WEBVTT - Bloomberg Surveillance TV: November 5, 2024 0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:06.800 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. 0:00:11.680 --> 0:00:15.480 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along 0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.720 with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day 0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:22.280 for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics 0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:24.880 from our global headquarters in New York City. We are 0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:27.680 live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine 0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.319 am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or 0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:33.960 anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg 0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:37.360 Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. So here's the latest 0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:40.120 the dollar weeker. As investors' reprice bets on a second 0:00:40.120 --> 0:00:44.400 Trump presidency. Kitchooks assault writing a Trump clean sweep and 0:00:44.440 --> 0:00:47.080 a Harris win without a clean sweep remains the two 0:00:47.200 --> 0:00:50.880 most likely outcomes in our view, and equally likely, these 0:00:50.880 --> 0:00:54.560 are the most bullish and most bearerush outcomes to the dollar, respectively. 0:00:54.800 --> 0:00:56.720 Kit joined us now for more so, Kit, I've known 0:00:56.760 --> 0:00:58.640 you long enough to say unhelpful. 0:00:58.920 --> 0:00:59.960 What are you telling people to do? 0:01:02.440 --> 0:01:02.720 You know? 0:01:03.320 --> 0:01:05.280 I was thinking about it. It's a bit like the 0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:07.959 sort of the Brexit story in terms of whether we're 0:01:07.959 --> 0:01:10.319 going to have a hard Brexit or not back in 0:01:10.360 --> 0:01:14.280 twenty twenty, when you know, you really have to be 0:01:14.440 --> 0:01:17.560 careful about where to go. I think, look, I think 0:01:17.560 --> 0:01:19.280 we have to be sort of conscious of the fact 0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:21.760 that at the moment what we're doing is seeing bets 0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:24.280 get taken off. The market got excited about the possibility 0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:28.920 of Trump victory, and the treasury market sold off, the 0:01:29.000 --> 0:01:33.720 dollar rallied. We're giving up back some of that, I 0:01:33.760 --> 0:01:36.280 think in terms of the places where the market has 0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:40.960 skew in its pricing, I think, if Trump doesn't win, 0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:43.880 or if by some chance he didn't get a clean sweep, 0:01:43.920 --> 0:01:47.000 because that's very important as well, then currencies like the 0:01:47.000 --> 0:01:50.440 Australian dollar where they decided not to cut rates this 0:01:50.600 --> 0:01:53.680 morning and where are they don't look like cutting rates 0:01:53.760 --> 0:01:57.280 this year? You know, that looks like an undervalued currency 0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:01.440 on any scenario other than kind of you know, the 0:02:01.480 --> 0:02:05.520 most aggressive Trumpian Trumpian one in terms of fiscal expansion 0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:09.320 in the United States, tariffs on China, and maybe even 0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:12.360 only a modest Chinese policy response to that. So the 0:02:12.360 --> 0:02:14.799 Australian dollar might be the outlier. But if you said 0:02:14.880 --> 0:02:17.760 that the yen is going to follow where bond yields 0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:21.280 are going to go almost regardless. Then frankly, Trump wins 0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:22.760 with a clean sweep, dolly En might be at one 0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:25.840 hundred and sixty and Trump a dozen Harris wins without 0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:27.760 a clean sweep, dolly En might be breaking towards one 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:31.040 hundred and forty. So it's just a massive gamble that's 0:02:31.200 --> 0:02:33.400 very hard for people to cope with, and they have 0:02:33.480 --> 0:02:36.640 to hold tight until we see if we're going to 0:02:36.639 --> 0:02:37.920 get a result tomorrow morning, but. 0:02:38.040 --> 0:02:40.919 Kit long term, if it isn't Trump win or potentially 0:02:40.919 --> 0:02:43.600 this clean sweep scenario where Congress going red as well. 0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:45.800 Trump has talked about the fact that he wants a 0:02:45.840 --> 0:02:46.600 week or dollar. 