WEBVTT - Bloomberg Wall Street Week: May 20th, 2022

0:00:00.520 --> 0:00:03.760
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week. We turn our attention

0:00:03.840 --> 0:00:07.120
<v Speaker 1>to the markets this week. U S CPI nevers reinforcing

0:00:07.160 --> 0:00:10.639
<v Speaker 1>concerns about inflation. The financial stories that chief are worth

0:00:10.720 --> 0:00:13.480
<v Speaker 1>a really different reaction to Mark. It's more indications of

0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:16.239
<v Speaker 1>just how hot the U. S. Economy really is through

0:00:16.239 --> 0:00:19.520
<v Speaker 1>the eyes of the most influential voices Larry Summers, the

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:22.920
<v Speaker 1>former Treator Secretary, Katherine Keating, CEO of the n Y Moms,

0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:26.239
<v Speaker 1>Sam's l Sharmon and founder of Equity Group Investment. In

0:00:26.320 --> 0:00:30.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg wool Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:34.320
<v Speaker 1>It is a process of choosing political candidates for the fall,

0:00:34.520 --> 0:00:38.000
<v Speaker 1>of strengthening the coalition, confronting Russia, but most of all

0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:41.240
<v Speaker 1>of coming to terms with a tightening FED. This is

0:00:41.240 --> 0:00:45.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. This week's special

0:00:45.960 --> 0:00:49.120
<v Speaker 1>contributor Larry Summers of Harvard on what can get the

0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:53.840
<v Speaker 1>job done? On inflation This is a feature not above

0:00:54.400 --> 0:00:59.680
<v Speaker 1>associated with the tightening of monetary policy. And Tom Tapira

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:02.280
<v Speaker 1>of g t I S Partners on risks to the

0:01:02.320 --> 0:01:07.560
<v Speaker 1>housing market. As interest rates rise, the consumers stretch and

0:01:07.600 --> 0:01:09.720
<v Speaker 1>that is certainly going to be an issue on a

0:01:09.760 --> 0:01:26.480
<v Speaker 1>going forward basis. This week we did a lot of

0:01:26.640 --> 0:01:30.880
<v Speaker 1>preparing recurring to add Sweden and Finland to NATO when

0:01:30.880 --> 0:01:32.920
<v Speaker 1>the leaders of the two countries paid a visit to

0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 1>President Biden at the White House. Well, it's incredibly historic

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:41.560
<v Speaker 1>and this completely reshapes the post called war security alliance

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:48.680
<v Speaker 1>in Europe. Finland and Sweden make NATO stronger. Preparing for

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 1>midterm elections less than six months away, as five states

0:01:52.560 --> 0:01:56.280
<v Speaker 1>held primaries, though in Pennsylvania, Republicans have some more work

0:01:56.360 --> 0:02:01.080
<v Speaker 1>to do, as Senate candidate Dave McCormick explained, Now, we

0:02:01.160 --> 0:02:05.080
<v Speaker 1>have tens of thousands of mail in balloasts that have

0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:08.640
<v Speaker 1>not been counted. But we could see the hath a head,

0:02:09.000 --> 0:02:12.760
<v Speaker 1>We could see Dandre ahead. But no one and I

0:02:12.840 --> 0:02:15.560
<v Speaker 1>mean no one, is preparing harder than FED Chair J.

0:02:15.680 --> 0:02:20.080
<v Speaker 1>Powell preparing for the next round of rate hikes. Inflation

0:02:20.200 --> 0:02:22.960
<v Speaker 1>is coming down. That's what we really need to see. Honestly,

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:25.040
<v Speaker 1>We'll just where we will go until we feel like

0:02:25.160 --> 0:02:28.120
<v Speaker 1>we're at a place where we can where we can

0:02:28.160 --> 0:02:34.280
<v Speaker 1>say yes, financial conditions are an inappropriate place. Equity markets

0:02:34.280 --> 0:02:36.720
<v Speaker 1>this week, believe the Chair, and if that weren't enough,

