WEBVTT - Surveillance: I Don't Think Inflation Is Dead, Hatzius Says

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:12.960
<v Speaker 1>Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Jay Ley. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:23.520
<v Speaker 1>and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:30.200
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg here

0:00:30.200 --> 0:00:32.720
<v Speaker 1>in New York. As a rascate joining us now HSBC

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:37.280
<v Speaker 1>chief Investment Strategist at HSBC Private Bank Americus. I was

0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:38.879
<v Speaker 1>great to catch up with you walk us through that

0:00:38.920 --> 0:00:41.319
<v Speaker 1>take well. I think if you look at where we are,

0:00:41.440 --> 0:00:44.280
<v Speaker 1>you know clearly the FED had a tremendous effect on

0:00:44.320 --> 0:00:47.120
<v Speaker 1>emerging markets last year, on markets and on the economy,

0:00:47.159 --> 0:00:50.040
<v Speaker 1>and as a result, we feel the Fed as patient

0:00:50.200 --> 0:00:53.440
<v Speaker 1>or on hold this year. Uh So, no question about it,

0:00:53.479 --> 0:00:56.040
<v Speaker 1>and we think that's positive for markets, but largely priced

0:00:56.040 --> 0:00:59.200
<v Speaker 1>in at this point. We're over to the fundamentals, psycho

0:00:59.680 --> 0:01:03.120
<v Speaker 1>and how constructive value on those two things. Well, for us,

0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:05.720
<v Speaker 1>it's those two things right and improving economy after Q

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:07.559
<v Speaker 1>one is going to be weak we think one point

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:09.720
<v Speaker 1>six percent, but we're average about two and a quarter

0:01:09.760 --> 0:01:11.840
<v Speaker 1>the rest of the year. Uh and then earnings have

0:01:11.920 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 1>to improve. John and I have mentioned this a number

0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:15.759
<v Speaker 1>of times. Let's do a victory lamp on this again.

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:18.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm not picking the bottom of the market. Pharaoh was

0:01:18.480 --> 0:01:20.319
<v Speaker 1>smart enough to do that. He used the games that

0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:22.600
<v Speaker 1>he got there to buy his eight thousand lift shares

0:01:22.640 --> 0:01:25.600
<v Speaker 1>that have tanked. But I wasn't smart enough to do it.

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:28.160
<v Speaker 1>If I just sort of randomly late December picked a

0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:33.280
<v Speaker 1>spot off of Ben Laidler's recommendation and Jose Rascoe's recommendation. John,

0:01:33.280 --> 0:01:36.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm up eighteen percent. I mean that's that's not only

0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 1>a year's performance, that's a bowl market. Now what what

0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:42.920
<v Speaker 1>are the what are the optimists that have been so right?

0:01:43.280 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 1>What's the now what for you? And now? What is volatility?

0:01:46.640 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 1>Balls cheap? We we are concerned things are priced to perfection,

0:01:50.080 --> 0:01:51.920
<v Speaker 1>and we think we're going to see more volatility as

0:01:51.960 --> 0:01:54.480
<v Speaker 1>we head into a Q two in fit in the

0:01:54.520 --> 0:01:57.880
<v Speaker 1>face of an improving economy, so because we think there's

0:01:57.880 --> 0:01:59.400
<v Speaker 1>gonna be a lot of noise out there. So as

0:01:59.400 --> 0:02:02.800
<v Speaker 1>a result, as earnings improve, more vol and we could

0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:05.000
<v Speaker 1>see a bit of a retrenchment in the markets. But

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:07.360
<v Speaker 1>longer term we still think a little bit deeper here

0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>the catalysts for higher volatility. The u S data has

0:02:10.440 --> 0:02:13.480
<v Speaker 1>been remarkably staple. I mean, I think it's a Deutsche

0:02:13.480 --> 0:02:15.799
<v Speaker 1>Bank coming out with all the two's two percent inflation,

0:02:15.880 --> 0:02:19.600
<v Speaker 1>two percent GDP growth, It has been remarkably staple. So

0:02:19.680 --> 0:02:22.000
<v Speaker 1>walk me through what you think the catalysts for volatility

0:02:22.000 --> 0:02:25.480
<v Speaker 1>would ultimately be. I think some of it will be earnings.