0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:47.639 How do you. 0:02:49.200 --> 0:02:50.440 Be able to measure. 0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:52.919 Both of these basically conflicting results. 0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:56.880 No, you know, the dollars strong because the United States 0:02:56.880 --> 0:02:59.760 has had exceptional fiscal policy because the US can as 0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:01.799 it's a lot of bonds, and bondy oards have been higher. 0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:04.440 And of the strength of the fiscal stance in the 0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:07.120 US compared to everything we've done in Europe is that 0:03:07.160 --> 0:03:09.960 it has helped the economy outgrow the rest of the 0:03:09.960 --> 0:03:13.399 world spectacularly. Trump wants more growth. He wants to put 0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:16.480 taris in place to get more people into manufacturing jobs 0:03:16.480 --> 0:03:19.000 in the United States. Okay, at a starting point of 0:03:19.160 --> 0:03:24.000 pretty low unemployment already, he can't have that much cake 0:03:24.040 --> 0:03:26.240 and eat it in terms of an economy that's going 0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:29.880 to be even stronger with fiscal policy continuing to be 0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:35.360 accommodative and have a weak currency because in the end, 0:03:35.400 --> 0:03:37.560 his biggest the biggest threat Trump is going to be 0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:40.360 inflation on what we've heard so far, so we'd have 0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:42.160 to change some of his policies if he wanted a 0:03:42.160 --> 0:03:44.840 week a dollar you We'll see how it plays out. 0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:48.040 But you get the currency your policies give you, not 0:03:48.120 --> 0:03:49.240 the currencies you want. 0:03:49.280 --> 0:03:49.360 It. 0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:50.600 Kid, when you. 0:03:50.520 --> 0:03:53.680 Look at why the financial markets changed, was it because 0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:56.040 of the pulling out of Iowa? Or is because they're 0:03:56.320 --> 0:03:59.040 basically a little bit nervous that they got two over 0:03:59.080 --> 0:04:04.520 their skis. When it comes to the Trump trade. 0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:05.400 I think that if you looked at the dollar index 0:04:05.480 --> 0:04:09.440 and you plotted it against the betting odds from real 0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:13.120 clear politics and how they were going in favor of Trump, 0:04:13.320 --> 0:04:19.359 they moved very closely together. So the betting odds have 0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:22.280 moved back in line with the opinion polls in the 0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:26.799 last week less than a week really, and Iowa played 0:04:26.800 --> 0:04:29.120 a part of that, and I think that's certainly seen 0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:32.360 people taking not his beds off, perhaps in the betting space, 0:04:32.400 --> 0:04:35.200 but taking some of those trades off. And so when 0:04:35.360 --> 0:04:39.000 we look today as if we're closer to a market 0:04:39.040 --> 0:04:42.320 that genuinely doesn't know what's going to happen, and maybe 0:04:42.320 --> 0:04:43.520 that's the right place for it to be. 0:04:43.839 --> 0:04:46.160 Which raises this question kit how violent could the reaction 0:04:46.279 --> 0:04:48.640 be in markets after we get some sort of results, 0:04:48.800 --> 0:04:50.600 given that everyone's going to be racing to it, no 0:04:50.640 --> 0:04:53.120 one really had an edge. Yesterday Mike Wilson of Morgan 0:04:53.160 --> 0:04:55.359 Stanley was talking about how he sees a clearing event 0:04:56.000 --> 0:04:58.800 coming after we get the results from this, and the clearing. 