0:02:36.880 --> 0:02:39.920
<v Speaker 1>then chilling news out of retailers like Target and Walmart

0:02:39.960 --> 0:02:43.560
<v Speaker 1>reinforce the idea that harder times may lie ahead. With

0:02:43.639 --> 0:02:46.000
<v Speaker 1>the SMP down for the seventh week in a row,

0:02:46.240 --> 0:02:49.320
<v Speaker 1>the longest losing streaks since two thousand one, and though

0:02:49.400 --> 0:02:52.160
<v Speaker 1>it flirted with the bear market, it came back late

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:56.560
<v Speaker 1>on Friday, ending just above thirty nine hundred, down three

0:02:57.000 --> 0:02:59.760
<v Speaker 1>overall for the week, while the NAZAC, already in bear territory,

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:02.680
<v Speaker 1>was down another three point eight percent this week. But

0:03:02.760 --> 0:03:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the bond market was a different story, with a tenure

0:03:05.320 --> 0:03:07.600
<v Speaker 1>rallying for the second week in a row, ending up

0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:10.880
<v Speaker 1>with a yield below two point eight percent. Tell us

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:13.000
<v Speaker 1>sort it all out. We welcome to Bob Michael, he's

0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:16.040
<v Speaker 1>ce IO of Global fixed Income, Currency and Commodities at

0:03:16.120 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>JP Morgan Asset Management, and Sarah Maleck, chief investment officer

0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:21.799
<v Speaker 1>at now Vene. So welcome both of you. It's great

0:03:21.800 --> 0:03:23.640
<v Speaker 1>to have you here. Sarah'm gonna start with you because

0:03:23.639 --> 0:03:26.520
<v Speaker 1>it was so much activity in equities this week. What happened?

0:03:26.760 --> 0:03:29.280
<v Speaker 1>Daven There was three key drivers for the market this week.

0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:32.679
<v Speaker 1>First was the retail wreckage, which shocked investors on Wednesday

0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:36.080
<v Speaker 1>because we saw demand destruction. Consumers are not willing to

0:03:36.120 --> 0:03:39.600
<v Speaker 1>pay anything for goods anymore. And secondarily, we finally did

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 1>see that shift in spending from goods to services, but

0:03:42.760 --> 0:03:45.120
<v Speaker 1>it came with a healthy dose of inventory building up.

0:03:45.120 --> 0:03:47.800
<v Speaker 1>On the good side, this is not good for retailer's

0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:50.040
<v Speaker 1>business model. So Bob Sarah says, maybe the faith can

0:03:50.040 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 1>take its foot off the gas on interest rate heights.

0:03:52.320 --> 0:03:53.800
<v Speaker 1>What do we see in the bond market, because we

0:03:53.840 --> 0:03:56.080
<v Speaker 1>had seen that really dramatic ramp up in the yield

0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:57.680
<v Speaker 1>of the tenure and then it sort of plateaued the

0:03:57.760 --> 0:04:00.400
<v Speaker 1>last couple of weeks. Well, David, unlike the equity market,

0:04:00.480 --> 0:04:03.560
<v Speaker 1>the bond market actually found solid footing this week. And

0:04:03.600 --> 0:04:07.360
<v Speaker 1>it all started when FED expectations of rate hikes settled

0:04:07.360 --> 0:04:09.480
<v Speaker 1>at around two and three quarters percent a year. And

0:04:09.800 --> 0:04:12.240
<v Speaker 1>I know that's two percent from where we are now,

0:04:12.520 --> 0:04:14.800
<v Speaker 1>but earlier this month it was at three percent, and

0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:17.040
<v Speaker 1>the concern was that it was headed north to three

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:21.120
<v Speaker 1>and a half or higher. Once FED rate hike expectations

0:04:21.120 --> 0:04:24.479
<v Speaker 1>settled down, the treasury market settled down. You said we're

0:04:24.480 --> 0:04:26.920
<v Speaker 1>at two eighty. Last week we were at three twenty,

