WEBVTT - Schwab's Liz Ann Sonders Talks Earnings, Macro Environment

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:09.080
<v Speaker 2>All right, let's get it right to our next guest,

0:00:09.080 --> 0:00:11.320
<v Speaker 2>because this leads us in perfectly to liz Ane Sanders,

0:00:11.400 --> 0:00:16.000
<v Speaker 2>chief investment Strategies at Charles Schwab. Liz, what did you

0:00:16.040 --> 0:00:20.439
<v Speaker 2>take away from the Fed's action this week and particularly

0:00:20.480 --> 0:00:22.639
<v Speaker 2>as it relates to maybe what they may do in

0:00:22.680 --> 0:00:23.439
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty six.

0:00:24.560 --> 0:00:28.080
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and good morning to you both. Happy holidays. Obviously,

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the cut was not a surprise. I don't tend to

0:00:29.800 --> 0:00:34.279
<v Speaker 1>buck market expectations, especially when they are particularly dominant in

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>one direction or another. We did expect what could be

0:00:37.120 --> 0:00:39.720
<v Speaker 1>defined as a hawkish cut where they certainly didn't lay

0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>out any promises for the glide path going forward, and

0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:45.239
<v Speaker 1>that's what happened. And just before I came on, you

0:00:45.280 --> 0:00:48.920
<v Speaker 1>were talking about increasing dissents on the FED. I agree.

0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:50.479
<v Speaker 1>I think that that is a good thing. I think

0:00:50.520 --> 0:00:53.640
<v Speaker 1>it also helps to temper some of the concerns about

0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:58.720
<v Speaker 1>independence of the FED and maybe something that either implicitly

0:00:58.960 --> 0:01:03.120
<v Speaker 1>or explo powerless supporting that we can hear from lots

0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 1>of voices, and I think it's a reminder that the

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:09.920
<v Speaker 1>see in FOMC is committee not share so I think

0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 1>from the standpoint of that amount of uncertainty with regard

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:16.960
<v Speaker 1>to FED independence, I think the sense and a wider

0:01:17.080 --> 0:01:19.960
<v Speaker 1>array of views is a positive. Yeah.

0:01:20.000 --> 0:01:23.200
<v Speaker 3>And speaking of new voices, Lizen, we're going to get

0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:26.280
<v Speaker 3>a new FED share. We know this in May. So

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:30.080
<v Speaker 3>how do you how are you thinking about the interest

0:01:30.160 --> 0:01:32.480
<v Speaker 3>rate landscape in twenty twenty six? Are we going to

0:01:32.480 --> 0:01:34.840
<v Speaker 3>get more? Do you think than that one cut that

0:01:34.880 --> 0:01:36.400
<v Speaker 3>Powell was talking about this week?

0:01:37.160 --> 0:01:39.280
<v Speaker 1>Tell me what the data is going to be, and

0:01:39.360 --> 0:01:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I could give you a pribume an easier way to

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:44.240
<v Speaker 1>I mean, when you're a data dependent FED and then

0:01:44.240 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 1>you had the effects of the government shutdown, which means

0:01:47.200 --> 0:01:49.640
<v Speaker 1>we don't We haven't had any official labor market data

0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:53.400
<v Speaker 1>since the September release. We don't have GDP data, we

0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:58.520
<v Speaker 1>don't have National income and Product accounts, corporate profit margins data.

0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:01.680
<v Speaker 1>So I think as we start to get the data,

0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:04.160
<v Speaker 1>I do think that the FED, as it relates to

0:02:04.200 --> 0:02:07.480
<v Speaker 1>their data dependency, they don't have a blind eye to

0:02:07.560 --> 0:02:11.880
<v Speaker 1>inflation clearly, but I think the needle mover from a

0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 1>reaction function will continue to be on the labor market.

0:02:15.440 --> 0:02:18.320
<v Speaker 1>So you could have a scenario where they cut more

0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>than the one or two that is priced into expectations.

0:02:21.200 --> 0:02:24.240
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure that that's universally a positive thing if

0:02:24.280 --> 0:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>it comes because of serious deterioration in a labor market.

0:02:27.160 --> 0:02:29.600
<v Speaker 1>But I think the labor market is what's driving the

0:02:29.639 --> 0:02:30.400
<v Speaker 1>bus right now.

0:02:30.639 --> 0:02:32.840
<v Speaker 2>Le Zan. From an earning perspective, we had some really

0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:35.200
<v Speaker 2>good earnings over the past several quarters here. The third

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:37.920
<v Speaker 2>quarter in particular, I think was really surprisingly on the

0:02:37.960 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 2>positive side of these v street expectations. Is the current

0:02:41.960 --> 0:02:45.480
<v Speaker 2>earnings environment enough to support this market here, do you think?

0:02:46.440 --> 0:02:50.400
<v Speaker 1>Well? Actually, the trajectory of earnings among different cohorts I

0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:52.800
<v Speaker 1>think is one of the reasons why we have started

0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:56.440
<v Speaker 1>to see this broadening out. Over the last six months.

