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 Amerie Hordern. 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.
Speaker 1: Howard Marks, co founder and co chairman of oak Tree
Speaker 1: Capital Market, issuing a warning at his latest memo, I
Speaker 1: find the resulting outlook for employment terrifying. I am enormously
Speaker 1: concerned about what will happen to the people whose jobs
Speaker 1: AI renders unnecessary or who can't find jobs because of
Speaker 1: it at this moment of transformation. Howard joins us now
Speaker 1: after writing a memo that I really recommend everybody read.
Speaker 1: It really was one of the absolute best you've ever written.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being here with us, So I can
Speaker 1: stop now, No, please don't, I want to keep reading
Speaker 1: your membos. I want to start with this idea of
Speaker 1: different types of bubbles, and you talk about there are
Speaker 1: productive bubbles and unproductive bubbles. What's the difference and how
Speaker 1: does that make it either something you want to invest
Speaker 1: in or not.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 4: I think that the unproductive bubbles I would describe as
Speaker 4: financial fads. Portfolio insurance was one, subprime mortgages was another.
Speaker 4: Just you know, financial activities that become fashionable, zoom into popularity,
Speaker 4: get over hyped, and then recede. But then there are
Speaker 4: bubbles which are based on technological progress, the starting with
Speaker 4: the steam engine, the railroad, the radio, the automobile, computers, internet, etc.
Speaker 4: And these actually push society ahead and change it irreversibly.
Speaker 4: But in the process there is a bubble surrounding their implementation,
Speaker 4: which is overly accelerated and overly financed and goes to
Speaker 4: excess and end up destroying a lot of capital, but
Speaker 4: leave society greatly changed. And I'm sure that AI is
Speaker 4: in the latter category in terms of effect on society.
Speaker 4: And the question is will the implementation prove to have
Speaker 4: been excessive in scope and in the way it's financed.
Speaker 1: Just because something is excessive doesn't mean that you can't
Speaker 1: invest in it.
Speaker 3: No, But.
Speaker 4: When investors hate everything and we'll touch it with the
Speaker 4: ten foot poll, chances are it's going to be on
Speaker 4: sale because nobody has pushed up the price. In fact,
Speaker 4: their disinterest has pushed down the price. But when everybody
Speaker 4: likes something, he's excited about something, chances are it may
Speaker 4: be overhyped and overpriced.
Speaker 3: So you just have to be careful. So that's where
Speaker 3: we are right now.
Speaker 1: You said you can invest and you campaticipate, but you
Speaker 1: just have to be careful. What does being careful look like?
Speaker 1: Does it mean focusing more on debt versus equities, more
Speaker 1: on equities versus debt, more on small companies versus big ones.
Speaker 3: What does that look like?
Speaker 4: Well, what I say in the memo is that it's
Speaker 4: okay to lend for activities even if they're uncertain, but
Speaker 4: not if they are if the outcomes are purely conjectural.
Speaker 4: I mean, in order to be a smart lender, you
Speaker 4: have to have good visibility on the extent to which
Speaker 4: the thing is likely to repay interest. In principle, if
Speaker 4: it's just purely conjectural, it's not you shouldn't be a lender.
Speaker 4: And in fact, I think the memo says that where
Speaker 4: that's the case, you should actually, if you want to participate,
Speaker 4: you should be in the equity so at least you
Speaker 4: get the upside.
Speaker 3: The lender has no upside.
Speaker 4: You make it a nine percent own all you're going
Speaker 4: to get is nine percent, no matter how well the
Speaker 4: thing does.
Speaker 3: You certainly shouldn't do that in activities that have a high.
Speaker 4: Probability of not paying off at all, because then you
Speaker 4: have unlimited downside and limited upside. That's absolutely the wrong combination.
Speaker 1: So you think, right now, in some circumstances, the equity
Speaker 1: might actually be a better option than the debt because
Speaker 1: of that potential level.
Speaker 4: Exactly, because the point is that if you go into
Speaker 4: some startup which has a possibility, you know, let's say
Speaker 4: a small possibility of a raging success, you know you
Speaker 4: wouldn't lend to it because you have a high probability
Speaker 4: of losing all your money and no probability of participating
Speaker 4: in the success.
Speaker 3: That's a bad trade.
Speaker 1: So you always talk about this risk reward pendulum, the
Speaker 1: risk and fear, this sort of fear and greed pendulum.
