aggressive tariff posture,

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:06.560
<v Speaker 3>which of course is a risk we don't know. As

0:05:06.640 --> 0:05:07.320
<v Speaker 3>you said.

0:05:07.600 --> 0:05:09.280
<v Speaker 2>I would also say, we were talking about all the

0:05:09.320 --> 0:05:11.080
<v Speaker 2>data that's coming out this morning, won't put you too

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:12.479
<v Speaker 2>much on this bed. I know you're right in front

0:05:12.480 --> 0:05:13.839
<v Speaker 2>of us, but I want to point out that the

0:05:14.520 --> 0:05:19.760
<v Speaker 2>IT services prices paid has also been rising, and that's

0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:22.160
<v Speaker 2>also leading a lot of this movement in the yields

0:05:22.279 --> 0:05:25.920
<v Speaker 2>as well. You're also seeing traders wipe out the possibility

0:05:25.960 --> 0:05:29.320
<v Speaker 2>of a full FED rate cut before July. So tremendous

0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:33.680
<v Speaker 2>spread in the market right now and tremendous uncertainty when

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:37.800
<v Speaker 2>you look forward. I think something that is confusing about

0:05:37.839 --> 0:05:40.600
<v Speaker 2>the longer end of the curve, not even the bottom end,

0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 2>is when you're thinking about how the FED doesn't just

0:05:43.640 --> 0:05:47.640
<v Speaker 2>treat the FED funds pricing, but the longer end of

0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:51.320
<v Speaker 2>the curve, quantitative tightening running off the treasure re portfolio.

0:05:51.400 --> 0:05:55.080
<v Speaker 2>How is that going to change the dynamics? Because you

0:05:55.160 --> 0:05:57.640
<v Speaker 2>do risk, don't you a tantrum?

0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:02.200
<v Speaker 3>I think the quantitative tightening or the normalization of the

0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:04.560
<v Speaker 3>balance sheet. I mean, the idea is to have that

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:08.440
<v Speaker 3>very much in the background. It's not an active instrument

0:06:08.480 --> 0:06:12.240
<v Speaker 3>of monetary policy. I don't think it's had a major impact.

0:06:12.360 --> 0:06:16.600
<v Speaker 3>They're being very very careful. They might, you know, still

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:18.479
<v Speaker 3>let it run for quite a while, but at a

0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:22.479
<v Speaker 3>very very slow pace. They don't want to cause any

0:06:23.080 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 3>dysfunction in the markets, you know. I think the key

0:06:28.600 --> 0:06:30.800
<v Speaker 3>instrument is still going to be the funds rate. And

0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:34.560
<v Speaker 3>on the funds rate, you're right, markets have really moved

0:06:34.640 --> 0:06:40.360
<v Speaker 3>pretty far away from additional easing normalizational cuts. I mean,

0:06:40.960 --> 0:06:44.479
<v Speaker 3>back in September, markets were pricing a terminal federal funds

0:06:44.520 --> 0:06:48.560
<v Speaker 3>rate of two seventy. Now we're more than one hundred

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:52.159
<v Speaker 3>basis points above that in terms of market pricing. And

0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:53.000
<v Speaker 3>I think markets have.

0:06:53.680 --> 0:06:54.360
<v Speaker 5>Moved too much.

0:06:54.600 --> 0:06:59.279
<v Speaker 3>They were way too aggressive on pricing rate cuts back

0:06:59.320 --> 0:07:02.240
<v Speaker 3>in September. But now I think there's some room for

0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 3>pricing more.

0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:07.320
<v Speaker 6>Interesting, so maybe the market overshot in both directions. I

0:07:07.360 --> 0:07:09.080
<v Speaker 6>want to stay on the long end of the treasury

0:07:09.120 --> 0:07:11.800
<v Speaker 6>curve because it's just fascinating to see the long end

0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:14.480
<v Speaker 6>rise even as you have the Fed cutting rates. You know,

0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:16.920
<v Speaker 6>we talked a little bit about QT here, but how

0:07:17.000 --> 0:07:20.040
<v Speaker 6>would you explain the rise that we've seen in the

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:23.040
<v Speaker 6>tenure treasure yield one hundred basis points since the Fed

0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:23.720
<v Speaker 6>cut rates?

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:25.280
<v Speaker 5>What's actually going on there?

0:07:25.280 --> 0:07:25.800
<v Speaker 1>Would you say?