0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:00.480 Event could last a month. 0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:02.760 How violent of a clearing event could it be if 0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:07.080 we get a decisive response results one way or another 0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:10.159 in the base cases that you laid out, No. 0:05:10.680 --> 0:05:13.640 You know, just if you just tracked from the poles, 0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:17.920 so from Harris entering the poles and then Trump sort 0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:20.840 of coming back, and then where we are now we're 0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:22.359 sort of one o seven one oh one in the 0:05:22.400 --> 0:05:25.440 dollar index. I imagine that a sudden sort of you know, 0:05:25.480 --> 0:05:29.680 when you're not sure you get through those levels that 0:05:29.800 --> 0:05:32.440 seems to me most likely outcome. So it's pretty fun 0:05:32.440 --> 0:05:34.240 again if I look at dolly En in terms of that, 0:05:34.520 --> 0:05:36.760 you know, the violence of a dolly In move depends 0:05:36.800 --> 0:05:39.240 on how much treasury yields can move. 0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:41.480 But we've had a big. 0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:43.360 Sell off at the long end of the treasury market 0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:48.320 on concerns about more accommodative fiscal policy, increased bond supply, 0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:52.560 and some inflation worries. If you if you had a 0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:57.080 scenario where those melt away, you know, the treasury market's 0:05:57.120 --> 0:05:59.359 pretty bearish at the moment in terms of sentiments. So 0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:02.000 a snap back rally there, what that could do, what 0:06:02.040 --> 0:06:04.240 that could do to the end is very striking. So 0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:07.440 right the way across the piece, we're not you know, 0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:11.480 I don't think we can avoid having a pretty violent reaction. 0:06:11.560 --> 0:06:14.680 And history says, you know, we sometimes overshoot and then 0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:17.400 come back and settle down and decide that we'll have 0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:19.640 a look because there'll be so many more questions. I mean, 0:06:19.920 --> 0:06:21.800 we have to sort of put in sort of minor 0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:24.320 adjustments in the sense of, you know, whether someone has 0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:27.800 a clean sweep or not is very important how it looks, 0:06:27.839 --> 0:06:30.360 and then we're going to work out whether either president 0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:35.720 can get what they want through Congress, irrespective of what 0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:38.080 that looks like, so that there'll be lots more questions. 0:06:38.080 --> 0:06:42.120 But I think the initial reaction is likely to be 0:06:42.160 --> 0:06:45.400 pretty big really, just because we're caught where we are. 0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:48.000 Kid, Are you watching the election from Mexico City? 0:06:50.800 --> 0:06:53.040 I am not watching the election from Mexico City. No, 0:06:53.160 --> 0:06:55.880 that would be that would be too exciting. But yes, 0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:59.400 you know, you look at the impact on the end, 0:06:59.720 --> 0:07:02.440 on the Australian dollar, on the Mexican play, so on 0:07:02.520 --> 0:07:06.640 all of Latin America really, you know, in fact, for once, 0:07:07.760 --> 0:07:13.520 Europe is likely to be less affected I think than 0:07:13.760 --> 0:07:15.800 the rest of the world. That doesn't mean it doesn't 0:07:15.840 --> 0:07:19.720 have an impact yet. But the big story is Asia 0:07:19.840 --> 0:07:20.920 and Latin America. 