0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:29.279
<v Speaker 1>and again the concern was that we were headed to

0:04:29.360 --> 0:04:32.359
<v Speaker 1>three fifty. It feels as though the market is getting

0:04:32.440 --> 0:04:35.560
<v Speaker 1>very comfortable with the narrative that the path to a

0:04:35.640 --> 0:04:39.400
<v Speaker 1>three percent FED funds rate will be enough for now

0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:42.560
<v Speaker 1>to slow down growth and inflationary pressures, or at least

0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:45.080
<v Speaker 1>get the Fed to pause. Now. Look, I'll admit it

0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:49.000
<v Speaker 1>wasn't a perfect bond market. Corporate credit still had a

0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:53.080
<v Speaker 1>tough week, Thanks very much equity market and Sarah. It

0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:56.440
<v Speaker 1>was the lousy earnings that Sarah talked about, and we

0:04:56.520 --> 0:04:59.520
<v Speaker 1>had high yield yielding now eight percent. It started the

0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:03.640
<v Speaker 1>month at seven percent. Bob, Sarah raised, recession. How do

0:05:03.680 --> 0:05:06.320
<v Speaker 1>you see the likeliest recession? I think most people I've

0:05:06.320 --> 0:05:07.919
<v Speaker 1>talked to not over the next twelve months, But you

0:05:07.920 --> 0:05:10.599
<v Speaker 1>go about twenty four months, it's different. I think when

0:05:10.600 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 1>you look at the next twelve months in the US,

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>you still have to get through this summer where there's

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:18.800
<v Speaker 1>a lot of pent up demand for travel and leisure,

0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:22.320
<v Speaker 1>and unemployment is still very low, wages are going up.

0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:24.640
<v Speaker 1>I think when you start to get out eighteen to

0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:27.160
<v Speaker 1>twenty four months, and then you're looking at a lot

0:05:27.200 --> 0:05:30.160
<v Speaker 1>of things, you're looking at where rates will be. The

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>cumulative impact of rate hikes, we think they'll be about three.

0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:37.000
<v Speaker 1>You're looking at the bite that inflation will have taken

0:05:37.040 --> 0:05:39.880
<v Speaker 1>out of the economy. You'll have another year year and

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:42.919
<v Speaker 1>a half of higher inflation than the consumer would like

0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:46.440
<v Speaker 1>to see. You'll have a strong dollar. It's still possible

0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:50.320
<v Speaker 1>for the Fed to engineer a soft landing, but frankly,

0:05:50.480 --> 0:05:54.039
<v Speaker 1>it looks very aspirational when you figure they have to

0:05:54.080 --> 0:05:58.159
<v Speaker 1>battle the highest rate of inflation in forty years and

0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:01.880
<v Speaker 1>drain away the greatest amount of liquidity we've seen in

0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 1>the history of Earth. So Sarah Bob's right, what does

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:07.000
<v Speaker 1>that say to equities? I think you know, for equities

0:06:07.040 --> 0:06:11.040
<v Speaker 1>it definitely leads to more downside in a recession innary environment.

0:06:11.080 --> 0:06:12.880
<v Speaker 1>They have not priced in. And but that's also why

0:06:12.920 --> 0:06:15.159
<v Speaker 1>we're looking for those companies that are less dependent on

0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:17.960
<v Speaker 1>economic growth. That does lead us to growth stocks. They

0:06:18.000 --> 0:06:20.159
<v Speaker 1>have some of the worst returns here to day. And

0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:23.279
<v Speaker 1>then also fundamentally strong sectors. Energy as a sector we

0:06:23.320 --> 0:06:26.960
<v Speaker 1>still like because of the fundamentals tight supply, demands remain

0:06:27.040 --> 0:06:30.520
<v Speaker 1>reasonably strong, and producers are being very disciplined. And then finally,

0:06:30.560 --> 0:06:33.120
<v Speaker 1>dividend growers. If you look at history, companies that have

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:36.120
<v Speaker 1>strong balance sheets cash flow can continue to grow their dividends.