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:27.520
<v Speaker 1>On the earning side, We're gonna see some difficulty and

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:30.280
<v Speaker 1>we've seen, but we think we'll see upward revisions to

0:02:30.360 --> 0:02:32.640
<v Speaker 1>earnings and that will be part of the adjustment we

0:02:32.680 --> 0:02:34.760
<v Speaker 1>have as we go forward. The big ones we think

0:02:34.800 --> 0:02:37.600
<v Speaker 1>will be political on the trade front, in particular. You

0:02:37.720 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 1>do private bank, which means I need some coupon? Is

0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:45.360
<v Speaker 1>coupon of any value right now? Are there fixed income

0:02:45.400 --> 0:02:48.079
<v Speaker 1>of any value? Absolutely? Are you know, high net worth

0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:51.960
<v Speaker 1>individuals are still looking for that that return, that yield. Absolutely,

0:02:52.160 --> 0:02:55.560
<v Speaker 1>but they're looking for growth. And what we're seeing increasingly

0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:57.959
<v Speaker 1>is clients are saying, you know, I'm seeing the market

0:02:58.040 --> 0:02:59.799
<v Speaker 1>is up. What what do I do? How do I care?

0:02:59.840 --> 0:03:02.040
<v Speaker 1>But is a dividend of proxy for yield? I and

0:03:02.120 --> 0:03:04.919
<v Speaker 1>my all my radar goes up when I say that. Yeah, yeah, well,

0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 1>I think look, we've we've had some investors do it

0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:09.200
<v Speaker 1>but you have to be really careful obviously with a

0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:11.920
<v Speaker 1>dividend deal strategy. So where do you put fixed income

0:03:12.000 --> 0:03:13.920
<v Speaker 1>for hitters right now? I mean, was it full faith

0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:17.680
<v Speaker 1>and credit? Are you going out and find something goofy esoteric? Well,

0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:19.800
<v Speaker 1>we're out in EM debt. We like EM debt. We

0:03:20.160 --> 0:03:22.840
<v Speaker 1>like EM hard currency debt in particular. We've taken our

0:03:22.880 --> 0:03:25.920
<v Speaker 1>winnings from from high yield. We still like high yield

0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:27.679
<v Speaker 1>a bit, but but it did really well in the

0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:33.799
<v Speaker 1>first couple of huge exactly. So we took our victory

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:36.000
<v Speaker 1>lap there as you just mentioned, and we're gonna sit

0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:38.480
<v Speaker 1>back and we still like it, but not as much. Yeah,

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:40.840
<v Speaker 1>but now we're more and more focused on investment grade

0:03:41.200 --> 0:03:44.840
<v Speaker 1>with this other pole being emerging market. So somebody walks

0:03:44.840 --> 0:03:47.120
<v Speaker 1>on the door and they've got fifteen percent of their

0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 1>portfolio on Amazon because it used to be three, exactly,

0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>and it's not what come on, you're telling me to

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.480
<v Speaker 1>sell Amazon or Apple or Microsoft to the rest of

0:03:56.520 --> 0:03:59.600
<v Speaker 1>these you know, linear moonshots that are out there. You know,

0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:02.640
<v Speaker 1>we think back to two thousand one. The biggest problem

0:04:02.640 --> 0:04:05.000
<v Speaker 1>we had in the market, the correction in the market

0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:07.760
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand one was people allowed their portfolio to

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:10.880
<v Speaker 1>get out of whack. They did not redistribute profits, and

0:04:10.960 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 1>that was a big part of the people rebalanced were

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:17.600
<v Speaker 1>looking out of the studio. Not weekly, but no, we

