WEBVTT - Charles Schwab's Liz Ann Sonders Talks Market Outlook

0:00:02.600 --> 0:00:08.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. We've been bouncing around

0:00:08.360 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>on the equity side of things. It feels like there's

0:00:10.720 --> 0:00:12.680
<v Speaker 1>no real conviction in the trade. But I want to

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:14.480
<v Speaker 1>see what Lazanne Saunders has to say about that.

0:00:14.720 --> 0:00:16.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, very pleased to have her back with us. She

0:00:16.880 --> 0:00:19.119
<v Speaker 2>is chief investment strategist at Charles Shaw and she joins

0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:20.600
<v Speaker 2>us from Florida. Lasanne, How are you.

0:00:21.480 --> 0:00:22.480
<v Speaker 3>I'm good. How are you too?

0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:24.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, we're doing pretty well. We're doing pretty well. We're

0:00:24.680 --> 0:00:27.480
<v Speaker 2>not in sunny Florida, but it is kind of jealous.

0:00:27.320 --> 0:00:29.040
<v Speaker 2>It's still sunny up here.

0:00:29.160 --> 0:00:29.800
<v Speaker 3>Come on down.

0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:33.680
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, We're happy, happy, especially in the winter. We'd love to.

0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:36.280
<v Speaker 2>I want to talk a little bit about some of

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:38.880
<v Speaker 2>the stuff you sent our producer Paul ahead of time,

0:00:38.880 --> 0:00:41.880
<v Speaker 2>because I do find it interesting given that you argue

0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:43.479
<v Speaker 2>that the pullback that we've seen just in the last

0:00:43.560 --> 0:00:46.440
<v Speaker 2>couple of weeks, last two days nowith standing, has kind

0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:49.600
<v Speaker 2>of masked some underlying declines that we've seen take place

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:51.640
<v Speaker 2>in some of the major indices. Talk a little bit

0:00:51.640 --> 0:00:52.599
<v Speaker 2>about what you're looking at.

0:00:53.440 --> 0:00:56.120
<v Speaker 3>Sure, So there has been this focus just on the

0:00:56.240 --> 0:00:58.560
<v Speaker 3>recent weakness and the five percent or so pullback that

0:00:58.600 --> 0:01:00.440
<v Speaker 3>we saw in the S and P and the NASA,

0:01:00.560 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 3>as if that was the only underlying pressure. But the

0:01:02.880 --> 0:01:06.360
<v Speaker 3>reality was, even when the market, the S and P,

0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:08.640
<v Speaker 3>the NASDAK were at our near all time highs, you

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:11.319
<v Speaker 3>had had a lot of churn under the surface. As

0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:14.120
<v Speaker 3>of for instance, using the Nasdaq as admittedly the most

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:17.280
<v Speaker 3>extreme example, again you haven't had more than a five

0:01:17.319 --> 0:01:19.600
<v Speaker 3>percent draw down from a year to date high at

0:01:19.640 --> 0:01:23.880
<v Speaker 3>the index level. However, the average member within the Nasdaq

0:01:24.160 --> 0:01:27.839
<v Speaker 3>has had a maximum draw down on average of thirty

0:01:27.880 --> 0:01:31.600
<v Speaker 3>two percent, So that's bare market level declines. It just

0:01:31.640 --> 0:01:35.000
<v Speaker 3>happened through a process of rotation and churn. That's not

0:01:35.040 --> 0:01:38.720
<v Speaker 3>a bad way to correct. Sentiment access is correct concentration access.

0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:42.360
<v Speaker 3>I think probably most investors would choose a rotational correction

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:44.240
<v Speaker 3>as opposed to the bottom falling out all at once.

0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:47.080
<v Speaker 3>But that's the real story. Is you have to peel

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 3>kind of a layer of the onion back beyond just

0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:50.440
<v Speaker 3>the index level changes.

0:01:50.640 --> 0:01:53.600
<v Speaker 1>Is that largely some of the NASDAK names or the

0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:55.200
<v Speaker 1>broader market overall.

0:01:55.000 --> 0:01:59.720
<v Speaker 3>Was that it's mostly the Nasdaq. In terms of that

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:03.160
<v Speaker 3>kind of underlying weakness, I think it's about twenty five

0:02:03.200 --> 0:02:06.360
<v Speaker 3>percent maximum drawdown on average for members within the Russell

0:02:06.400 --> 0:02:09.360
<v Speaker 3>two thousand, so clearly it's the smaller cap. It's only

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:12.280
<v Speaker 3>about twelve percent for the S and P five hundred,

0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:16.760
<v Speaker 3>So there's definitely been weakness heading down the cap spectrum

0:02:16.800 --> 0:02:19.959
<v Speaker 3>into where you have the most interest rates sensitivity, the

0:02:20.200 --> 0:02:23.720
<v Speaker 3>nonprofitable zombie companies. So that's that's where the pressure has

0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:24.560
<v Speaker 3>been most acute.