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:39.080
<v Speaker 1>They'll give you that portfolio protection within equities and should

0:06:39.120 --> 0:06:41.480
<v Speaker 1>perform quite well while the friend raises heights and be

0:06:41.560 --> 0:06:44.280
<v Speaker 1>defensive during a recession. Okay, Sarah, Bob, we're gonna be

0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:45.800
<v Speaker 1>staying with us because we want to put some money

0:06:45.800 --> 0:06:47.880
<v Speaker 1>to work here. We're gonna ask them for some investment

0:06:47.920 --> 0:06:50.800
<v Speaker 1>advice given what we are seeing in this tumultuous market.

0:06:50.920 --> 0:07:02.520
<v Speaker 1>That's next on Wall Street we on This is Bloomberg

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:12.400
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. This

0:07:12.560 --> 0:07:14.440
<v Speaker 1>was the week when the stock market stage what it

0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:18.680
<v Speaker 1>you sphemistically calls a correction, plunging below the one thousand

0:07:18.680 --> 0:07:21.720
<v Speaker 1>mark for the first time since mid November. Came amid

0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:24.720
<v Speaker 1>growing investor concern over the state of a dollar at

0:07:24.760 --> 0:07:28.520
<v Speaker 1>home and abroad domestically, how much it's going to cost

0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:32.640
<v Speaker 1>in terms of escalating interest rates on the dollar and abroad,

0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 1>how much it's going to be worth in terms of

0:07:34.840 --> 0:07:39.560
<v Speaker 1>other currencies whose relative value was on the rise. That,

0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:41.600
<v Speaker 1>of course, is Lewis Rock has around Wall Street Week

0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:44.720
<v Speaker 1>nearly fifty years ago. Now remindings of the similarities and

0:07:44.760 --> 0:07:47.000
<v Speaker 1>for them, mat of the differences as well between then

0:07:47.040 --> 0:07:50.080
<v Speaker 1>and now. Sarah Maleck of Nouven and Bob Michael of

0:07:50.200 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 1>JP Morgan have stayed with us. So Bob, will we

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:54.600
<v Speaker 1>come back to you. It is a different time, although

0:07:54.600 --> 0:07:56.800
<v Speaker 1>there are some similarities. I'm not sure I there's a

0:07:56.840 --> 0:07:59.640
<v Speaker 1>correction or we're actually seeing a downright to bear market

0:07:59.720 --> 0:08:02.440
<v Speaker 1>right now. But let's talk about investment in fixed income.

0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Where are their opportunities from your point of view. By

0:08:05.640 --> 0:08:07.720
<v Speaker 1>the way, I hope it's a correction, because if I'm right,

0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 1>I think it took about ten years for the doubt

0:08:09.800 --> 0:08:14.280
<v Speaker 1>to get back up above a thousand from that taping. Look,

0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:18.000
<v Speaker 1>when we look at the repricing in the bond market,

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:20.520
<v Speaker 1>it's been dramatic. For the first four or five months

0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:22.760
<v Speaker 1>of the year. It's been the worst bond market in

0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:25.680
<v Speaker 1>history by a lot of measures. We want to take

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.360
<v Speaker 1>advantage of that. We think it's gone too far. I

0:08:28.440 --> 0:08:31.160
<v Speaker 1>was in Kentucky visiting clients. There was a lot of

0:08:31.160 --> 0:08:34.520
<v Speaker 1>discussion about municipal bonds and there are a lot of

0:08:34.520 --> 0:08:38.199
<v Speaker 1>individual and institutional investors that are looking at muni bonds

0:08:38.280 --> 0:08:41.000
<v Speaker 1>yielded one percent a year and they're now yielding over

0:08:41.080 --> 0:08:44.559
<v Speaker 1>three percent on a taxable equivalent yield that's about five

0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:49.480
<v Speaker 1>and municipal finances actually look pretty good. The other area

0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:52.920
<v Speaker 1>that we're getting back into that looks pretty attractive to us.