0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:20.680
<v Speaker 1>have quarterly meetings with clients. Monthly meetings with clients, uh,

0:04:20.760 --> 0:04:24.159
<v Speaker 1>to talk about rebalancing portfolios, especially with the volatility we

0:04:24.160 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 1>see increasing going forward. What did I miss if I

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:29.720
<v Speaker 1>rebalanced Amazon just as you know, or Microsoft pick Microsoft

0:04:29.720 --> 0:04:31.960
<v Speaker 1>in the last couple of months, years whatever in the

0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:35.800
<v Speaker 1>last rebalanced Microsoft. Well, I mean, look, hindsight is twenty

0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:37.960
<v Speaker 1>if if I right, And that's the thing with with

0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:40.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, if you're gonna, if you're gonna do portfolio management,

0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:43.839
<v Speaker 1>hindsight is twenty. But uh, you know, so put it

0:04:43.880 --> 0:04:45.800
<v Speaker 1>all on one stock doesn't make a lot of sense.

0:04:45.839 --> 0:04:48.840
<v Speaker 1>So I think we want to make sure that that

0:04:48.920 --> 0:04:51.880
<v Speaker 1>earning stream is solid for for investors going forward. They

0:04:51.880 --> 0:04:53.560
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much. Can we get to three of you, you,

0:04:53.720 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 1>Ben Laidler and Steve Major all on the set at

0:04:56.040 --> 0:04:58.680
<v Speaker 1>the same time, or even who's who's the nutcase in

0:04:58.800 --> 0:05:05.920
<v Speaker 1>for David? David Bloom to a guest is another The

0:05:05.960 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 1>problem with Bloom is all he wants to do is

0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:13.800
<v Speaker 1>talk English football. But where where's Bloom on for an exchange? Right? Interesting?

0:05:13.839 --> 0:05:16.479
<v Speaker 1>I'm surprised you didn't mention the interesting qual with Stephen Major.

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:18.240
<v Speaker 1>You know what our qualit is on the tenure right

0:05:18.560 --> 0:05:23.240
<v Speaker 1>two point? Yeah, you're still one dollar stability or even

0:05:23.279 --> 0:05:25.919
<v Speaker 1>dollar strength. Right. Well, that's the problem is we're not

0:05:25.920 --> 0:05:28.280
<v Speaker 1>looking for dollar strength. But to Bloom's point, and and

0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:30.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, how do you see dollar weakness in an

0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:34.200
<v Speaker 1>environment where everybody else is cutting? So congratulations to your back.

0:05:34.279 --> 0:05:38.359
<v Speaker 1>You guys have been on fire. Thank you, HSBC Private.

0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:54.800
<v Speaker 1>Should you welcome our next guest? Well, I'm going to

0:05:54.920 --> 0:05:58.160
<v Speaker 1>take the welcome here because it doesn't look to impress

0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:02.240
<v Speaker 1>with you. It's government's next chief economists and head of

0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 1>global economics and markets research. Yeah, and great to see

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:07.279
<v Speaker 1>you have anything to say to Tom after that? It's

0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:10.039
<v Speaker 1>great to be here. And the trendier reception has always

0:06:10.040 --> 0:06:13.680
<v Speaker 1>appreciated good. But seriously, to Jeff, how did you take

0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:17.200
<v Speaker 1>Jeff curies working folded into what we're seeing and we

0:06:17.279 --> 0:06:20.360
<v Speaker 1>were all at ourselves into pulled up the Business Week

0:06:20.640 --> 0:06:23.680
<v Speaker 1>magazine article from Mr Hatzies. Dr Hatzi is here is

0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:27.360
<v Speaker 1>inflation dead? Comment on there? Please? I don't think inflation

0:06:27.400 --> 0:06:29.960
<v Speaker 1>is dead. But obviously we're in a very different regime

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 1>from where we were in the nineteen nineteen eighties and

0:06:32.839 --> 0:06:36.040
<v Speaker 1>nineteen nineties, and I think that's still a gradual adjustment