Speaker 1: Right now, and yesterday we saw Oracle come out and
Speaker 1: talk about having to borrow more money, having to spend
Speaker 1: more and people are selling off the shares.
Speaker 3: Does this make you feel good?
Speaker 1: Does this make you feel like there actually is some discretion?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, well I think that I think that it's
Speaker 4: you know, Buffett says, the less prudence for which others
Speaker 4: conductor affairs, the greater the prudence with which we must
Speaker 4: conduct our own affairs. So when other people are acting
Speaker 4: imprudently and mindlessly and care free, we should be worried.
Speaker 4: When other people are showing appropriate concern, that's a positive
Speaker 4: sign that the market is applying some discipline. The greatest
Speaker 4: some of the greatest moments that I've seen, some of
Speaker 4: the greatest signals of danger in the markets have been
Speaker 4: when people were not applying any prudence at all, like
Speaker 4: in six for example. So if people are reacting harshly
Speaker 4: to aggressive, possibly risk indicating activities, yes, that's a healthy sign.
Speaker 4: And this market is seems healthy year than the two
Speaker 4: thousand market.
Speaker 1: To me, How concerned are you that we get a
Speaker 1: federal reserve that's more accommodative for a variety of reasons
Speaker 1: that leads to even more risk taking. This idea that
Speaker 1: not only did the Fed cut rates indicated more rate
Speaker 1: cuts but also is adding to its balance sheet in
Speaker 1: a way that could potentially prop up demand.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, I was thinking about this when I
Speaker 4: was waiting to see you today. You know, most of
Speaker 4: the people listening to this program, including me and you,
Speaker 4: are interested in the free markets, and we think free
Speaker 4: markets should set the prices of things. And the FED
Speaker 4: manipulations are a form of price controls. You know, they
Speaker 4: control the price of money. And if the FED puts
Speaker 4: money artificially cheap, then it induces behavior like risk taking.
Speaker 3: It forces people into risk.
Speaker 4: Of your activities because the returns on safe activities are
Speaker 4: so low. It tends to reinforce the view that there's
Speaker 4: a FED put that if there's a problem, the FED
Speaker 4: will solve it, and that contributes to risky behavior.
Speaker 3: These are all bad things.
Speaker 4: And you know, I believe that the FED should be
Speaker 4: passive most of the time and only come to the
Speaker 4: rescue if the market is if the economy is seriously
Speaker 4: overheated and tending towards hyperinflation, or seriously under active and
Speaker 4: not creating jobs. I don't think that's the case right now.
Speaker 4: I don't think there's a and you can see in
Speaker 4: the divided Open Market Committee that there's a difference of opinion.
Speaker 4: So I don't think that action on the part of
Speaker 4: the Fed is compelling right now. And you know, there
Speaker 4: are people who think that rates should be a lot
Speaker 4: lower than they are today.
Speaker 3: I just don't see that the merit in that right now.
Speaker 3: Going forward.
Speaker 1: I remember back in two thousand and fifteen, sixteen seventeen,
Speaker 1: more rates were incredibly low. You were saying people just
Speaker 1: need to lower their expectations for returns because ultimately you
Speaker 1: have to look at the risk free rate. You don't
Speaker 1: want to reach too much at a time where people
Speaker 1: are greedy. Where are we right now in terms of
Speaker 1: what types of returns people ought to expect based on
Speaker 1: the current income rates?
Speaker 4: Well, the lower base interest rates are everything scales off that,
Speaker 4: so you know, I mean the FED funds rate at
Speaker 4: three and a half is below history. It's these are
Speaker 4: not high rates, They're only high relatives the last fifteen years.
Speaker 4: But this is a low rate, So everything scales off that.
Speaker 4: Most things will give moderate returns in the dead area.
Speaker 4: I think prospective returns are moderate, okay, not lush, but
Speaker 4: not inadequate. The trouble is that the S and P,
Speaker 4: based on its pe ratio relative to history, appears to
Speaker 4: be priced to provide a very low prospective return. Historically,
Speaker 4: if you bought at this pe ratio, your return over
Speaker 4: the next ten years averaged in the very low single digits.