0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:34.360 Interesting kit afreciateitsor kit chooks of such chin. We begin 0:07:34.400 --> 0:07:36.080 this out with stocks on hold and the last they're 0:07:36.200 --> 0:07:38.960 voting in America. Cameron Dawson of New Edge right to 0:07:39.040 --> 0:07:41.600 the following. Given how tight poles and odds are, we 0:07:41.640 --> 0:07:44.200 see the election as a source of near term volatility. 0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:45.760 Regardless of the result. 0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:49.960 Each side has boogeyman that could spook markets. Cameron joins 0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:52.480 us now to talk about those men. Cameron, who are 0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:53.920 those men? 0:07:54.200 --> 0:07:57.200 All those men certainly are things like hired deficits, higher 0:07:57.240 --> 0:08:01.480 corporate taxes, tariffs and immigration. And I think Amory's point 0:08:01.600 --> 0:08:03.520 was really important is that if we think of the 0:08:03.560 --> 0:08:06.680 tariffs line of things, it doesn't necessarily matter about the 0:08:06.720 --> 0:08:09.320 makeup of Congress that we could see them if Trump 0:08:09.400 --> 0:08:12.240 is elected, which is certainly some of the questions that 0:08:12.280 --> 0:08:15.720 you've seen raised by the bond market and considering potentially 0:08:15.840 --> 0:08:20.000 stickier inflation. So we think regardless of who wins tonight 0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:23.320 or whenever we get those results, it effectively is going 0:08:23.360 --> 0:08:26.440 to be a surprise because those polls are so very tight, 0:08:26.800 --> 0:08:28.360 which means that it could be a. 0:08:28.400 --> 0:08:29.960 Volatility inducing event. 0:08:30.360 --> 0:08:32.559 I think it's important to note though, that markets aren't 0:08:32.600 --> 0:08:36.800 necessarily primed for volatility to continue. You've seen a huge 0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:40.320 buying of put options for the vicks, effectively people betting 0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:44.360 on volatility collapsing post the election. So again, this could 0:08:44.400 --> 0:08:47.079 simply be a surprise, and it could cause that higher 0:08:47.120 --> 0:08:50.760 volatility given the fact that people aren't necessarily positioned for it. 0:08:50.800 --> 0:08:52.320 I want to pick up on that point because you 0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:55.240 see this across a range of different volatility metrics. Basically 0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:59.440 people expect volatility, price swings to really peak tomorrow and 0:08:59.480 --> 0:09:02.680 then appsolutely fade off as we get results and go 0:09:02.800 --> 0:09:05.360 back to some sort of status quo. From your advantage point, 0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:09.080 how much are you looking to actually take advantage of 0:09:09.120 --> 0:09:11.560 something that could be more significant? How off sides would 0:09:11.559 --> 0:09:13.640 this market be, and what would you do with that? 0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:18.480 We always try to see volatility as opportunity, and i'd 0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:20.600 raise the question of if we would be seeing this 0:09:20.720 --> 0:09:24.520 volatility even if this wasn't election day. If you look 0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:28.080 at things like S and P five hundred, momentum and breadth, 0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:30.839 they've all been deteriorating over the last month. 0:09:31.200 --> 0:09:34.640 You've also seen a deterioration in forward earnings estimates. 0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:37.120 You've seen estimates for four Q as well as twenty 0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:39.040 twenty five get cut and trimmed. 