0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:40.840
<v Speaker 1>of forecasters, you know, the idea that we're going to be,

0:06:41.680 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, not even with a three percent unemployment rate,

0:06:44.640 --> 0:06:47.159
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily at two and a half percent plus on

0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:49.840
<v Speaker 1>inflation is still something that that is taking a while

0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>to sink in. Now. Beyond that regime change, I think

0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:57.520
<v Speaker 1>we've also seen some kind of more genuine downside surprises

0:06:57.560 --> 0:07:00.880
<v Speaker 1>and some of the h inflation indicator US recently so

0:07:01.000 --> 0:07:04.000
<v Speaker 1>or um. You know, if you'd asked me three, three

0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:06.320
<v Speaker 1>or six months ago, I would have said late this year,

0:07:06.400 --> 0:07:08.560
<v Speaker 1>we'd we'd be you know, maybe two and two and

0:07:08.600 --> 0:07:11.000
<v Speaker 1>a quarter per sandals or for core pc inflation. And

0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:15.320
<v Speaker 1>now it looks like that's not going to happen. Thank

0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 1>you so much, Thank you always. Let's bring it Dantan

0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:34.040
<v Speaker 1>about shall we? P WC United States Principal and Global

0:07:34.240 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 1>Sanctions Leader, Dan Let's begin with what happened yesterday, the

0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:42.480
<v Speaker 1>concept of waivers for Irani and crude exports, and what's

0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:44.920
<v Speaker 1>going to change in the next couple of weeks time.

0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:47.000
<v Speaker 1>I think I'm going to the wrong parties, so no

0:07:47.040 --> 0:07:49.240
<v Speaker 1>one's talking about sanctions where I go, or maybe you're

0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:53.480
<v Speaker 1>going to the right party. That's fair. The announcement shouldn't

0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:56.840
<v Speaker 1>really surprise anyone because the government has been telegraphing for

0:07:56.880 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 1>the last few months that there weren't going to extend

0:07:59.240 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 1>the waivers. The unpredictability they've been exhibiting over the last

0:08:02.400 --> 0:08:05.040
<v Speaker 1>couple of years has made people skeptical that they would

0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:07.760
<v Speaker 1>follow through. But the announcement came out. They want the

0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:10.960
<v Speaker 1>world to go to zero on Iranian crude. The Iranians

0:08:10.960 --> 0:08:14.040
<v Speaker 1>have respectfully disagreed, as well as a number of allies

0:08:14.080 --> 0:08:16.000
<v Speaker 1>that still continue to trade, and so we're gonna have

0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:18.440
<v Speaker 1>a bit of a standoff potentially. How quickly can you

0:08:18.480 --> 0:08:22.040
<v Speaker 1>get to zero? I mean they waivers are due to

0:08:22.120 --> 0:08:25.520
<v Speaker 1>expire on May second, so next week. I think it's

0:08:25.640 --> 0:08:28.080
<v Speaker 1>very unlikely that anyone is going to zero by the

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:33.720
<v Speaker 1>end of next week. They have an Ahwah's oil field

0:08:33.880 --> 0:08:39.000
<v Speaker 1>and Smari formation. They pump oil, it's put in barrels

0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:42.800
<v Speaker 1>or whatever, or on boats. How do you actually sanction it?

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:46.400
<v Speaker 1>So I mean it is like you know, the confederacy

0:08:46.400 --> 0:08:48.719
<v Speaker 1>where you put boats around our harbor. Well, I mean

0:08:48.760 --> 0:08:51.120
<v Speaker 1>what they do with some of those boats. The whole

0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.480
<v Speaker 1>fleet of ghost tankers that essentially are filled with oil

0:08:54.520 --> 0:08:57.520
<v Speaker 1>and floating in the water, is floating supply depots because

0:08:57.600 --> 0:09:01.200
<v Speaker 1>they just need to store the barrels somewhere. The sanctioning

0:09:01.200 --> 0:09:05.559
<v Speaker 1>will come not necessarily against the Iranians, but against companies

0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:07.760
<v Speaker 1>that are found to continue to trade in Iran. So

0:09:07.800 --> 0:09:11.400
<v Speaker 1>if you're a bank that had financed the legal Iranian

0:09:11.520 --> 0:09:14.600
<v Speaker 1>oil trade, you could potentially be at risk after the waivers.

