Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast,
Speaker 1: the first for twenty seventeen. I'm Joe Wisenthal and I'm
Speaker 1: Tracy Allaway. So Tracy, I'm really excited about our episode
Speaker 1: today because, of course, in the last episode we did
Speaker 1: the look back for where we had some of our
Speaker 1: colleagues tell us their favorite stories of the year. But
Speaker 1: it's always fun and challenging to make predictions. To look forward.
Speaker 1: The future is pretty difficult to figure out. Was of
Speaker 1: course a very tough year to have called correctly in
Speaker 1: many ways. And I think it's a good and mental
Speaker 1: exercise to try. I you know, it's always sort of foolish,
Speaker 1: but I'm a strong believer that people should make an
Speaker 1: attempt to say what the future holds. So this is
Speaker 1: the this is the tough episode, right, This is where
Speaker 1: people have to exercise their mental muscles. They have to
Speaker 1: think rationally and um all for the purposes of being
Speaker 1: exposed to ridicule and shame when we're inevitably wrong twelve
Speaker 1: months from now, yeah, exactly. And you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of journalists are sort of anti predictions. They think
Speaker 1: it's a foolish thing. They think that it's always going
Speaker 1: to be wrong. But I just I think that's missing
Speaker 1: the point. I think it's a it's a good mental exercise,
Speaker 1: and it's sort of what you predict is an insight
Speaker 1: into how you've digested what you've seen so far, and
Speaker 1: it's just fun to say things that could be proven
Speaker 1: right or wrong. Okay, Well, in the spirit of fun, uh,
Speaker 1: let's let's go to our our panelist with us for
Speaker 1: the second episode in a row. We heard them tell
Speaker 1: their favorite stories of twenties sixteen. Now we're forcing them
Speaker 1: to go out and tell us, look at their crystal balls,
Speaker 1: what exactly is going to happen in ten Joining us
Speaker 1: this week we have Ed Hammond, who covers deals for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News. Joe, Welcome Ed, Thank you, Thank you for
Speaker 1: coming back. Mike Reagan, who covers markets for Bloomberg News.
Speaker 1: He has launched a new markets live blog venture for
Speaker 1: terminal users. Happy New Year. Thank you. Max Abelson, our
Speaker 1: Wall Street expert at Wall Street Whisperers. I think I
Speaker 1: described him. Thank you for coming back. I can't wait
Speaker 1: to hear your call for the year. Thanks to you.
Speaker 1: Megan Murphy, who covered politics for Bloomberg all year and
Speaker 1: now has taken on a new mission as editor of
Speaker 1: Business Week. Thank you for coming on. Can't wait to
Speaker 1: get your prediction. Excited about it see if be as
Speaker 1: crazy as it was from politics or whatever as two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen was. And Dan Moss, who has a
Speaker 1: great track record of predictions, thanks for coming back again.
Speaker 1: Great to be here. And Ed, Uh, why don't you
Speaker 1: uh tell us about your prediction for seventeen? Well, I
Speaker 1: think crystal ball. What's going to be this year? Sprayer
Speaker 1: than Yeah? Well, I think last year I just went
Speaker 1: with the kind of stock m and a bank nonsense
Speaker 1: of you know, we're going to see more deals in
Speaker 1: and we didn't see more deals in twenty six we
Speaker 1: did see lots of fifteen deals get blown up, which
Speaker 1: was it was quite interesting. I think almost six hundred
Speaker 1: billion of deals that was that was struck in twenty
Speaker 1: fifteen was sort of torpedoed in. What's my prediction for
Speaker 1: this year? I think, um, I think Nigel Farage, the
Speaker 1: sort of populist, slightly right wing um political figure in
Speaker 1: the UK, is going to end uh well, I mean
Speaker 1: slightly by I suppose by global standards why UK and
Speaker 1: as I would say extremely I think he's going to
Speaker 1: end up in a celebrity based reality TV competition, Jule.
Speaker 1: I was actually thinking Celebrity Apprentice because it would fit
Speaker 1: well with this sort of Trump loving persona. So that's
Speaker 1: that's my prediction. I think he is going to finally
Speaker 1: bow out from politics for a career in reality television.