Speaker 4: So I think we're in a moderate return scenario. The
Speaker 4: problem is that how do you get a high return
Speaker 4: in a moderate return scenario? And most people's resort is
Speaker 4: to take a lot more risk, and that's something I
Speaker 4: don't like to do, other than when it's compelling.
Speaker 1: You had a personal note in a dentum at the end,
Speaker 1: and we let off with that idea of what artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence and machine learning will do to the labor market,
Speaker 1: it's something clearly on the Fed's mind, clearly on investor's mind,
Speaker 1: talking about concerns that there is going to be cannibalization
Speaker 1: from human jobs. How do you see this playing out?
Speaker 1: How are you kind of grappling with this when you
Speaker 1: look at investments, when you look at fiscal deficit, when
Speaker 1: you look at the backdrop for the financial system.
Speaker 4: Well, look, Lisa, here, I'm not talking about investing or economics.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about society. And it's very worrying to me.
Speaker 4: And you know, I've gotten some very nice response from
Speaker 4: people I respect to the memo, and one of them
Speaker 4: said he thinks we've seen this in response to the
Speaker 4: Internet over the last twenty five years, but it has
Speaker 4: not raised unemployment because the Internet eliminated white collar jobs
Speaker 4: that were replaced by blue collar jobs, like you know,
Speaker 4: people who pick stuff in warehouses and send it out
Speaker 4: in e commerce. So the job count is not down,
Speaker 4: but job quality is down. And I think that this
Speaker 4: is very worrisome. And as I said the addendum, when
Speaker 4: we lost jobs to automation and offshoring, I think that
Speaker 4: that coincided with the opiate epidemic, and not only in
Speaker 4: the amount, but also in location. And I think it's
Speaker 4: a natural consequence of people sitting around all day. And
Speaker 4: even if we we can find a replace, a way
Speaker 4: to replace their income, I worry about purposelessness. And you know,
Speaker 4: we get so much job, so much from our jobs
Speaker 4: other than a paycheck, and you can't replace that stuff.
Speaker 3: So I worry for society.
Speaker 2: Stay with us more Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this.
Speaker 1: Joining us now for more, Libby, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here.
Speaker 3: Why not just give the role to.
Speaker 5: Kevin Hassett at this point, Well, I mean, look, I
Speaker 5: think that this is obviously President Trump loves a horse race,
Speaker 5: and I think he loves the drama. And of course
Speaker 5: he doesn't need to nominate anybody until Powell's term is up,
Speaker 5: which is, of course, as you know, until May of
Speaker 5: twenty twenty six, and so there really is no rush here.
Speaker 5: But I do think this is, you know, sort of
Speaker 5: speaks to the dramatic that the president, that the President likes.
Speaker 5: I mean, I do you know, you're kind of a
Speaker 5: broader issue though, is sort of this these rumors that
Speaker 5: there has been kind of pushed back on on Hassett.
Speaker 5: I think it does show that even though the market
Speaker 5: has been pretty sanguine about FED independence, that there may
Speaker 5: be some concerns and that when you have somebody from
Speaker 5: the White House that then rotates to the FED, that
Speaker 5: there could be some politicization of the institution.
Speaker 6: Libya here from the President saying that what he cares
Speaker 6: about somebody honest about interest rates. There's more to it
Speaker 6: than that, of course, and I think that there was
Speaker 6: a narrative for a while that this was going to
Speaker 6: be a reformer, and I think Kevin Warsh represents that
Speaker 6: he somebody's talked a lot about the way the FED
Speaker 6: is structured and what could change. Do other candidates share
Speaker 6: those same inclinations. How much does the president price I
Speaker 6: should say, weve heard from the Treasury Secretary he's interested
Speaker 6: in reforming the way the whole system is set up.
Speaker 6: Who can be regional presidents and the like. How big
Speaker 6: an issue is that? Do you think for the presidents
Speaker 6: he goes through the search?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, maybe not for the president himself, but
Speaker 5: I do think for this administration, and I think for
Speaker 5: you know, many folks on the Hill as well. I mean,
Speaker 5: this has been a long time in coming. Obviously, Congress
Speaker 5: has tried to pass legislation to reform the FED that
Speaker 5: requires sixty votes, so they haven't been able to get
Speaker 5: kind of by a partisan support. But I do think
Speaker 5: we could see some reforms. But I do you know,
Speaker 5: it's important to contextualize what the reforms could be and
Speaker 5: what is possible. There's just not as much that the
Speaker 5: president or a FED chair can do unilaterally without actually
Speaker 5: changing the law, and of course you need Congress to
Speaker 5: change the law. So could we see sort of incrementally
Speaker 5: how reserved presidents are chosen, maybe a little bit more
Speaker 5: pressure on reserve presidents. Of course, the FED Board does
Speaker 5: have authority over who stays as a regional president. But
Speaker 5: I think just by and large, there's probably I think,
Speaker 5: you know, we're expecting more incremental reform, if any, just
Speaker 5: given some of those constraints.