0:09:14.760 --> 0:09:18.120
<v Speaker 1>Just because Dan, this is so important folding China into this,

0:09:18.200 --> 0:09:21.360
<v Speaker 1>because one of these nations is China, and yet we're

0:09:21.360 --> 0:09:24.120
<v Speaker 1>trying to be happy, touchy feely with China right now,

0:09:24.320 --> 0:09:27.960
<v Speaker 1>right This won't help, This won't help, thank you. I mean,

0:09:28.080 --> 0:09:32.480
<v Speaker 1>maybe we look at is this compartmentalization. They don't write,

0:09:32.520 --> 0:09:34.679
<v Speaker 1>they don't and this is going to get roped into

0:09:34.679 --> 0:09:37.320
<v Speaker 1>the broader trade debate that's been ongoing. And I know

0:09:37.400 --> 0:09:41.160
<v Speaker 1>ambassad Lightheiser's due to be on another delegation to Beijing.

0:09:41.360 --> 0:09:44.360
<v Speaker 1>This will certainly be part of that agenda. But the

0:09:44.440 --> 0:09:47.400
<v Speaker 1>Chinese do not compartmentalize like the U S. You're trying

0:09:47.440 --> 0:09:49.880
<v Speaker 1>to on this issue. Every now and again we hear

0:09:49.920 --> 0:09:54.719
<v Speaker 1>threats of shutting down the straight off Homus, which separates

0:09:54.720 --> 0:09:58.360
<v Speaker 1>the Persian Gulf and the Gulf into the Arabian Say,

0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:02.280
<v Speaker 1>which I think around about scent of global oil flows through.

0:10:02.720 --> 0:10:05.319
<v Speaker 1>We hear those threats again in the last twenty four hours.

0:10:05.320 --> 0:10:09.160
<v Speaker 1>How seriously should we take the prospect of Iran trying

0:10:09.200 --> 0:10:11.680
<v Speaker 1>to shut down the Straight of almost I think that's

0:10:11.679 --> 0:10:14.120
<v Speaker 1>an unlikely scenario that they're going to shut down that

0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:18.319
<v Speaker 1>straight There's other countries that are allies to Iran, that

0:10:18.360 --> 0:10:21.360
<v Speaker 1>are actually allies to the US, that would all potentially

0:10:21.360 --> 0:10:24.040
<v Speaker 1>have an adverse reaction to that, and all that would

0:10:24.120 --> 0:10:27.280
<v Speaker 1>be harmed, mostly the Iranians as a result of that,

0:10:27.360 --> 0:10:30.560
<v Speaker 1>because other countries could come and punish them similarly, How

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:33.400
<v Speaker 1>harmed are they if we go to quote unquote zero,

0:10:33.960 --> 0:10:37.160
<v Speaker 1>So you know, the as I understand it, oil makes

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:41.480
<v Speaker 1>up about of the Iranian economy. It would be a

0:10:41.520 --> 0:10:44.520
<v Speaker 1>significant harm to the government and to the country of

0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:49.120
<v Speaker 1>Iran if oil goes to zero. There are a number

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 1>of trading partners, like India, like China that have no

0:10:52.640 --> 0:10:56.640
<v Speaker 1>interest in suspending activity in trading in Iranian oil. Now.

0:10:56.679 --> 0:10:59.720
<v Speaker 1>Of the eight countries that got waivers, Greece, Italy and

0:11:00.000 --> 0:11:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Taiwan have already suspended, but that leaves five countries still

0:11:03.440 --> 0:11:05.440
<v Speaker 1>in the mix, and two of them have large volumes.