0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:56.040
<v Speaker 1>I touched on earlier. It's high yield. You're at an

0:08:56.120 --> 0:08:59.120
<v Speaker 1>eight percent yield, You're at seven percent at the start

0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:01.440
<v Speaker 1>of the month, you are four and a half percent

0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:04.720
<v Speaker 1>at the story of the year. A pretty dramatic repricing,

0:09:04.960 --> 0:09:07.439
<v Speaker 1>and I think a lot of investors have just fled

0:09:07.480 --> 0:09:10.240
<v Speaker 1>the market and forgotten that it's a cleaner market. Six

0:09:10.280 --> 0:09:13.600
<v Speaker 1>percent of the market defaulted away in twenty You've got

0:09:13.640 --> 0:09:17.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot of middle American industrial companies in there with

0:09:17.080 --> 0:09:20.080
<v Speaker 1>great fundamentals. To me, that's where a lot of value exists.

0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:21.760
<v Speaker 1>I want to come back to high yields. But Sarah,

0:09:21.760 --> 0:09:23.679
<v Speaker 1>what about munis, because I think you're interested in those

0:09:23.679 --> 0:09:27.120
<v Speaker 1>as well. Right. Yeah, for fixed income in general, rising

0:09:27.200 --> 0:09:29.200
<v Speaker 1>rates are going to be aheadman, But similar to Bob,

0:09:29.240 --> 0:09:32.160
<v Speaker 1>we don't see rates rising to the degree that they

0:09:32.200 --> 0:09:34.760
<v Speaker 1>have year today. So for fixed income, there are areas

0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:36.880
<v Speaker 1>where you can lean in municipal bonds to do have

0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:39.280
<v Speaker 1>strong fundamentals at the front end of the curve. We're

0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 1>seeing high yields and in taxbill fixed income, we like

0:09:42.480 --> 0:09:45.559
<v Speaker 1>corporate credit those companies and sectors with strong balance sheets,

0:09:45.559 --> 0:09:48.200
<v Speaker 1>but also emerging markets. In hield, you're getting a good

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:50.040
<v Speaker 1>return now, much better than you did in the past.

0:09:50.040 --> 0:09:52.040
<v Speaker 1>So both all of those are areas that we like

0:09:52.120 --> 0:09:56.080
<v Speaker 1>in taxible, fix and munis. So I'm really curious about

0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:57.680
<v Speaker 1>the high yield because there's a lot of talk about

0:09:57.720 --> 0:10:00.720
<v Speaker 1>possible the spreads, as they say, blowing out on high yields.

0:10:00.720 --> 0:10:02.440
<v Speaker 1>So you don't want to be high yields when that happens.

0:10:02.520 --> 0:10:04.240
<v Speaker 1>Are you confident that's not going to happen? And when

0:10:04.240 --> 0:10:05.840
<v Speaker 1>you have rising range, don't you have to be worried

0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:10.000
<v Speaker 1>about some defaults? Um you have to worry about defaults

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:14.600
<v Speaker 1>right before recession. And our analysis shows that any backup

0:10:14.800 --> 0:10:18.600
<v Speaker 1>in high yield credit spreads is a buying opportunity unless

0:10:18.600 --> 0:10:22.040
<v Speaker 1>a recession is imminent. Expecting one two years out is

0:10:22.040 --> 0:10:25.760
<v Speaker 1>an imminent because we know anything can happen. So for us,

0:10:26.120 --> 0:10:29.440
<v Speaker 1>credit quality still looks great. The yield is there. There's

0:10:29.440 --> 0:10:31.680
<v Speaker 1>a lot of money on the sidelines that needs to

0:10:31.720 --> 0:10:35.320
<v Speaker 1>put yield into their portfolios. As long as things remain stable,

0:10:35.360 --> 0:10:38.280
<v Speaker 1>we think that money will come in and support the market. Sarah,

0:10:38.320 --> 0:10:40.480
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned earlier some of the equities you're interested in.