Speaker 1: That's a good one. Did you vote in the referendum? Yes,
Speaker 1: I did. I went home to vote in a referend
Speaker 1: and that's our Seriously, it was quite quite depressing being
Speaker 1: in London the day afterwards, like the world had ended,
Speaker 1: because obviously London was desperately against this, and not only
Speaker 1: that they had had their recently departed mayor be the
Speaker 1: sort of flag bearer for the for the for the Brexiteers,
Speaker 1: and that was I think, very very depressing obviously for
Speaker 1: all concern Alright, Well, I love that prediction because it's con'tcrete,
Speaker 1: and at the end of the year we can actually
Speaker 1: test very clearly whether it happened or not. Max A. Wilson,
Speaker 1: what is your prediction for Well, Joe, because I'm a
Speaker 1: complicated man, I've got some complicated predictions. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: New York City. I got a prection for New York City. When, uh,
Speaker 1: when Jesse and Zach Mieder and I wrote our story
Speaker 1: on Trump Tower. But you may remember a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago. Great story. Everybody should go look it up.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Joe, Thank you Joe. One of Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: friends an Italian man, a man who says he's account actually,
Speaker 1: although we couldn't confirm that independently, he's he's a friend
Speaker 1: of Trump's. He's he lives in the building. He's in
Speaker 1: the far right, he's affiliated with far right Italian politics.
Speaker 1: He predicted to us, he said, if Donald Trump wins
Speaker 1: the election, I believe he's not gonna be able to
Speaker 1: leave Trump Tower because he loves it so much. So
Speaker 1: I'm stealing his prediction. Of course, that was before the election.
Speaker 1: I'm stealing it to turn into a post election prediction
Speaker 1: that after Donald Trump becomes president, sure he'll be in
Speaker 1: the White House, but I predict he is going to
Speaker 1: spend a ton of time here in New York City
Speaker 1: on Fifth Avenue. We need to say an exact number
Speaker 1: of nights that he spent and so that we can
Speaker 1: see if he gets it right. So over, what's the line?
Speaker 1: All right, Well, let's let's say they're fifty two weeks. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Friday and Saturday. You know, that's a hundred, just over
Speaker 1: a hundred. Could you imagine if you spent more than
Speaker 1: a hundred knights in New York City in over that
Speaker 1: that would that would be one year. Okay, let's say
Speaker 1: four years a hundred nights in New York. Wait, so
Speaker 1: just twenty five nights a year, that's a lot. Mm hmm. Okay,
Speaker 1: al right, it seems like you're sitting the bar a
Speaker 1: little load, Victor. You gotta it's got to be higher
Speaker 1: because just vacations alone and stuff like that. Let's go
Speaker 1: for the first year. Okay, this is an eccentric more Okay,
Speaker 1: So this is we're going to test. At the end
Speaker 1: of Max Abelson will have been right if Trump spent
Speaker 1: more than fifty nights at Trump Tower. It's a bold prediction,
Speaker 1: but we're bold bold people here. I really like it.
Speaker 1: And given the issues that will cause New York in
Speaker 1: terms of security and traffic and everything, into prediction that
Speaker 1: has ramifications. Did you see that Tiffany and co branded
Speaker 1: the police barricks barricades brilliant And you know, analysts have
Speaker 1: come out and warned that because that Tiffany store, which
Speaker 1: is right there, a Trump tower right next to it
Speaker 1: is their flagship store. It could materially hit earnings due
Speaker 1: to the proximity next to Trump. It's not clear that
Speaker 1: that's actually developing, but that is a concern of analysts.
Speaker 1: Capitalism is amazing only only in New York City? Would
Speaker 1: you have that baby blue Tiffany on the on the
Speaker 1: police backcadse Alright, Max A Wilson, great prediction and looking
Speaker 1: forward to seeing if it turns out right or wrong?
Speaker 1: All right? Uh, Mike Reagan, what is your prediction for teventeen?
Speaker 1: Yourur markets? Babing on the panel? Uh? What are we
Speaker 1: going to be? H? What's the story going to be? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make a very cliche prediction. I know, I know,
Speaker 1: and I also say I'm not confident in this, but
Speaker 1: you do say, go out on the limb. I do
Speaker 1: think we will finally see, if not a bear market
Speaker 1: in stocks, a very sharp correction. Uh. And I'll tell
Speaker 1: you why everybody and their brother has become so optimistic
Speaker 1: about the Trump administration. It's interesting to me here was
Speaker 1: a guy that from day one as a politician was underestimated.