Speaker 6: Let's say cast as the front runner, which Bloomberg has reported,
Speaker 6: and you point out the fact there's been this kind
Speaker 6: of growing concern within the bond mark about him as
Speaker 6: potential FED share that kind of became so we first
Speaker 6: saw on the ftpiece a couple of days ago. Now
Speaker 6: seeing that brought in a little bit more. What does
Speaker 6: the bond market want to see? I think of what
Speaker 6: Anna Wong, our colleague at Bloomberg Economics roads, saying she
Speaker 6: knows Kevin Asse, She's worked alongside him.
Speaker 3: Actions speak louder than words.
Speaker 6: He's somebody who has talked a lot about fit independent
Speaker 6: since prized it through the entirety of his career. He
Speaker 6: did advise some more traditional Republicans in years past. What
Speaker 6: does he have to do to kind of assuage or
Speaker 6: pacify those who are concerned about the prospects of him
Speaker 6: being the next.
Speaker 5: FED shir Yeah, I think, as you know, there's what
Speaker 5: he says publicly, and what he says, you know, to
Speaker 5: the media and in this you should he get nominated,
Speaker 5: That all important confirmation hearing, but also what he says
Speaker 5: privately and to the very key Republican senators who will
Speaker 5: effectively cast sort of the vote whether he gets nominated
Speaker 5: or not. So I think what they want to see
Speaker 5: is again just reassurances that they know that he will
Speaker 5: uphold independence, that he will not be sort of suaged
Speaker 5: by the whomever is in the president who's ever in
Speaker 5: the White House beaks. Of course, this next FED chair
Speaker 5: will outlive President Trump's term and will be in for
Speaker 5: whomever is president in twenty twenty nine. And then also
Speaker 5: that some of these rumors about the regional presidents and
Speaker 5: what have you may again maybe the reforms will be
Speaker 5: more incremental and not necessarily existential.
Speaker 7: I mean, how do you think about the bond market
Speaker 7: and it's reaction all of this, For all the kind
Speaker 7: of rumors of pushback since Bloomberg broke the kind of
Speaker 7: hasset news, ten year yield has been relatively well behaved,
Speaker 7: two year yields relatively well behaved. I think, you know,
Speaker 7: the work is still pricing in kind of a three
Speaker 7: percent terminal rate. It seems like the bond market is
Speaker 7: taking the kind of measure of Hassett and saying it's
Speaker 7: not a really significant shift in policy, and bond market
Speaker 7: seems relatively comfortable. How do you.
Speaker 3: React to that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think we do what I just said earlier.
Speaker 5: I mean, I do think the bond market has been
Speaker 5: relatively sanguine about this is just about in general, this
Speaker 5: fear about FED independence, and I think that you know,
Speaker 5: kind of you know, maybe underscores two things. One is
Speaker 5: that oftentimes the market doesn't believe anything until they actually
Speaker 5: see it, and so they're not going to necessarily just
Speaker 5: trade on speculation or on rumor. And of course we
Speaker 5: don't even have a FED chair nomine yet. It's all
Speaker 5: just been kind of those and of course you know
Speaker 5: the drama. But I also think the number two is
Speaker 5: that the market understands some of these guardrails that are
Speaker 5: in place, and that while the chair, of course is
Speaker 5: very important, the chair is not kind of almighty in
Speaker 5: terms of changing monetary policy, and that of course it
Speaker 5: is the majority of as you know, the FOMC twelve members,
Speaker 5: not just the seven FED Board governors. And then also
Speaker 5: not to overstate the sort of confirmation process. But something I,
Speaker 5: maybe to their chagrin, always reinforce to our Investment Committee
Speaker 5: is that this advice and consent role that the US
Speaker 5: Senate plays is very important. And actually, if you just
Speaker 5: look at the number of nominees that this president has
Speaker 5: had to withdraw, it's really unprecedented, and it's all kind
Speaker 5: of been backchanneling and private. But that sort of speaks
Speaker 5: to the fact that the Senate, they have not had
Speaker 5: the votes in the Senate to confirm those nominees. So
Speaker 5: I think if somebody were to be nominated, who would
Speaker 5: be too political, who would really compromise the independence of
Speaker 5: the foot I think the bomb market is reassured that
Speaker 5: the Senate would push back.