0:10:40.520 --> 0:10:43.880
<v Speaker 1>You mentioned energy for example, you mentioned Microsoft, maybe Costco.

0:10:44.080 --> 0:10:46.480
<v Speaker 1>What makes you interested in those particular sorts of equities?

0:10:47.240 --> 0:10:49.640
<v Speaker 1>So within energy, we love the fundamentals of the sector

0:10:49.679 --> 0:10:53.880
<v Speaker 1>type supply, strong demand, produced discipline. Particularly refiners we think

0:10:53.920 --> 0:10:56.400
<v Speaker 1>can benefit if benefit at this point in the cycle.

0:10:56.640 --> 0:10:58.680
<v Speaker 1>Within the fank socks, we don't think that they're dead.

0:10:58.679 --> 0:11:00.640
<v Speaker 1>You just need to be selective. Look for ones with

0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:04.360
<v Speaker 1>less competition, more of a unique business model. Not only Microsoft,

0:11:04.520 --> 0:11:06.960
<v Speaker 1>but Amazon. They had a very tough quarter that they've

0:11:06.960 --> 0:11:09.880
<v Speaker 1>really in a sense overinvested in their logistics. They have

0:11:10.040 --> 0:11:13.040
<v Speaker 1>no so much control over their global distribution. It's going

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:15.120
<v Speaker 1>to be a positive for them and pay off in

0:11:15.120 --> 0:11:16.839
<v Speaker 1>the long term. We don't look at Amazon as a

0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:19.280
<v Speaker 1>post pandemic SOOFT that's just going to suffer from here.

0:11:19.760 --> 0:11:22.160
<v Speaker 1>So on the on the fixed income side, is there

0:11:22.200 --> 0:11:24.760
<v Speaker 1>a corporate bond sort of tracking of what Sarah just

0:11:24.760 --> 0:11:26.520
<v Speaker 1>said in the equity side, are those the corporate bonds

0:11:26.559 --> 0:11:30.000
<v Speaker 1>you're most interested in? UM, I think it's just so

0:11:30.160 --> 0:11:33.800
<v Speaker 1>broad based. Now everything got thrown away. I wish I

0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:37.440
<v Speaker 1>could say there was a particular market or sector but

0:11:38.040 --> 0:11:41.160
<v Speaker 1>everything cheapened up so dramatically. It's just a matter of

0:11:41.200 --> 0:11:44.240
<v Speaker 1>going in, having the nerve to buy when everyone else

0:11:44.320 --> 0:11:46.640
<v Speaker 1>is selling, and just hanging on for a little bit

0:11:46.679 --> 0:11:48.800
<v Speaker 1>and ride through the volatility. But what if, in fact

0:11:49.200 --> 0:11:51.600
<v Speaker 1>there is more of a chance of recession than we're anticipating.

0:11:51.720 --> 0:11:53.520
<v Speaker 1>How do you hedge against that? How do you protect

0:11:53.520 --> 0:11:56.120
<v Speaker 1>yourself up? Well, I think there are a couple of things.

0:11:56.120 --> 0:11:58.520
<v Speaker 1>One is you have to go up in credit quality,

0:11:58.880 --> 0:12:02.800
<v Speaker 1>because if in fact we do go into recession, then

0:12:02.880 --> 0:12:05.320
<v Speaker 1>you are going to see default rates go up. Then

0:12:05.360 --> 0:12:07.880
<v Speaker 1>there's going to be a flight to quality. So not

0:12:08.000 --> 0:12:10.880
<v Speaker 1>only do you want higher quality corporate bonds, you want

0:12:10.960 --> 0:12:13.840
<v Speaker 1>government bonds again, regardless of the yield. We've seen that

0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:16.920
<v Speaker 1>you could be anything in the government bond market, and

0:12:16.920 --> 0:12:19.040
<v Speaker 1>then you want to still stay in the dollars. So

0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:22.040
<v Speaker 1>those are the kinds of things where you would go