0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:42.000 So I would raise the question of if we could 0:09:42.000 --> 0:09:42.319 have this. 0:09:42.360 --> 0:09:46.080 Volatility even if this was not election day, simply because 0:09:46.080 --> 0:09:48.880 you have a lot of digestion of the strong gains 0:09:48.880 --> 0:09:51.280 that we've had here to date and kind of putting 0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:54.600 some of the seasonality aside. Given that deterioration and breadth 0:09:54.640 --> 0:09:57.360 and momentum, that just sets you up for a little 0:09:57.400 --> 0:09:58.320 bit more churn. 0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:01.160 At this point, Cameron, you have to understand. I have 0:10:01.240 --> 0:10:03.719 to understand and I don't understand exactly how much we've 0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:06.280 already priced in some of these trades, what these trades 0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:08.480 actually are, and thinking in particular in the bond market, 0:10:08.480 --> 0:10:11.360 people have been wondering, you strip out the political influence, 0:10:11.520 --> 0:10:13.040 what does a ten year yield look like? 0:10:13.120 --> 0:10:14.080 Do you have a sense of that. 0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:18.360 Well, we do know that there has been a relationship, 0:10:18.400 --> 0:10:21.920 whether it's correlation causation is up for debate between Trump's 0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:24.480 ogs of winning and the tenure treasury yield over the 0:10:24.559 --> 0:10:28.000 last three months or so. That certainly broke down at 0:10:28.040 --> 0:10:30.800 the end of last week, where Trump's betting ods started 0:10:30.840 --> 0:10:33.319 to fall and you still saw the tenure treasury yield 0:10:33.320 --> 0:10:36.240 moving higher. We think the source of that ten yere 0:10:36.320 --> 0:10:39.880 treasury yield moving higher really comes down to the bond 0:10:39.920 --> 0:10:43.240 market digesting the fact that you have a relatively resilient 0:10:43.320 --> 0:10:47.480 economy that is supported by higher deficit spending at the 0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:50.080 same time as you have a FED that's talking about 0:10:50.160 --> 0:10:53.600 potentially hundreds of basis points of cuts to get to 0:10:53.679 --> 0:10:56.920 their idea of neutral, which could have the potential of 0:10:56.960 --> 0:11:00.319 effectively throwing lighter fluid on some of this tightness within 0:11:00.360 --> 0:11:03.880 the economy, the fact that you still have overall easy 0:11:03.920 --> 0:11:07.080 financial conditions as well, and that seems to be the 0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:09.640 reason why you're seeing these bond yields move higher. 0:11:09.800 --> 0:11:12.480 Not necessarily the election or just the election. 0:11:12.720 --> 0:11:14.120 The wise important, Cameron. 0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:16.400 The wy is important because I think it dictates how 0:11:16.440 --> 0:11:18.760 to trid equity to some extent at least. Would you 0:11:18.800 --> 0:11:21.160 say yields have been rising then for good reasons and 0:11:21.240 --> 0:11:24.520 not bad, and is a reason to stay long equity markets. 0:11:25.559 --> 0:11:28.600 I think the answer to that is in high yield spreads. 0:11:29.080 --> 0:11:32.040 If yields were rising for bad reasons, that the FED 0:11:32.240 --> 0:11:35.040 was tightening policy and it would eventually result in much 0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:38.000 weaker growth, you would see high yield spreads widening out. 0:11:38.360 --> 0:11:41.480 But they continue to remain very contained and actually making 0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:44.040 new year to date lows, which says to us, this 0:11:44.120 --> 0:11:47.559 is not a market that is necessarily in fear of growth. 0:11:47.800 --> 0:11:49.760 It's not priced for a growth slowdown. 0:11:49.960 --> 0:11:51.800 Now you could see that as a risk going into 0:11:51.840 --> 0:11:55.280 twenty twenty five if you start to see a deterioration. 0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:56.240 In economic fundamentals. 0:11:56.520 --> 0:11:59.800 But effectively, the credit market is telling you that yields 0:11:59.840 --> 0:12:03.120 are rising because growth is resilient, So watch those hygyield 0:12:03.120 --> 0:12:04.160 spreads very closely. 0:12:04.280 --> 0:12:06.200 Would you expect you to remain that way even if 0:12:06.200 --> 0:12:08.040 we got a sweep from the GOP in the next 0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:09.119 twenty four hours. 