Speaker 1: You know, he's not gonna win a single state in
Speaker 1: the primaries. He's not gonna take the primaries out, He'll
Speaker 1: never win the election. And the sort of intersection of
Speaker 1: politics and markets this year has been very fascinating. Um,
Speaker 1: and both saw basically the death of conventional wisdom. You know,
Speaker 1: all the poll numbers and Brexit. Uh, you know it
Speaker 1: turned out to be wrong, not all of them, but
Speaker 1: the you know, the consensus. Trump the you know, no
Speaker 1: one really thought he would win. That turned out to
Speaker 1: be wrong. Now I just feel like everyone's gone to
Speaker 1: the opposite side of the boat. There. Their way too optimistic. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I keep hearing the phrase animal spirits. Ray
Speaker 1: Dalio used it recently to describe this exuberance over his policies,
Speaker 1: and I just think, um, you know, we've had this
Speaker 1: huge rally at the end of the year. Now, I
Speaker 1: went from flat flat stock market September. Cent Lazo Berrini,
Speaker 1: who's a money manager and analyst, who you know, I
Speaker 1: have a lot of interest in, very very smart guy,
Speaker 1: describes the phases of a bull market, and that exuberance
Speaker 1: phase where you have this really last giant rally at
Speaker 1: the end is often the sign of the end of
Speaker 1: the bull market. And when I say a possible bear market,
Speaker 1: I don't think I'm not even sure that the market
Speaker 1: will well. If we talk about the market next December,
Speaker 1: it will be down that much on the year. But
Speaker 1: during the year, I just feel like there's bound to
Speaker 1: be some disappointment that will cause maybe a ten to
Speaker 1: drop in the market. Can I just jump in place.
Speaker 1: I was just gonna say, as someone who had was
Speaker 1: on the Trump beat all year, I think that Mike
Speaker 1: is exactly right, and that the biggest phenomenon in the
Speaker 1: sort of arc of storytelling of twenty six, both in
Speaker 1: terms of Brexit and in terms of the U S election,
Speaker 1: is just the inability of people to correctly price what
Speaker 1: was actually going on um in terms of how this
Speaker 1: would turn out. And I think that the one thing
Speaker 1: that I think you have never underestimate his ability to
Speaker 1: seemingly unbelievably against sort of all expectations of normalcy, normal discourse,
Speaker 1: normal policy decision making, to sort of bump along in
Speaker 1: a sort of vaguely positive way. When when I think
Speaker 1: the biggest risk to the market is going to be
Speaker 1: big political risk, you know, we look at the drone
Speaker 1: that happened or some type of incident in the Middle
Speaker 1: East or isis. But I think that when you look
Speaker 1: at his policy and what he's been able to do
Speaker 1: in the first sort of you know, six months, nine months,
Speaker 1: if we do see the Affordable Care Act getting scale back,
Speaker 1: and we do see a comprehensive tax reform package getting
Speaker 1: put through, if we do see an infrastructure that actually,
Speaker 1: you know, for me, when I look at it, I
Speaker 1: can't decide whether the risk is to the upside of
Speaker 1: the downside. You know, in terms of estic policy, I
Speaker 1: see the market to the upside, and I see corporates
Speaker 1: really seeing repatriation, investment and sort of sentiment being buoyed.
Speaker 1: But then this really incalculable political um, foreign policy disaster
Speaker 1: possibility that the market really does not seem to be
Speaker 1: pricing in right now. And I see that as a
Speaker 1: huge downside risk that no one's quite grappling with right absolutely,
Speaker 1: even if it just ends up being China stopped buying
Speaker 1: treasuries for example, uh, you know, as a sort of
Speaker 1: protest measure. But you know, to me, even from the
Speaker 1: policy standpoint, I mean, it's hard for me to believe
Speaker 1: that this is a Trump Congress. It's still a Republican
Speaker 1: controlled Congress. And it's hard for me to believe that
Speaker 1: all these Republicans are gonna turn into Keynesians all of
Speaker 1: a sudden and agree to blow out the deficit um
Speaker 1: after shutting the government down because of the deficit. Uh
Speaker 1: you know, in this last term, well, they turned into
Speaker 1: Keynesians under George W. Bush, who inherited a surplus from
Speaker 1: Bill in a situation where the US was actually talking
Speaker 1: about buying back debt. Right, so they can get religion,
Speaker 1: and that's not a reflection of their increasingly south base.