0:12:22.120 --> 0:12:26.320
<v Speaker 1>to a recession became really probable near term. So, Sarah,

0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:28.400
<v Speaker 1>what about the dollar? I mean, we heard there Mr

0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:31.720
<v Speaker 1>Rukheiser so fifty years ago talking about the dollar. Boy,

0:12:31.760 --> 0:12:33.880
<v Speaker 1>we've had a very strong dollar. This week we saw

0:12:33.920 --> 0:12:35.560
<v Speaker 1>maybe a little bit of a backing off in the

0:12:35.559 --> 0:12:37.400
<v Speaker 1>strength of the dollar, do you have a theory on

0:12:37.400 --> 0:12:39.520
<v Speaker 1>the dollar and how does it affect your investment strategy.

0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:42.800
<v Speaker 1>I hate to say anything different than lou Rukheiser, but

0:12:43.040 --> 0:12:45.679
<v Speaker 1>are we are in the camp that the dollars should

0:12:45.679 --> 0:12:48.240
<v Speaker 1>remain pretty strong in the US is a safe haven trade.

0:12:48.440 --> 0:12:51.400
<v Speaker 1>There's so many geopolitical risks out there, from the rush

0:12:51.440 --> 0:12:54.360
<v Speaker 1>of Ukraine's situation to the lockdowns in China and the

0:12:54.360 --> 0:12:56.800
<v Speaker 1>supply chain issues that they're having, and also can that

0:12:56.960 --> 0:13:00.440
<v Speaker 1>monetary policy really have an impact? So we're very selective

0:13:00.480 --> 0:13:02.760
<v Speaker 1>non US. We only like Latin America at this point

0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:06.000
<v Speaker 1>in emerging markets, dollar remains strong as the US raises

0:13:06.040 --> 0:13:08.400
<v Speaker 1>interest race you think that you know that's it's flat,

0:13:08.520 --> 0:13:11.120
<v Speaker 1>that likely remains pretty strong going. So Sara also wants

0:13:11.120 --> 0:13:12.560
<v Speaker 1>to ask you the same question as Bob on the

0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:15.160
<v Speaker 1>equity side. For example, if you thought there was a

0:13:15.280 --> 0:13:17.960
<v Speaker 1>larger chance of recession than you've said so far, how

0:13:18.000 --> 0:13:20.680
<v Speaker 1>would you headge against that? Well, first of all, I

0:13:20.679 --> 0:13:22.880
<v Speaker 1>think market time ring is a loser's game. The market

0:13:22.880 --> 0:13:25.119
<v Speaker 1>can turn on a dime. We've seen that happen consistently

0:13:25.160 --> 0:13:27.600
<v Speaker 1>this week. So we don't recommend people trying to get

0:13:27.640 --> 0:13:29.320
<v Speaker 1>in and out of the market. This is where you

0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:32.880
<v Speaker 1>need to be diversified, disciplined averaging into the market, and

0:13:32.880 --> 0:13:34.520
<v Speaker 1>then you just need to look for those companies that

0:13:34.559 --> 0:13:37.680
<v Speaker 1>are resilient in those sectors where they can continue to

0:13:37.840 --> 0:13:40.680
<v Speaker 1>perform well because they have the profitability, they have pricing

0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:43.880
<v Speaker 1>power to overcome inflation, strong free cash flow, strong balance

0:13:43.920 --> 0:13:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Shee sets where we'd be positioning inequities, say out of

0:13:46.800 --> 0:13:49.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, unprofitable technology companies where you know you might

0:13:49.920 --> 0:13:52.040
<v Speaker 1>have they might have a hard time surviving during a

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:55.560
<v Speaker 1>deep recession. And Bob sort of finally, Warren Buffe and

0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:57.160
<v Speaker 1>others have said, you want to buy when others are

0:13:57.200 --> 0:13:59.280
<v Speaker 1>selling in the reverse? Right right now, as you look

0:13:59.280 --> 0:14:01.280
<v Speaker 1>at the marketplace, where are people selling that you'd like

0:14:01.320 --> 0:14:04.920
<v Speaker 1>to buy, they're making a mistake. Well, I think we've

0:14:04.960 --> 0:14:08.040
<v Speaker 1>talked about corporate bonds. I think that was a big mistake.