0:07:25.880 --> 0:07:28.240
<v Speaker 3>I think it's a combination of two things. One, and

0:07:28.320 --> 0:07:31.440
<v Speaker 3>maybe most importantly is what I just talked about, namely

0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:34.600
<v Speaker 3>that markets have really revised their expectations of where the

0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:35.360
<v Speaker 3>funds rate.

0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:36.920
<v Speaker 5>Goes, even the long end.

0:07:37.520 --> 0:07:40.520
<v Speaker 3>Well, that has an impact. Of course, the if markets

0:07:40.560 --> 0:07:44.320
<v Speaker 3>think now that you know the funds rate is going

0:07:44.360 --> 0:07:48.400
<v Speaker 3>to be at four percent rather than two seventy, of

0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:52.680
<v Speaker 3>course that gets incorporated into the first several years of

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:55.200
<v Speaker 3>the of the term structure. So you're going to have

0:07:55.240 --> 0:07:57.920
<v Speaker 3>to have an impact on the long end. And then

0:07:57.960 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 3>I think number two, the charm premium is rising. This

0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:05.600
<v Speaker 3>is the excess return that investors kind of expect for

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:09.840
<v Speaker 3>holding ten year securities as opposed to overnight, and that's

0:08:09.880 --> 0:08:13.280
<v Speaker 3>been rising for I think a variety of reasons. Concerns

0:08:13.320 --> 0:08:17.800
<v Speaker 3>around fiscal policy are certainly part of that, and you know,

0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:19.600
<v Speaker 3>I think that's been a trend that we have been

0:08:19.600 --> 0:08:21.280
<v Speaker 3>seeing and may continue to see.

0:08:21.360 --> 0:08:24.840
<v Speaker 5>This could be a more secular trend.

0:08:24.960 --> 0:08:29.440
<v Speaker 3>Where as the deptter GDP ratio continues to rise, you

0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:32.800
<v Speaker 3>get a little bit of additional charm premium that creeps in.

0:08:33.679 --> 0:08:36.959
<v Speaker 4>I was listening to your Odd Lots podcast with David Costin,

0:08:37.200 --> 0:08:39.560
<v Speaker 4>which I thought was really great. And you're the chief

0:08:39.559 --> 0:08:43.319
<v Speaker 4>economist and you're also the head of the research globally

0:08:43.320 --> 0:08:45.840
<v Speaker 4>at Goldman Sachs. You seem though to focus more on

0:08:45.880 --> 0:08:48.080
<v Speaker 4>the markets in the shorter term.

0:08:48.120 --> 0:08:50.840
<v Speaker 5>And I'm wondering, at least in that podcast, and I'm.

0:08:50.760 --> 0:08:52.880
<v Speaker 4>Wondering, if you step back and look at the world,

0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:55.480
<v Speaker 4>what's happening in We were just talking about France, how

0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:58.439
<v Speaker 4>the Populist party is the most powerful there. You just

0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:02.320
<v Speaker 4>saw kickle get a pathway to lead Austria in the

0:09:02.360 --> 0:09:05.160
<v Speaker 4>first far right wing government there since the Second World War.

0:09:05.200 --> 0:09:08.079
<v Speaker 4>The AfD is very popular in Germany. We have Trump

0:09:08.120 --> 0:09:12.320
<v Speaker 4>coming back here. What does this populous shift due to

0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:15.040
<v Speaker 4>your economic outlook for global growth.

0:09:15.240 --> 0:09:19.439
<v Speaker 3>I think broadly speaking, it increases the you know, the

0:09:19.800 --> 0:09:25.000
<v Speaker 3>potential risks around any baseline scenario that's more driven by

0:09:25.040 --> 0:09:28.600
<v Speaker 3>the economic fundamentals themselves. I think there is more risk

0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:33.800
<v Speaker 3>of you know, exogronous shocks from fiscal policy and from

0:09:33.880 --> 0:09:38.760
<v Speaker 3>trade policy, just from conflict between countries, whether that's in

0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:43.000
<v Speaker 3>the trade arena between countries that are you know, military

0:09:43.400 --> 0:09:49.880
<v Speaker 3>and geostrategic allies, or more significant military conflict in other cases.

0:09:49.920 --> 0:09:53.000
<v Speaker 3>And obviously there are a number of examples of this.