0:12:10.280 --> 0:12:13.080 I don't necessarily know if any of the of the 0:12:13.120 --> 0:12:16.240 policies that would be enacted by a GEOP sweep would 0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:20.160 necessarily affect growth in twenty twenty five. Let's put tariffs 0:12:20.160 --> 0:12:22.840 and potentially emigration to a side, because that is certainly 0:12:22.880 --> 0:12:24.760 something we could see without. 0:12:24.320 --> 0:12:25.440 A GEOP sweep. 0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:28.560 But the question and the risk for a GOP sweep 0:12:28.640 --> 0:12:31.600 really is something that's contemplated later in twenty five and 0:12:31.640 --> 0:12:34.680 into twenty six, where we will be negotiating those four 0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:38.040 trillion dollars of tax cuts, potentially adding a lot to 0:12:38.080 --> 0:12:41.400 the deficit, which is certainly something that the bond markets 0:12:41.480 --> 0:12:45.040 might push back on. But that's not necessarily something that 0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:47.160 we deal with in the next couple of months. 0:12:47.280 --> 0:12:47.600 Cameron. 0:12:47.600 --> 0:12:49.760 A couple of months ago, people came on this show 0:12:49.800 --> 0:12:52.280 talked a lot about how this could be a transformative event, 0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:55.079 how this could mark the difference in an economic cycle 0:12:55.160 --> 0:12:58.400 with respect to inflation, with respect to growth. As we've 0:12:58.440 --> 0:13:01.360 gotten closer to the event, we'll advise, have you suddenly 0:13:01.360 --> 0:13:03.640 people are saying, actually, we just need to get past 0:13:03.640 --> 0:13:06.200 it and whatever the results, things will keep on going 0:13:06.240 --> 0:13:07.520 on the way they were before. 0:13:07.720 --> 0:13:08.800 Where do you fall on that? 0:13:10.080 --> 0:13:12.800 The best news that we always try to bring clients 0:13:12.800 --> 0:13:15.640 back to is that if you look historically that the 0:13:15.760 --> 0:13:18.720 S and P. Five hundred, regardless of the power balance 0:13:18.760 --> 0:13:21.880 within DC, has been able to do what it does 0:13:22.000 --> 0:13:24.679 despite of or in spite of what goes on in DC. 0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:29.480 And that's really good news, which just means that overall 0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:33.000 corporate earnings have been able to operate in times regardless 0:13:33.000 --> 0:13:36.479 of uncertainty and pressures of what's going on within policy. 0:13:36.760 --> 0:13:39.280 And it's something that we always try to remind clients 0:13:39.320 --> 0:13:41.880 of just so that the way that they don't respond 0:13:41.920 --> 0:13:44.960 too emotionally to what is for many people a very 0:13:45.000 --> 0:13:46.400 emotional election day. 0:13:46.720 --> 0:13:48.920 Kener, We know the markets like certainty, what if it 0:13:49.000 --> 0:13:51.520 is a contested election, what's going to be the impact? 0:13:53.200 --> 0:13:56.800 Certainly that would be potentially a source of volatility. It's 0:13:56.800 --> 0:13:59.840 not necessarily volatility that would last for a long time. 0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:02.640 So it gets back to Jonathan's first question. If you 0:14:02.760 --> 0:14:06.120 do see volatility, is it biable? We think the answer 0:14:06.200 --> 0:14:09.160 is yes, that as you start to digest some of this, 0:14:09.400 --> 0:14:12.520 these deteriorations and breadth and momentum that could be happening 0:14:12.559 --> 0:14:15.840 regardless of the election. You get the narrative of uncertainty 0:14:15.920 --> 0:14:18.760 behind it. Then you set up for effectively a great 0:14:18.840 --> 0:14:22.320 buying opportunity into year end with that potential Santa Claus 0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:25.359 rally and year in chase. So a source of volatility, 0:14:25.480 --> 0:14:28.200 not necessarily a source of investment decision. 