Speaker 1: This goes to a bigger question, and I was glad
Speaker 1: that you went there about how much Republicans are starting
Speaker 1: to push back on President Trump after some of the
Speaker 1: recent elections and some of the recent losses on the
Speaker 1: part of certain Republican candidates. Do you get the sense
Speaker 1: that there is a greater constraining of some of the
Speaker 1: more extreme policies by Congress as a result of some
Speaker 1: of the recent elections, You.
Speaker 3: Know, I do.
Speaker 5: I think the political runway for this president is absolutely shortening.
Speaker 5: But I would also say that this is very consistent
Speaker 5: with history. If you look at Biden's administration, you know,
Speaker 5: the Democrats, of course had both the House and the
Speaker 5: Senate in his first two years, and they basically allowed
Speaker 5: Biden to do whatever he kind of wanted to do,
Speaker 5: right to really advance his policy agenda that first year. However,
Speaker 5: as you got closer to the midterms, as you had
Speaker 5: some of these off cycle elections, the Democrats really did
Speaker 5: start pushing back on President Biden. I think that's the
Speaker 5: corollary here. The kind of the parallel is that, you know,
Speaker 5: Republicans have been pushing back on the president sort of privately,
Speaker 5: but I think we expected them to do that more
Speaker 5: more publicly. But again, this is not necessarily President Trump's specific.
Speaker 5: This is kind of just the political cycle in Washington.
Speaker 2: Stay with US multlempag Savannah's coming up of this.
Speaker 1: The team at MasterCards Economic Institute predicting moderate global GDP
Speaker 1: growth at three point one percent and twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: A key dynamic is continued trade realignment between the US
Speaker 1: and China. Joining US now is Michelle Meyer and Michelle
Speaker 1: wonderful to see you as always. I would love to
Speaker 1: get your take on what Steve Shiverin was just talking about,
Speaker 1: which is he thinks the stealth story is the recovery
Speaker 1: and acceleration in the consumer in twenty twenty six. Are
Speaker 1: you seeing that in any of the data that you're collecting.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I would say it's probably not a stealth story.
Speaker 8: It's a reality, and I think it has been the
Speaker 8: reality that consumer has been extraordinarily engaged. You just heard
Speaker 8: it from Robert Eisam in the interview you aired that
Speaker 8: consumers are still traveling, You are still seeing the embrace
Speaker 8: of discretionary spending in addition to the necessities. So it's
Speaker 8: consumers that you know, again it's going to vary depending
Speaker 8: on income cohort. It's a big part of the narrative
Speaker 8: that it's not even It never is even, frankly, but
Speaker 8: you have consumer spending that is still running at a
Speaker 8: healthy clip. For the holiday shopping season. We're looking for
Speaker 8: a mid three percent pace for holiday sales. Black Friday
Speaker 8: came in with our data. We saw a four point
Speaker 8: one percent increase in spending on Black Friday.
Speaker 1: How much is this inflationary? How much is this because
Speaker 1: simply the prices were higher, not necessarily more items for ticketed.
Speaker 8: So you know, we'll find out for sure once we
Speaker 8: get the CPI report at some point.
Speaker 1: Do you know when it's going to be bad?
Speaker 2: Well, no, at some point.
Speaker 8: But in the inrum, what we know as of now
Speaker 8: in terms of the basket of holiday shopping items that
Speaker 8: we typically see inflations running maybe around two percent or
Speaker 8: so year of the year. So certainly there's very much
Speaker 8: still real spending and growth.
Speaker 6: In terms of volume. Would you look at where people
Speaker 6: are spending money, what's the story that emerges from that?
Speaker 6: So you talk about how kind of discerning consumers are
Speaker 6: being about where they're spending it on?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 6: Yeah, can you break that down by I don't know,
Speaker 6: strato or sector? What can that tell us just about
Speaker 6: people's habits at this moment.