Speaker 1: They can get religion, no pun intended, quite quickly. But
Speaker 1: making to your point, I wonder whether we in the media,
Speaker 1: let's acknowledge that and financial markets have had difficulty pricing
Speaker 1: risk because we are concentrated in the northeast and the
Speaker 1: West coast, and in the UK concentrated in the London area.
Speaker 1: So to an extent, we were talking among ourselves, there
Speaker 1: aren't that many financial heavyweight Wall Street prognosticators based in Appalachia,
Speaker 1: and there aren't that many based in Stoke on Trent.
Speaker 1: Is that part is that part of what's happeningsolutely, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we have to be completely candid about that.
Speaker 1: I think we have to be completely candid about how
Speaker 1: this dynamic is completely upended the convention of reporting. And frankly,
Speaker 1: some people just cannot accept that. They cannot accept what
Speaker 1: they what they fail to accept is that people who
Speaker 1: live in different parts of the country are frankly less progressive,
Speaker 1: not just on a sort of um social mores things
Speaker 1: like abortion or LGBT rights, they're just less progressive in
Speaker 1: times in terms of believing in a vision of the
Speaker 1: country that is very different than the Obama vision than
Speaker 1: the Tony Blair vision of this country. Happened and I
Speaker 1: think that is what the election really reawakened, is that,
Speaker 1: guess what what you think in New York is very
Speaker 1: different than what people think. And not just Appalachia, but
Speaker 1: the submers, Milwaukee, the some of the northern subers, Philadelphia.
Speaker 1: So there hasn't been that great let's call it the
Speaker 1: Great rotation and media. We'll have to see if disruptive
Speaker 1: forces really upend this landscape going forward. How many Americans
Speaker 1: have passports? I'm googling it as we start. Um, wait, wait,
Speaker 1: let's get our let's I'm going there passport. Guess how many?
Speaker 1: And I'm going there, Megan, because of that group you
Speaker 1: described that you categorized as less progressive than people on
Speaker 1: the northeast people on the west coast do they also
Speaker 1: care less about the world and have less interest in
Speaker 1: it's complexity and it's rich tapestry. That's why I asked
Speaker 1: the passport question. It's thirty according toistics. But I think
Speaker 1: that you know, this is why I've always strongly resisted
Speaker 1: that that sort of move to characterize this as ignorant
Speaker 1: or less worldly, it isn't. It's just that people are
Speaker 1: familiar with what they're familiar and a lot of people
Speaker 1: who voted for Trump live in less diverse communities. That's
Speaker 1: just a fact. That's not a negative or a positive.
Speaker 1: And the attempt to sort of put some normative stance
Speaker 1: on this that they's somehow less or you know, that
Speaker 1: there's a good or a bad I think that's sort
Speaker 1: of the trap the media falls into. And I don't
Speaker 1: think they're less interested. I think they're just they have
Speaker 1: less experience with the rich tapestry, as you so eloquently
Speaker 1: put it down, um, the rich tapestry of of the world.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that doesn't make it a good thing or
Speaker 1: a bad thing, Megan, can we get your your prediction
Speaker 1: for two thousand seventeen. Yeah, unsurprisingly, it's going to keep
Speaker 1: a little bit into politics. But I think that we
Speaker 1: will see UM again a mispricing of political risk in
Speaker 1: particularly in Europe. I was actually going through Goldman's predictions
Speaker 1: this morning, and we have Teresa May speaking right now,
Speaker 1: and I think there's a real chance of UM an
Speaker 1: outlier event in Germany, France or the UK. I think
Speaker 1: in France, yes, of course, Philon, will we we assume
Speaker 1: we'll win in a run, you know, in a second
Speaker 1: round against Marine le pat And in Germany this expectation
Speaker 1: of Grand Coalition. I think Merkele is going to face
Speaker 1: real challenges. I think that people are a little bit
Speaker 1: too saying one about that, but I think the UK
Speaker 1: is a real going to be really one to watch
Speaker 1: this year. I think when you know Theresa May, yeah,
Speaker 1: is vulnerable in terms of where the UK economy is
Speaker 1: going to directionally trend, and I think that that is
Speaker 1: still a story UM that's going to play out. And
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see some more real, real
Speaker 1: convulsions in Europe politically, not just because of populisma, because
Speaker 1: of just simple really really bad politics. What would tail
Speaker 1: risk in the UK look like, because already people assume
Speaker 1: that there's going to be Article fifty is triggered sometime
Speaker 1: in the early part of the year and then there's
Speaker 1: going to be a very tough negotiation. What would be
Speaker 1: a scenario that people aren't thinking could happen. Well, I
Speaker 1: think that we it's been so buffeted by you know,
Speaker 1: booming retail sales, by you know, um, sort of consumer contempt,
Speaker 1: confidence by people actually not yet understanding what brags it.