0:02:56.520 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 1>Only seventeen percent of the S and p's constituents about

0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 1>perform the index itself over the past month. That's up

0:03:02.919 --> 0:03:06.360
<v Speaker 1>to fifty four percent, and I think it's the differential

0:03:06.400 --> 0:03:08.720
<v Speaker 1>in earnings growth profile. So if you look at any

0:03:09.520 --> 0:03:15.520
<v Speaker 1>typical AI megacap cohort MAG seven or maybe a slightly

0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:18.280
<v Speaker 1>broader AI basket, or even if you just hone in

0:03:18.320 --> 0:03:22.040
<v Speaker 1>on the tech sector, over the last six to seven quarters,

0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>you've seen a pretty meaningful deceleration in the pace of

0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:30.080
<v Speaker 1>earnings growth. Still strong, earnings growth, still better than the

0:03:30.120 --> 0:03:33.280
<v Speaker 1>rest of the market called the other four hundred and

0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:36.400
<v Speaker 1>ninety three. But we're starting to see convergence there because

0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:39.880
<v Speaker 1>you have the rest of the market seeing an accelerating

0:03:39.960 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 1>pace of earnings growth. And I'm always fond of saying

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:45.280
<v Speaker 1>better or worse matters more than good or bad, and

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 1>it's that better in the case of the rest of

0:03:47.680 --> 0:03:50.880
<v Speaker 1>the market. A little bit worse, though in an absolute sense,

0:03:50.920 --> 0:03:54.520
<v Speaker 1>still strong. That has been a support for this broadening out,

0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>and I think that has legs in twenty twenty six.

0:03:57.200 --> 0:03:59.520
<v Speaker 3>So Liza and we talk a lot about valuations and

0:03:59.600 --> 0:04:04.200
<v Speaker 3>value being pretty frothy, But where is there the bargain

0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.720
<v Speaker 3>buy for investors in equities in the new year.

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:11.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't know that there's any one monolithic place where

0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:13.520
<v Speaker 1>you can find a bargain buy. I think that there

0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:16.880
<v Speaker 1>is value to be found, and that has a lot

0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>to do with what's been happening under the surface. You know,

0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:22.240
<v Speaker 1>there's so much focus on just what the indexer is doing.

0:04:22.279 --> 0:04:25.599
<v Speaker 1>The cap weighted indexes SMP is up thirty eight percent

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:29.599
<v Speaker 1>from the early April closing low on April eighth, but

0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:33.839
<v Speaker 1>the average member within the smp IS had a maximum

0:04:33.920 --> 0:04:37.520
<v Speaker 1>draw down of nineteen percent just since April eighth. The

0:04:37.600 --> 0:04:40.760
<v Speaker 1>NASA's up fifty five percent justince April eight, but the

0:04:40.800 --> 0:04:43.720
<v Speaker 1>average member within the NASDAQ has had a forty percent

0:04:44.279 --> 0:04:47.160
<v Speaker 1>maximum draw down. So with all this churn in rotation

0:04:47.320 --> 0:04:51.200
<v Speaker 1>under the surface, that's where value is being found. I

0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:53.320
<v Speaker 1>think this is an environment though, where you to bring

0:04:53.360 --> 0:04:56.640
<v Speaker 1>back an old school acronym where you want to be

0:04:56.760 --> 0:04:59.880
<v Speaker 1>mindful of value, but you don't want to sacrifice growth.

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:02.960
<v Speaker 1>It's very Garpye in terms of the factors. We think

0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:04.080
<v Speaker 1>you want to focus on.

0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:08.880
<v Speaker 2>Lizen From a factor perspective, is there anything that screens

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:11.560
<v Speaker 2>particularly well for you? These days?

0:05:12.760 --> 0:05:15.479
<v Speaker 1>Growth oriented factors are doing very well, and I think

0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:18.599
<v Speaker 1>that is particularly important when you go down the CAF spectrum.

0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:20.599
<v Speaker 1>So if you look at the Russell two thousand and

0:05:20.640 --> 0:05:24.840
<v Speaker 1>you break it out between its profitable and non profitable components,

0:05:25.240 --> 0:05:29.560
<v Speaker 1>the nonprofitable components are outperforming the profitable components by more

0:05:29.600 --> 0:05:32.120
<v Speaker 1>than double on a year to day basis. And it's

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:34.200
<v Speaker 1>even more extreme if you just go back to the

0:05:34.240 --> 0:05:39.680
<v Speaker 1>April eighth closing low I would absolutely fade that lower

0:05:39.800 --> 0:05:45.360
<v Speaker 1>quality unprofitable cohort within the Russell two thousand and lean

0:05:45.920 --> 0:05:50.640
<v Speaker 1>into the profitability piece where you have better fundamentals and

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:54.359
<v Speaker 1>you have had the relative underperformance to the unprofitable. So

0:05:54.920 --> 0:05:57.440
<v Speaker 1>again you want to look at value components, price to book,

0:05:57.480 --> 0:06:01.279
<v Speaker 1>price to sales. You want strong balance sheet, high interest coverage.

0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:05.640
<v Speaker 1>But you want those positive earnings trends, forward revisions, earnings

0:06:06.640 --> 0:06:10.720
<v Speaker 1>expectations being exceeded during earning season. So it's a combination

0:06:10.800 --> 0:06:12.400
<v Speaker 1>of both value and growth factors.

0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:15.520
<v Speaker 2>Luziane, thanks so much for joining us. Lazanne Saunders, he's

0:06:15.560 --> 0:06:17.400
<v Speaker 2>the chief investment strategist at Charles Schwap