Speaker 8: Yeah, So I certainly think that consumers are savvy. I
Speaker 8: think they have been savvy this whole period of time
Speaker 8: coming out of the pandemic. Once they experienced that price
Speaker 8: level shock that was, you know, challenging for them. It
Speaker 8: was a first time consumers are a significant increase in
Speaker 8: the price of goods across the board, and since then,
Speaker 8: I think consumers have been really mindful in terms of
Speaker 8: what they buy, when they buy, why they buy it.
Speaker 8: They certainly concentrate spending around promotional periods, which is what
Speaker 8: we saw during the Black Friday period, But you know,
Speaker 8: making those choices, making those choices that work for them.
Speaker 6: As you look at kind of the evolution of consumer
Speaker 6: psychology in this moment, I think there was a lot
Speaker 6: of anxiety surrounding the prospect of what tariffs might mean
Speaker 6: for all of us. Has that eroded it' staved just
Speaker 6: a moment ago talking about how people might feel once
Speaker 6: these tax benefits come into effect. Are we at a
Speaker 6: point where the immediate effects of those tariffs are now
Speaker 6: not front of mine? And for a lot of consumers,
Speaker 6: it's not as big of kind of psychic wight as
Speaker 6: it was at the beginning of the Liberation Day and
Speaker 6: the like.
Speaker 8: Well, I think we've moved from the headlines the uncertainty
Speaker 8: to the reality right so now we're actually seeing that
Speaker 8: enter into the economy. It's still happening, but there's a
Speaker 8: little bit more stability in terms of the.
Speaker 2: Process.
Speaker 8: And I think for consumers what they're focus on is
Speaker 8: when they walk into the store, they try to purchase
Speaker 8: something online, what is the price and does it make
Speaker 8: sense for their budget? And if it's an item that
Speaker 8: prices have increased, whether it's because of tariffs or because
Speaker 8: of other reasons, they might say, you know what, does
Speaker 8: it make sense? How badly do I want to or
Speaker 8: can I buy something else where I feel like I
Speaker 8: get better value? So that decision is always happening. And
Speaker 8: in a world where there's more digitalization, where you have
Speaker 8: a greater share of spending that's happening online, more choices
Speaker 8: that are out there for consumers, I think they have
Speaker 8: a little bit more power to navigate this environment.
Speaker 7: You talked about the kind of unevenness of consumer spending
Speaker 7: by kind of income cohort, and I'm interested in what
Speaker 7: trends you're seeing, at least over the holiday season. You know,
Speaker 7: is the high end focusing they're spending in a particular place.
Speaker 7: Is the lower end consumer? Are they still healthy? Where
Speaker 7: are they spending? Break that down for us a little bit,
Speaker 7: give us an understanding of kind of how the high
Speaker 7: end and low end consumer behaving through this holiday season.
Speaker 1: Sure, so, I.
Speaker 8: Mean we don't have the ability to break that down
Speaker 8: specifically with our own aggregated data, But what we do
Speaker 8: look at is different baske sets of spending and how
Speaker 8: that varies across the US in terms of different locations,
Speaker 8: which could be a nice proxy for income spending. And
Speaker 8: you know, this holiday season, I would say it has
Speaker 8: been and a lead in has been experienced. Spending has
Speaker 8: done well, So we've seen a good amount of spending
Speaker 8: on restaurants, travel, lodging, a bit weaker in terms of furniture,
Speaker 8: home improvement, footwear, so some of the more discretionary gooes
Speaker 8: categories that may have tariff impacts where perhaps the value
Speaker 8: isn't as notable. And then apparel has been a really
Speaker 8: strong one this season feels like kind of across the
Speaker 8: board as well, where we're seeing this engagement in terms
Speaker 8: of greater spending on apparel.
Speaker 1: So we shouldn't necessarily look at all the sales as
Speaker 1: being just people trying to reel in consumers that are reluctant.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you have things in your basket in
Speaker 1: Amazon or some other company, how many times you get emails,
Speaker 1: often from people say you haven't checked out, the deal's
Speaker 1: still there fifteen days and how long Frida at work?
Speaker 3: Well, that's true.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Survendans podcast, bringing you the best
Speaker 2: in markets, economics, antient politics. You can watch the show
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
Speaker 2: nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 2: or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app