Speaker 1: I think once we get a few announcements such as
Speaker 1: you know, big corporates leaving, big banks taking out, they
Speaker 1: know that's going to happen. But I think the reality
Speaker 1: of that happening, in the reality of sort of um,
Speaker 1: you know, an ability to forge a new manufacturing community
Speaker 1: in the North, you know, or of all this sort
Speaker 1: of a technological investment in making Britain a hub of
Speaker 1: entrepreneurship and you know tech innovation that's not going to happen,
Speaker 1: so people that and and and that's and that's the
Speaker 1: realism of it sinking in over time. And I think
Speaker 1: that Britain's um. I think you know, obviously, as Dan knows,
Speaker 1: and everyone who's is tracing house prices such a bedrock
Speaker 1: of the British economy. We see further declines in that
Speaker 1: particular in the higher end market, which essentially supports a
Speaker 1: large degree of London. We have to remember, you know,
Speaker 1: Financial Services GDP in London alone is still hovers it
Speaker 1: something like across the country it's eleven still, you know,
Speaker 1: a real erosion in that market is over and I
Speaker 1: think over the next twelve months we will see that
Speaker 1: is going to be causes a severe, severe disruptive elopment.
Speaker 1: How do you think Theresa May is doing? Megan? The
Speaker 1: government seems to tilt one way one week on Breasit,
Speaker 1: but on other issues as well, then tilt the other
Speaker 1: way the next week. It's probably fair to say she
Speaker 1: didn't begin this year anticipating she would be in number
Speaker 1: ten at Christmas. How is she doing? I mean, I
Speaker 1: think when you talk to people, I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: want to give my own verdict, but I think when
Speaker 1: you talk to people, when you talk to sort of
Speaker 1: you know, other senior, very senior politicians, her peers, or
Speaker 1: senior corporate leaders in Britain or corpor leaders in America,
Speaker 1: they are stunned by the seemingly lack of ability to
Speaker 1: stick to a single plan by this sort of article
Speaker 1: fifty heartenline to a softening once you see, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of by election results and and and the Conservatives, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of responding on a dime to how
Speaker 1: the sentiment is. She does seem to be policy by
Speaker 1: a central, underlying moral compass that the Brexit vote was,
Speaker 1: you know, a vote to leave that there's no going
Speaker 1: back for that. I think they were in a real
Speaker 1: risk of that that as the economy I don't want
Speaker 1: to say weekends, but in certain sections deteriorates, as you know,
Speaker 1: Sterling continues, you know, to remain where it's at that
Speaker 1: you know, you cannot take a single event, even as
Speaker 1: an event as you know, cataclysmic as Brexit was, and
Speaker 1: ignore the reality the economic reality facing your country and
Speaker 1: or people in trying to reforge an independent Britain. That
Speaker 1: will increasingly weigh on her and she's going to have
Speaker 1: to have smarter people around her and she's going to
Speaker 1: have to make much smarter decisions. Is she getting a
Speaker 1: pass on this? Because labor is so weak, week is
Speaker 1: not even a to begin to describe it. In terms
Speaker 1: of formulating a credible and I'm not talking in terms
Speaker 1: of party because party membership is up, but in terms
Speaker 1: of forming a credible policy counterpoint to her. Yes, she's
Speaker 1: getting a pass because you know that that party is
Speaker 1: so splintered, particularly among the elite of the Labor Party,
Speaker 1: not being able to weigh and be effectual. But I
Speaker 1: think the UK again just continues to be one to watch,
Speaker 1: just more of. It's just a fascinating political um journey
Speaker 1: right now. All right, I like this call. I so
Speaker 1: another year of political risk, this time in Europe. Dan Moss,
Speaker 1: you have a little bit of pressure on you with
Speaker 1: your prediction because your sixteen prediction ended up being really,
Speaker 1: really good. So, um, you've set the bar high for
Speaker 1: your self. What is it. I'm going to go out
Speaker 1: on a limb and say that Donald Trump will reappoint
Speaker 1: Janet Yellen as FED chair. Now, technically speaking, Janet Yellen's
Speaker 1: term does not expire to January thirteen. However, typically by
Speaker 1: the end of the year before the President of the
Speaker 1: day has made his choice known. And I'm shaped somewhat
Speaker 1: by history here and somewhat by what we can ascertain
Speaker 1: so far from what the President elect has been saying
Speaker 1: and doing. First history, presidents, regardless of what is said
Speaker 1: on a campaign trail, tend to love low interest rates
Speaker 1: when they're in office. There is also a track record
Speaker 1: in recent decades of reappointing chairs appointed by your predecessor.