0:11:05.800 --> 0:11:08.520
<v Speaker 1>Is there a black market? I don't want to get

0:11:08.559 --> 0:11:11.640
<v Speaker 1>in trouble with p WC, but the you know, forget

0:11:11.640 --> 0:11:14.320
<v Speaker 1>about the visible market. Is there a black market where

0:11:14.360 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 1>the people that desire Iranian oil get it? I don't

0:11:18.160 --> 0:11:20.439
<v Speaker 1>think it's so much a black market, but a shifting

0:11:20.480 --> 0:11:24.120
<v Speaker 1>of transactions out of US dollar denominated transactions and move

0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:26.640
<v Speaker 1>them to the Euro to attempt to keep them entirely

0:11:26.679 --> 0:11:29.640
<v Speaker 1>away from U S jurisdiction. That's been floated for years

0:11:29.760 --> 0:11:32.800
<v Speaker 1>in response to the Iran related sanctions. The dollar is

0:11:32.840 --> 0:11:35.280
<v Speaker 1>obviously a much more stable currency, that's why it's been

0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:38.120
<v Speaker 1>pegged for oil. But that's always a scenario. And there's

0:11:38.160 --> 0:11:40.880
<v Speaker 1>also mechanisms that the EU have set up, for example,

0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:45.240
<v Speaker 1>to allow humanitarian trade to be processed called instincts, and

0:11:45.559 --> 0:11:48.360
<v Speaker 1>that is a mechanism that is technically legal, even in

0:11:48.400 --> 0:11:50.920
<v Speaker 1>the eyes of the U S, to facilitate humanitarian aid,

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:53.840
<v Speaker 1>but it goes outside the traditional banking sector. Down great

0:11:53.880 --> 0:11:56.520
<v Speaker 1>to catch out with you busy twenty four hours. Again

0:11:56.600 --> 0:11:58.280
<v Speaker 1>for you, I'm sure and no doubt down we'll be

0:11:58.320 --> 0:12:00.120
<v Speaker 1>bank with us as we canty it down to the

0:12:00.160 --> 0:12:02.400
<v Speaker 1>prospect of the wave is being removed and potentially an

0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:16.640
<v Speaker 1>effort to send Irani and crude exports down to zero.

0:12:20.080 --> 0:12:23.400
<v Speaker 1>Lindsay p X joins us right now with Staple, their

0:12:23.440 --> 0:12:26.679
<v Speaker 1>chief economists. Lindsay, good morning. What part of why will

0:12:26.760 --> 0:12:29.280
<v Speaker 1>C plus I plus G plus n X matters to you?

0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:33.160
<v Speaker 1>What will you look at first in the GDP report? Oh,

0:12:33.200 --> 0:12:36.640
<v Speaker 1>I think everyone will be focusing on the sea the consumer,

0:12:36.760 --> 0:12:39.520
<v Speaker 1>how healthy the consumer is as a one of the

0:12:39.600 --> 0:12:43.560
<v Speaker 1>largest components, the largest component of the growth equation. It

0:12:43.760 --> 0:12:46.559
<v Speaker 1>really depends on whether or not the consumer is happy

0:12:46.600 --> 0:12:50.000
<v Speaker 1>and healthy out in the marketplace doing what they do best,

0:12:50.040 --> 0:12:54.040
<v Speaker 1>which is spending on discretionary goods, new big screen TVs

0:12:54.120 --> 0:12:57.400
<v Speaker 1>and new spring dresses. So we really need to look

0:12:57.440 --> 0:13:00.280
<v Speaker 1>at how much the consumer is spending and whether or

0:13:00.280 --> 0:13:04.000
<v Speaker 1>not they're able to maintain that spending trend going forward

0:13:04.040 --> 0:13:07.320
<v Speaker 1>into the remaining quarters. Well, what does your work what's

0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:10.120
<v Speaker 1>your forecast on that? I don't mean a single digit number,

0:13:10.200 --> 0:13:16.480
<v Speaker 1>but but what what's the what's the Lindsay vector of consumption, Well,

0:13:16.520 --> 0:13:19.440
<v Speaker 1>I think the consumer is still spending. That's the good news.