0:02:24.600 --> 0:02:27.200
<v Speaker 1>So what does that say to you that there's opportunity

0:02:27.240 --> 0:02:30.040
<v Speaker 1>for room to the upside or how do you see?

0:02:30.160 --> 0:02:33.080
<v Speaker 1>And I feel like you can't think about that without

0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:35.760
<v Speaker 1>thinking about, Okay, what ultimately the FED may or may

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.520
<v Speaker 1>not do, as the expectations around rate cuts have come

0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:39.400
<v Speaker 1>down dramatically.

0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:42.320
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, so I think yields have been more in the

0:02:42.400 --> 0:02:45.560
<v Speaker 3>driver's seat for what the market has done versus just

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 3>expectations around FED policy. It's kind of a parlor game

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:51.480
<v Speaker 3>that everybody's playing. Now, you know, when will they start

0:02:51.520 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 3>how many cuts? And they're data dependent, so the data

0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:58.120
<v Speaker 3>is going to dictate that. But in the meantime, the

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:00.960
<v Speaker 3>big move down in yields started the to October last

0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:05.000
<v Speaker 3>year to the earlier in the year low of three

0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:07.799
<v Speaker 3>point eight percent. That was a huge tailwind for the

0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:10.520
<v Speaker 3>overall market for small caps, and then the move up

0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:13.800
<v Speaker 3>initially really hurt small caps because that's where there's greater

0:03:13.919 --> 0:03:17.840
<v Speaker 3>interest sensitivity, but then more recently some of the larger names.

0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:20.880
<v Speaker 3>I think the leadership that has been dominant in the

0:03:20.919 --> 0:03:25.480
<v Speaker 3>past month or so will probably restart after we go

0:03:25.560 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 3>through this choppy phase, and that's in areas like financials

0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:32.919
<v Speaker 3>and energy and materials. That doesn't mean there aren't still

0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:36.760
<v Speaker 3>opportunities and everybody's favorite sectors like tech and communications services,

0:03:37.040 --> 0:03:40.600
<v Speaker 3>but I think that cyclical leadership has got legs.

0:03:40.720 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 1>Is that financials, energy, materials, I'm trying to think how

0:03:43.160 --> 0:03:45.840
<v Speaker 1>to read that. Is that because there's economic activity? Is

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:48.680
<v Speaker 1>that because for financials a higher rate environment can mean

0:03:48.720 --> 0:03:51.080
<v Speaker 1>good things? Is energy because of geopolitics?

0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:54.920
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I mean they are individual reasons. You've got obviously

0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:58.640
<v Speaker 3>geopolitics and oil. With energy, you've got oversold conditions that

0:03:58.760 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 3>developed obviously in financial with last year in the MIDDI

0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:05.840
<v Speaker 3>banking crisis, materials as a play on commodities. But broadly

0:04:05.880 --> 0:04:09.440
<v Speaker 3>I think it does reflect at least some sign of

0:04:09.480 --> 0:04:13.840
<v Speaker 3>improving global growth, and you know, really the kind of

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:18.200
<v Speaker 3>growth trio of sectors, the tech, communication services, consumer discretionary

0:04:18.240 --> 0:04:23.039
<v Speaker 3>that house the Magnificent seven. They've almost become this era's

0:04:23.080 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 3>defensive type names. And I think given the stability and

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:29.839
<v Speaker 3>strengthen the economy, that we finally saw some money shift

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:33.679
<v Speaker 3>to those more classic cyclicals. And again we think that

0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:34.520
<v Speaker 3>that has some legs.

0:04:34.560 --> 0:04:35.960
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's interesting. I was looking at some of

0:04:35.960 --> 0:04:37.120
<v Speaker 1>the I think you have some of the data. Was

0:04:37.120 --> 0:04:40.480
<v Speaker 1>a German confidence or consumer confidence number that came in stronger.