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan was under some pressure to replace Paul Volker.
Speaker 1: Jim Baker, looking at the election climate, thought no, let's
Speaker 1: keep Vulca. The last thing we want is a market upset.
Speaker 1: As we're getting ready to run for re election. It
Speaker 1: was thought that Bill Clinton at some point might appoint
Speaker 1: a Democrat. Instead, he reappointed Greenspan not once, but twice.
Speaker 1: Barack Obama reappointed Ben Banankey, and Ben Banankey wasn't interested
Speaker 1: in the second term, so that gave Obama the opening
Speaker 1: to a point um his own fit chair. So I'm
Speaker 1: somewhat informed by history here. The other thing is, look,
Speaker 1: it's probably fair to say, and Megan can guide me here.
Speaker 1: Consistency has not necessarily been a hallmark of this political season,
Speaker 1: none of this political season, but interestingly of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Since his election, one of the things I've been most
Speaker 1: fascinated by is people saying, oh my god, I can't
Speaker 1: believe we have all these generals and Wall Street people
Speaker 1: and in corporate leaders apport to the cabinet. It's like,
Speaker 1: that's what he said he was going to do. He
Speaker 1: was going to go to the military. He believed in it.
Speaker 1: IF and approaching and incorporators, he is actually executed completely consistently.
Speaker 1: He's tweeting policy by tweet this sort of crazy, sort
Speaker 1: of early morning That's what he's been doing all along.
Speaker 1: I think more people now are just wake up and
Speaker 1: seeing it. So I think you're completely right in that
Speaker 1: consistency hasn't been a hallmark of the season written large,
Speaker 1: but of the approach he's taken. This is who he
Speaker 1: is and I definitely don't expect him to change for
Speaker 1: four more years. I'm glad you mentioned tweeting. There was
Speaker 1: a lot of speculation before December's f o MC meeting
Speaker 1: where they finally raised interest rates that the president elect
Speaker 1: would start tweeting about the faith. Didn't happen. Silence from
Speaker 1: the BlackBerry, Megan, Can we infer anything in that? I
Speaker 1: think that you can infer nothing from his tweet policy.
Speaker 1: I think it's more if he's paying attention and what
Speaker 1: the New York Post has said or what he's agitated about.
Speaker 1: You know, he tweets mostly over agitation, so we'll have
Speaker 1: to see. I think that I think nothing is safe,
Speaker 1: nothing is safe, and nothing is not safe from this.
Speaker 1: And I you know, I think only in twenty years
Speaker 1: time where we will be able to look back and
Speaker 1: sort of really evaluate how the political landscape has been
Speaker 1: transformed by people talking about sort of China and drones
Speaker 1: or you know, you know, literally in the only medium
Speaker 1: being Twitter. Dan, I really I think there's a great
Speaker 1: call because again, another one of these calls will be
Speaker 1: able to say this either happened or didn't happen. And
Speaker 1: it's definitely counterintuitive. I've been in the camp that there's
Speaker 1: a big clash that will inevitably see between the FED
Speaker 1: and the administration this year. But I like your contrary
Speaker 1: and take. And just in case people don't realize what
Speaker 1: Dan's call was, for exactly a year ago, Brazil was
Speaker 1: in all sorts of economic and political turmoil, and he
Speaker 1: said that Brazil would recover. And I'm looking at w
Speaker 1: c r S right now on the terminal, which is
Speaker 1: the World currency ranking uh UM function, and the Brazilian
Speaker 1: rail is the second best of the major currents of
Speaker 1: all countries in the entire world, for only the Russian
Speaker 1: bull did better this year. So hats off to you.