0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:23.280
<v Speaker 1>The glass half empty, however, is that the consumers spending

0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:26.120
<v Speaker 1>at a noticeably reduced pace to what we saw in

0:13:27.160 --> 0:13:29.600
<v Speaker 1>For a number of reasons. There were a couple of

0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:33.520
<v Speaker 1>very temporary but strong factors helping to prop up the

0:13:33.559 --> 0:13:37.040
<v Speaker 1>consumer over the past couple of years, ramping up credit

0:13:37.240 --> 0:13:41.520
<v Speaker 1>to above pre crisis levels, drawing down savings even that

0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:46.480
<v Speaker 1>lingering wealth effects that consumers had accumulated from filling up

0:13:46.520 --> 0:13:50.000
<v Speaker 1>their car lower cost. What about the tax plan? Come on,

0:13:50.160 --> 0:13:52.520
<v Speaker 1>come on, everybody got hit over the head on taxes.

0:13:52.880 --> 0:13:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Did that have a lot to do with this? Well,

0:13:55.559 --> 0:13:58.440
<v Speaker 1>taxes did play a role here, but a lot of

0:13:58.480 --> 0:14:01.920
<v Speaker 1>that boost for the consumer or was already spent. If

0:14:01.960 --> 0:14:06.160
<v Speaker 1>you look at the consumption numbers, specifically the discretionary spending numbers,

0:14:06.160 --> 0:14:09.360
<v Speaker 1>which we look at for the retail sales figures, consumers

0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:12.240
<v Speaker 1>actually went and spent well above trend at the end

0:14:12.240 --> 0:14:15.760
<v Speaker 1>of seen But nothing had happened in terms of taxes

0:14:15.800 --> 0:14:19.640
<v Speaker 1>in seventeen, but consumers were more than willing to spend

0:14:20.080 --> 0:14:24.240
<v Speaker 1>in anticipation of tax reform coming down the pipeline. But

0:14:24.320 --> 0:14:26.440
<v Speaker 1>what we actually saw is when we turned the page

0:14:26.440 --> 0:14:30.600
<v Speaker 1>into the expectations of tax reform. In terms of our

0:14:30.640 --> 0:14:34.480
<v Speaker 1>after tax take home pay, we're well above reality, and

0:14:34.520 --> 0:14:38.400
<v Speaker 1>consumers actually had to pull back, so we overspent, we

0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:42.040
<v Speaker 1>intenipated more in terms of return, and then we reverted

0:14:42.120 --> 0:14:44.440
<v Speaker 1>right back to the trend pace of expenditure for the

0:14:44.520 --> 0:14:47.440
<v Speaker 1>latter part of eighteen and now we're starting to see

0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:50.920
<v Speaker 1>that more downward bias in many people expected this first

0:14:51.000 --> 0:14:53.760
<v Speaker 1>quarter to be soft. It's not actually as soft as

0:14:53.800 --> 0:14:55.960
<v Speaker 1>I think some people would have thought it might have been.

0:14:55.960 --> 0:15:00.000
<v Speaker 1>Going into January. Looking out and extrapolating this forward, lindsay,

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:02.000
<v Speaker 1>is this what the rest of the looks like? Something

0:15:02.080 --> 0:15:04.760
<v Speaker 1>in the low twos. Is that what you're looking for? Well,

0:15:04.800 --> 0:15:07.000
<v Speaker 1>I think actually we are going to see an annual

0:15:07.040 --> 0:15:10.400
<v Speaker 1>paste below two percent. We're looking for an annual range

0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:12.280
<v Speaker 1>of one and a half to one point eight percent,

0:15:12.320 --> 0:15:15.520
<v Speaker 1>so still not terrible, right up near that two ish