0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:30.120 A good framework for thinking about this market into your 0:14:30.240 --> 0:14:32.960 end and beyond. Cameron, Thank you, Cameron Dawson of New 0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:45.720 Edge Wealth. Among big donors at the final stages of 0:14:45.760 --> 0:14:48.880 the campaign, one wealthy individual supporting cameras is Mark Cuban, 0:14:49.120 --> 0:14:51.400 the minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks. And I'm pleased 0:14:51.400 --> 0:14:53.120 to say that Mark joined us now. Mark, welcome to 0:14:53.120 --> 0:14:55.680 the program. We spoke to a Trump campaign advisor a 0:14:55.680 --> 0:14:57.560 little bit earlier this morning, and I want to start 0:14:57.560 --> 0:14:59.800 with you in a similar way that I started with him, 0:15:00.040 --> 0:15:02.080 which is basically, I'm waking up this morning, I'm a 0:15:02.080 --> 0:15:05.720 Swings state votes, I'm in Pennsylvania State, and i still 0:15:05.760 --> 0:15:07.840 haven't decided who I'm going to vote for. And I'm 0:15:07.840 --> 0:15:10.840 thinking back to how Harris talked about in twenty nineteen 0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:13.400 that she wanted to Ben Franking. I understand she's changed 0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:14.840 her mind, but I'm worried that she's a bit of 0:15:14.880 --> 0:15:17.040 a shape shift, that she gets back into power and 0:15:17.080 --> 0:15:18.200 she'll change her mind again. 0:15:18.440 --> 0:15:19.800 How do you settle those concerns? 0:15:20.880 --> 0:15:23.440 The world has changed since twenty nineteen. She's open minded, 0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:25.680 she's talked openly about the fact that she wants to 0:15:25.680 --> 0:15:28.760 give dessending opinions a place at the table with her. 0:15:29.080 --> 0:15:32.280 She's not dogmatic, that's how you explain it. And she's 0:15:32.320 --> 0:15:34.840 looking to put together the best policy. She's said in 0:15:34.880 --> 0:15:37.960 twenty twenty that she supported fracking, So I think that's 0:15:37.960 --> 0:15:40.240 a non issue. And in terms of you know, is 0:15:40.280 --> 0:15:43.200 she just an extension of Biden? Just look at Biden's 0:15:44.000 --> 0:15:48.360 budget proposal versus what Kamala Harris has actually proposed. Biden 0:15:48.400 --> 0:15:50.920 wanted much higher taxes. Kamala Harris came in twenty eight 0:15:50.920 --> 0:15:53.840 percent for tax rate for cap gains in twenty eight 0:15:53.840 --> 0:15:56.800 percent for corporation and did not say a word and 0:15:56.800 --> 0:15:59.200 will not say a word about unrealized capital gains. And 0:15:59.240 --> 0:16:02.840 so I think she's completely different. She's not a shape 0:16:02.840 --> 0:16:03.880 shift in the least bit. 0:16:04.400 --> 0:16:07.000 Well, that individual we were speaking to Scott Bessant, this 0:16:07.200 --> 0:16:10.560 key economic policy advisor to the Trump campaign, says that 0:16:11.000 --> 0:16:14.040 Harris what he hears from a lot of Wall Street journals, 0:16:14.040 --> 0:16:17.480 that she would be moderated by a Republican Senate, and 0:16:17.520 --> 0:16:19.920 that's why Wallstreet would be willing to vote for her, 0:16:20.000 --> 0:16:22.960 because of that moderating effect that she would get from 0:16:22.960 --> 0:16:23.720 a red Senate. 0:16:23.960 --> 0:16:26.280 Is there any truth to that, Yeah, of course. 0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:29.880 I mean balance is not a bad thing necessarily. I'm 0:16:29.920 --> 0:16:33.520 not opposed to a divide in Congress, you know. But 0:16:33.600 --> 0:16:35.800 the bottom line is what will Kamala Harris do? And 0:16:35.840 --> 0:16:38.320 I think she's better for the economy in so many ways. 0:16:38.480 --> 0:16:40.520 You know, there's three hundred and thirty five million people 0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:43.520 in this country. Four million make four hundred thousand dollars 0:16:43.600 --> 0:16:46.440 or more. The other three hundred and thirty million make less. 0:16:46.440 --> 0:16:48.800 Is she has been very specific that if you make 0:16:48.840 --> 0:16:51.600 four hundred thousand dollars or less, your taxes aren't going up. 0:16:51.840 --> 0:16:54.320 In fact, for one hundred million people, they're going down. 0:16:54.520 --> 0:16:57.760 The other big expense that every household is fearful of 0:16:58.120 --> 0:17:01.200 is healthcare expenses. Donald Trump said he has a concept 0:17:01.200 --> 0:17:04.119 of a plan. Kamala Harris has been very specific on 0:17:04.160 --> 0:17:07.880 the pharmaceutical side, saying she's going after the pharmacy benefit managers, 0:17:07.880 --> 0:17:10.720 the middlemen, and she'll introduce transparency. I know from my 0:17:10.760 --> 0:17:14.040 own personal experiences with costplus drugs that'll lead to a 0:17:14.119 --> 0:17:16.679 twenty thirty percent or more deduction in the cost of 0:17:16.760 --> 0:17:21.000 medications for households and businesses. And then you've got terriffs. 