Speaker 1: Great call, and that's why we saved the best for last.
Speaker 1: Well he comes to my get out clothes. Oh no, don't, don't,
Speaker 1: don't run it down. You're getting done. No caveats, no caveats.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, thanks everyone, great, great stories and great predictions,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back here next year to see who
Speaker 1: is right and who is wrong ed. Hammond, thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mike Reagan, appreciate you, thank you. Oh thanks,
Speaker 1: and you don't have to score my prediction and I
Speaker 1: definitely will. Max A. Wilson, thanks at my pleasure. Megan Murphy,
Speaker 1: Business Week, thank you, thank you. And Dan Mossara top Echo,
Speaker 1: our top eco person who nailed your twenty sixteen call.
Speaker 1: We'll see if you could repeat it in okay, Joe. Um,
Speaker 1: I've been taking notes. I've got these all down so
Speaker 1: that we can come back in twelve months and see
Speaker 1: whether or not they were correct. I know that's not
Speaker 1: necessarily in the spirit of things, Um, but I can't
Speaker 1: hold back my journalistic impulses to hold everyone to account. No,
Speaker 1: we absolutely have to hold everyone to account, and we
Speaker 1: have to uh publicly shame the people who've got them wrong,
Speaker 1: and the people who got them right. We want them,
Speaker 1: we want to loudly trumpet their brilliance so that for
Speaker 1: the rest of their lives they could say, I was
Speaker 1: the person on the Odd Lots podcast who got seventeen
Speaker 1: exactly right. That's true. That should be on their business cards.
Speaker 1: I really liked some of the specificity of the calls
Speaker 1: that you know that Janet Yellen, will she be uh
Speaker 1: reappointed or not? I mean, that's like a very black
Speaker 1: or white question. Or will Nigel Frage appear on a
Speaker 1: reality show like Dancing with the Stars or something. It'll
Speaker 1: be very easy in seventeen to look back and say
Speaker 1: this was either correct or not. Nigel Farrage Dancing with
Speaker 1: the Stars. Yeah, you can totally that's a good Yeah,
Speaker 1: I totally kind of it's a good one. Um. You know.
Speaker 1: The one that I liked quite a lot was Mike
Speaker 1: Reagan's call on a stock market correction, because you know,
Speaker 1: you can see it's sort of coming towards the end
Speaker 1: of sixteen, the fact that people were getting so enthused
Speaker 1: about all these Trump related things that were yet to happen,
Speaker 1: you know, publishing their outlooks talking about massive physical stimulus.
Speaker 1: Everyone really hanging on to that new market narrative, the
Speaker 1: one we discussed with Mark Cudmore a little bit before then.
Speaker 1: It just astounded me how quickly everything changed, absolutely, And
Speaker 1: I really liked the way Mike brought in laslow Bernis
Speaker 1: framework of the various stages of a bull market. Uh,
Speaker 1: and this idea that what we're seeing now is a
Speaker 1: finely exuberance because we've had an incredible bull market for
Speaker 1: almost seven years now, no more than seven years now,
Speaker 1: and it has a reputation of being a hated bull
Speaker 1: market because people missed it, the most hated, the most
Speaker 1: hated bull market. And it feels like perhaps with the
Speaker 1: latest leg up, that finally some of the haters are
Speaker 1: coming over into the lover's category and that after all
Speaker 1: these games, suddenly now they feel reasons to get bullish
Speaker 1: and that the animal spirits are awake, which is kind
Speaker 1: of hilarious, like maybe you should have had that view,
Speaker 1: uh seven years ago. But Joe, as you like to
Speaker 1: point out, like capitulation is usually the final thing that
Speaker 1: happens right before it all falls apart. So if everyone
Speaker 1: begins to feel optimistic. If the Bears really start to
Speaker 1: go into hibernation, that's probably when we need to be careful. Well,
Speaker 1: on that ut cautious, slightly gloomy note, Welcome to seventeen everyone,
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening, and we'll be back next week
Speaker 1: with another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Joe
Speaker 1: Why Isn't All? You can follow me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: the Stalwart and I'm Tracy Alloway. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tracy Alloway. See you soon,