0:15:15.560 --> 0:15:18.960
<v Speaker 1>percent mark. But what we're seeing is this very clear

0:15:19.040 --> 0:15:22.720
<v Speaker 1>decline in momentum from a top line perspective number. Four

0:15:22.760 --> 0:15:25.480
<v Speaker 1>percent growth in the second quarters, three percent in the third,

0:15:25.840 --> 0:15:28.360
<v Speaker 1>two percent by the end of the year. We're clearly

0:15:28.400 --> 0:15:31.160
<v Speaker 1>seeing this this ladder cap down in terms of top

0:15:31.200 --> 0:15:33.760
<v Speaker 1>line growth. Do you expect that to continue this year?

0:15:34.040 --> 0:15:36.920
<v Speaker 1>I believe that's a linear vector four three to one

0:15:36.920 --> 0:15:40.080
<v Speaker 1>blast off. Are you willing to predict blast off or

0:15:40.200 --> 0:15:43.760
<v Speaker 1>are you going to get on the recession crew of Well,

0:15:43.800 --> 0:15:46.360
<v Speaker 1>I do think that we see the first negative print

0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:49.880
<v Speaker 1>by now, whether or not we fall into recession, we're

0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:52.760
<v Speaker 1>kind of splitting hairs there. Of course, recession is typically

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:55.480
<v Speaker 1>back to back quarters of negative growth. And whether or

0:15:55.480 --> 0:15:57.240
<v Speaker 1>not we see that dip in the first quarter, in

0:15:57.360 --> 0:16:00.480
<v Speaker 1>third quarter, or some sort of combination. Are we do

0:16:00.560 --> 0:16:05.080
<v Speaker 1>expect the economy to fall below zero in and whether

0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:08.360
<v Speaker 1>or not again we maintain that consistency of negative growth,

0:16:08.480 --> 0:16:12.480
<v Speaker 1>or more concerning lee we fall into a non accelerating

0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:17.760
<v Speaker 1>growth platform, in meaning GDP falls consistently below one percent.

0:16:18.440 --> 0:16:22.920
<v Speaker 1>I do think that we see the economy decelerate noticeably

0:16:23.280 --> 0:16:25.680
<v Speaker 1>over the coming twelve to twenty four months. So is

0:16:25.720 --> 0:16:27.800
<v Speaker 1>that accompanied by federals of right cuts? Is that in

0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:30.920
<v Speaker 1>your base cases? Well, lindsay yes, we do think that

0:16:31.000 --> 0:16:34.800
<v Speaker 1>the FED is going to acknowledge that the growing level

0:16:34.800 --> 0:16:36.960
<v Speaker 1>of weakness. Now they've already acknowledged the fact that the

0:16:37.040 --> 0:16:39.480
<v Speaker 1>data is not necessarily sending a clear signal to the

0:16:39.560 --> 0:16:42.440
<v Speaker 1>upside or the downside. So the Fed this time around

0:16:42.480 --> 0:16:46.440
<v Speaker 1>seems to be willing to make policy a bit more preemptively,

0:16:46.920 --> 0:16:50.240
<v Speaker 1>and as they anticipate that decline and momentum going into

0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:52.760
<v Speaker 1>we do think they're going to set the stage for

0:16:52.840 --> 0:16:56.080
<v Speaker 1>the market, giving ample time and notification that they're willing

0:16:56.400 --> 0:16:59.240
<v Speaker 1>to move into a defensive policy position, and we get

0:16:59.240 --> 0:17:02.720
<v Speaker 1>that first rate cut in the first quarter of Lizzie.

0:17:02.720 --> 0:17:07.919
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much, Chief Economists. Thanks for listening to

0:17:07.960 --> 0:17:12.480
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on

0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:18.400
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm

0:17:18.440 --> 0:17:21.720
<v Speaker 1>on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can

0:17:21.760 --> 0:17:24.960
<v Speaker 1>always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.