0:17:21.040 --> 0:17:23.600 As Michael I think it was said earlier, tariffs are 0:17:23.640 --> 0:17:26.680 a bad idea. I mean, it's so bad. 0:17:26.720 --> 0:17:29.360 Then why did Biden and Kamala Harris keep them? 0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:30.399 They keep the trouble. 0:17:30.480 --> 0:17:33.360 Let's talk about that, right, because that's not completely that's 0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:36.760 not completely accurate. First look at the EU. They Biden 0:17:36.840 --> 0:17:38.959 sided the deal saying that there would be no terriffs 0:17:39.000 --> 0:17:42.040 between the two EU and the United States for the 0:17:42.040 --> 0:17:44.760 next five years. So those tariffs are gone. And then 0:17:44.840 --> 0:17:47.600 you look at what Trump tried to introduce. He had 0:17:47.600 --> 0:17:50.199 four years to try to implement teriffs that work, and 0:17:50.240 --> 0:17:53.320 he got his butt kicked by China. The retaliatory terriffs 0:17:53.359 --> 0:17:56.199 almost destroyed the soybean in the farming industry, and he 0:17:56.280 --> 0:17:58.199 had to pay out twenty million dollars. But as it 0:17:58.200 --> 0:18:01.520 applies to households. Right, he's talking about a sixty percent 0:18:01.560 --> 0:18:05.199 across the board terras for Chinese imports. China makes just 0:18:05.200 --> 0:18:07.560 about every Christmas present that we buy for a kid, 0:18:07.640 --> 0:18:10.439 So families would be looking at a sixty percent or 0:18:10.440 --> 0:18:13.000 more increase and what they'd spend on Christmas, and the 0:18:13.080 --> 0:18:16.280 downstream impact of that would be significant to small and 0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:17.240 large businesses. 0:18:17.600 --> 0:18:19.600 Mark, Let's talk about something you've been very vocal on. 0:18:19.680 --> 0:18:20.600 This is regulation. 0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:23.520 You've said that you don't think Harry should keep Lena 0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:26.480 Khan at the head of the FTC. On and Alexandro 0:18:26.640 --> 0:18:30.240 Cassio Cortez, the congresswoman from New York, went to Twitter 0:18:30.280 --> 0:18:33.040 and she said, billionaires like you, Mark are trying to 0:18:33.040 --> 0:18:35.080 play foot seat with the ticket. If anyone goes near 0:18:36.080 --> 0:18:38.719 Lena Kahn, there will be quote an out and out brawl. 0:18:39.200 --> 0:18:42.480 Where is Harris when it comes to things like the FTC. 0:18:43.400 --> 0:18:45.800 I don't know. I haven't talked about personnel with her 0:18:45.880 --> 0:18:49.600 or her team. I have no intention about talking about personnel. 0:18:49.920 --> 0:18:50.119 You know. 0:18:50.359 --> 0:18:53.080 I was asking a question about what I thought about 0:18:53.080 --> 0:18:56.520 the FTC, and I thought that, you know, the possibility 0:18:56.520 --> 0:18:59.399 of breaking up the big technology companies would be a 0:18:59.440 --> 0:19:02.240 negative because I think, you know, winning the AI battle 0:19:02.240 --> 0:19:05.359 for the United States is paramount from military in and 0:19:05.440 --> 0:19:08.239 economic perspective. So I voiced my opinion, but I'm not 0:19:08.280 --> 0:19:09.880 involved in those conversations at all. 0:19:09.920 --> 0:19:12.760 But it really raises this ultimate question, which is what 0:19:12.960 --> 0:19:16.400 policies will she follow. She's been engaging with AOC quite 0:19:16.440 --> 0:19:19.040 a bit in terms of the campaign trail, and there's 0:19:19.040 --> 0:19:21.160 a real question of how much there will be an 0:19:21.160 --> 0:19:24.439 effort to cater to the further left sides of the 0:19:24.440 --> 0:19:28.040 Democratic wing versus the sort of centrist appeal that she's 0:19:28.080 --> 0:19:30.879 been trying to have. How much are you actually getting 0:19:30.920 --> 0:19:34.560 confidence that she's going to have business executives in cabinet 0:19:34.600 --> 0:19:38.520 positions in top areas where she really is listening to 0:19:38.560 --> 0:19:39.399 what they have to say. 0:19:40.160 --> 0:19:42.239 I talked to her campaign almost every day. I'm one 0:19:42.280 --> 0:19:45.240