0:09:53.080 --> 0:09:57.280
<v Speaker 3>So if I look back over the twenty seven twenty

0:09:57.320 --> 0:10:01.559
<v Speaker 3>eight years that I've been an economist working in markets,

0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:04.520
<v Speaker 3>I put a lot more weight on these exulgentius shocks

0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 3>now than I did when I started my career. You

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:09.920
<v Speaker 3>know what about and you know, there are many many

0:10:09.960 --> 0:10:12.320
<v Speaker 3>different aspects of that. I think a lot of the

0:10:12.800 --> 0:10:17.640
<v Speaker 3>populist backlash in Europe that we're seeing now is certainly

0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:20.720
<v Speaker 3>an aspect of that. But this is a conversation that

0:10:20.760 --> 0:10:22.040
<v Speaker 3>could go on for a long time.

0:10:22.120 --> 0:10:23.280
<v Speaker 1>What about internal politics?

0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:26.040
<v Speaker 2>And I've got to say, ye, from tariffs to politics,

0:10:26.040 --> 0:10:28.160
<v Speaker 2>we could go anywhere with you, but I do want

0:10:28.240 --> 0:10:28.960
<v Speaker 2>you to away in one.

0:10:28.880 --> 0:10:30.560
<v Speaker 1>Of the larger stories of today.

0:10:30.880 --> 0:10:33.439
<v Speaker 2>You had Michael Barr stepping down as the vice chair

0:10:33.520 --> 0:10:36.040
<v Speaker 2>for the supervisions for the Federal Reserve. You have a

0:10:36.040 --> 0:10:39.840
<v Speaker 2>lot of chatter around Mickey Bowman around taking that spot.

0:10:39.920 --> 0:10:42.680
<v Speaker 2>What does that mean in terms of the composition of

0:10:42.679 --> 0:10:45.200
<v Speaker 2>the Federal Reserve. You have one of the largest hawks

0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:47.800
<v Speaker 2>on the Federal Reserve being put up for a different

0:10:47.800 --> 0:10:52.120
<v Speaker 2>type of position. She has been very critical, let's say,

0:10:52.160 --> 0:10:54.680
<v Speaker 2>of some of the bank regulations. What does this mean

0:10:54.760 --> 0:10:57.160
<v Speaker 2>for the impetus to raise interest rates?

0:10:57.200 --> 0:11:00.040
<v Speaker 4>Although it's not unrelated, it's not unrelated to my question

0:11:00.200 --> 0:11:03.640
<v Speaker 4>right because we were talking about Jason Furman's tweet. This

0:11:03.840 --> 0:11:06.960
<v Speaker 4>is sort of bowing to populist the next populist government, and.

0:11:07.520 --> 0:11:09.200
<v Speaker 1>You're getting concerned for sure.

0:11:09.760 --> 0:11:12.720
<v Speaker 3>I mean for monetary policy. I don't think it's going

0:11:12.760 --> 0:11:16.160
<v Speaker 3>to have a very significant impact in the sense that,

0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:20.240
<v Speaker 3>you know, the Board of Governors is fully staffed. Michael

0:11:20.240 --> 0:11:24.160
<v Speaker 3>Bauer has said that he is going to remain a governor,

0:11:24.320 --> 0:11:28.520
<v Speaker 3>so you know, clearly Bowman has been more hawkish on

0:11:28.920 --> 0:11:31.320
<v Speaker 3>monetary policy. I'm sure that's going to continue to be

0:11:31.400 --> 0:11:35.600
<v Speaker 3>the case. The read across from that into what happens

0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:38.559
<v Speaker 3>on the regulatory and supervisory front I think is going

0:11:38.600 --> 0:11:44.320
<v Speaker 3>to be limited. Obviously, we've seen a big shift in

0:11:44.400 --> 0:11:48.080
<v Speaker 3>terms of the political environment that's going to have implications

0:11:48.080 --> 0:11:51.280
<v Speaker 3>for regulation, not just in the financial sphere, but probably

0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:55.239
<v Speaker 3>also in other areas like mergers and maybe energy regulation.

0:11:55.800 --> 0:11:58.360
<v Speaker 3>And I think this is part and parcel of that

0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:01.280
<v Speaker 3>broader shift in terms of the regulatory agenda.

0:12:01.679 --> 0:12:03.640
<v Speaker 6>All right, Yan, Unfortunately we have to leave it. They're

0:12:03.720 --> 0:12:06.400
<v Speaker 6>a real masterclass. Hope you come back soon. That is

0:12:06.520 --> 0:12:08.480
<v Speaker 6>Jan Hatzius of Goldman Sachs