0:04:40.480 --> 0:04:43.239
<v Speaker 1>Maybe today, I feel like there's been some news coming

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:47.080
<v Speaker 1>in slowly out of Europe that maybe things you know,

0:04:47.200 --> 0:04:49.239
<v Speaker 1>are not as bad. And I do wonder, at Leasanne,

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:51.840
<v Speaker 1>if we are setting ourselves up, maybe even China, could

0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:54.680
<v Speaker 1>they possibly could it be this year that finally we

0:04:54.720 --> 0:04:57.920
<v Speaker 1>see some significant momentum. Certainly the numbers seem to suggest it,

0:04:57.920 --> 0:05:00.320
<v Speaker 1>despite the skeptics, But could we We've been kind of

0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:02.280
<v Speaker 1>ruling all of this out and saying the US is

0:05:02.320 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>the best game in town. But if we get more

0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:08.279
<v Speaker 1>global growth, as the IMF has suggested, you know, could

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.240
<v Speaker 1>that be really a boom if you will, certainly to

0:05:11.440 --> 0:05:12.800
<v Speaker 1>the global equity story.

0:05:13.800 --> 0:05:17.760
<v Speaker 3>So it's hard to envision a boom condo scenario, especially

0:05:18.279 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 3>maybe that's China given. Yeah, But you know, Carol, the

0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:23.920
<v Speaker 3>way you asked the question initially, I think you use

0:05:23.960 --> 0:05:27.480
<v Speaker 3>some important words, which is less bad. We have to

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 3>remember that, you know, when it comes to data, economic data,

0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:35.200
<v Speaker 3>earnings data, whatever it is, and market behavior. It's human

0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:38.200
<v Speaker 3>nature to think of economic data, earnings data in good

0:05:38.279 --> 0:05:41.560
<v Speaker 3>versus bad, strong versus weak, but better or worse tends

0:05:41.600 --> 0:05:43.680
<v Speaker 3>to matter more than good or bad. And it's just

0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:47.520
<v Speaker 3>those inflection points when things stop getting worse and start

0:05:47.520 --> 0:05:50.960
<v Speaker 3>getting better that can be the launch point for sector

0:05:51.200 --> 0:05:54.240
<v Speaker 3>changes in terms of where leadership is better market performance.

0:05:54.600 --> 0:05:59.039
<v Speaker 3>You don't necessarily need to see a significant acceleration, just

0:05:59.080 --> 0:06:02.760
<v Speaker 3>that inflection from bad to less bad to maybe getting better.

0:06:03.720 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 2>So we're all eyes on meta in just a few minutes, Lizen,

0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 2>and I'm wondering about what this could tell us about

0:06:10.960 --> 0:06:13.240
<v Speaker 2>the greater economy if it's any sort of bell weather

0:06:13.279 --> 0:06:16.520
<v Speaker 2>to you. Given the vassive, vast majority, I can say

0:06:16.560 --> 0:06:19.279
<v Speaker 2>all of the revenue comes from advertising at this point,

0:06:19.320 --> 0:06:22.280
<v Speaker 2>a lot of small business advertising as well, and how

0:06:22.320 --> 0:06:24.359
<v Speaker 2>you're thinking about big tech earnings as we sort of

0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:26.080
<v Speaker 2>get into the swing of earning season right now.

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:29.880
<v Speaker 3>So, as you know, I don't cover individual stocks, not

0:06:30.240 --> 0:06:33.120
<v Speaker 3>meta any of them. I think the most important aspect

0:06:33.240 --> 0:06:37.640
<v Speaker 3>to the earnings, particularly this week some of the big

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:42.040
<v Speaker 3>high profile names, is not just about okay, did they

0:06:42.120 --> 0:06:46.159
<v Speaker 3>beat the consensus estimate for the quarter, but the differential

0:06:46.200 --> 0:06:50.000
<v Speaker 3>between top line growth, bottom line growth, maintenance of profit margins,

0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:52.720
<v Speaker 3>and importantly the outlook, because back to the better or

0:06:52.760 --> 0:06:55.200
<v Speaker 3>worse matters more than good or bad. You know, there's

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:58.840
<v Speaker 3>been so much enthusiasm for maybe now a subset of

0:06:58.880 --> 0:07:03.159
<v Speaker 3>the magnificence set, and the data is likely to continue

0:07:03.200 --> 0:07:06.400
<v Speaker 3>to be really good, but we're starting to appropriately ask

0:07:06.440 --> 0:07:11.840
<v Speaker 3>the question has the expectation bar, either figuratively or literally

0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:15.480
<v Speaker 3>gotten set too high? And that I think was part

0:07:15.480 --> 0:07:17.680
<v Speaker 3>of the reason for some of this volatility. So that's

0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:19.880
<v Speaker 3>what I'm paying attention to this weekend next.

0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:21.680
<v Speaker 1>So great to check in with you again, Lezambi. Well,

0:07:21.720 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Lizanne Sander's chief investment strategist at Charles Schwab, joining us

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:25.760
<v Speaker 1>from Naples, Florida,