0:14:08.400 --> 0:14:10.640
<v Speaker 1>I think there was a lot of selling of municipals.

0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:12.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that was a mistake. I think what

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:15.480
<v Speaker 1>that was the technicals because they had to rap cash

0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:18.600
<v Speaker 1>to pay capital gains taxes at the start of the year.

0:14:18.920 --> 0:14:21.920
<v Speaker 1>I think some of the emerging market debt sectors look

0:14:21.960 --> 0:14:24.080
<v Speaker 1>pretty attractive to me. I'm glad you raised that because

0:14:24.120 --> 0:14:25.800
<v Speaker 1>I was going to ask about outside the United States.

0:14:25.840 --> 0:14:28.760
<v Speaker 1>You think emerging markets maybe attractive on the fixed incomes out, Yeah,

0:14:28.800 --> 0:14:31.800
<v Speaker 1>because they've gone through a rate adjustment. If you look

0:14:31.840 --> 0:14:34.760
<v Speaker 1>at the US, we've done two rate hikes for seventy

0:14:34.800 --> 0:14:37.520
<v Speaker 1>five basis points. If you look at the emerging market

0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:41.640
<v Speaker 1>since the start of we've had something like a hundred

0:14:41.720 --> 0:14:46.760
<v Speaker 1>and thirty rate hikes for accumulative eleven thousand basis points.

0:14:47.080 --> 0:14:50.680
<v Speaker 1>There are high real yields there. They front run the inflation.

0:14:50.800 --> 0:14:53.080
<v Speaker 1>They're in a good spot. This has been a great discussion.

0:14:53.120 --> 0:14:55.160
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much to Bob Michael of JP Morgan

0:14:55.280 --> 0:15:03.520
<v Speaker 1>and Sarah Manic a movine. This is Bloomberg Wall Street

0:15:03.560 --> 0:15:14.800
<v Speaker 1>Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. The housing housing

0:15:14.800 --> 0:15:17.400
<v Speaker 1>a kind of climate and climate and climate housing. We

0:15:17.520 --> 0:15:20.560
<v Speaker 1>all need it. There isn't enough of it, and prices

0:15:20.680 --> 0:15:23.120
<v Speaker 1>are going up. Part of the problem is that we

0:15:23.280 --> 0:15:26.920
<v Speaker 1>never really recovered from two eight. According to Jonathan Gray

0:15:27.040 --> 0:15:31.120
<v Speaker 1>of Blackstone, the challenge on housing has been many years

0:15:31.120 --> 0:15:34.040
<v Speaker 1>in the making. If you step back and look at

0:15:34.080 --> 0:15:39.120
<v Speaker 1>the supply picture, we have been building housing at half

0:15:39.240 --> 0:15:43.760
<v Speaker 1>the rate we did prior to the financial crisis and

0:15:43.840 --> 0:15:47.880
<v Speaker 1>the Fed's monetary support for mortgages has helped stimulate the market.

0:15:48.280 --> 0:15:52.640
<v Speaker 1>It was very hard to understand why when we were

0:15:52.640 --> 0:15:55.160
<v Speaker 1>in the midst of the biggest house price run up

0:15:55.240 --> 0:15:59.600
<v Speaker 1>ever that the FED was by mortgage back securities on

0:15:59.800 --> 0:16:03.760
<v Speaker 1>us substantial scale. But now mortgage rates are pushing the

0:16:03.800 --> 0:16:07.600
<v Speaker 1>other way, climbing back up over five driving the Housing

0:16:07.640 --> 0:16:11.440
<v Speaker 1>Sentiment index down the most since the pandemic, which leads

0:16:11.520 --> 0:16:15.680
<v Speaker 1>Wells Fargo CFO Mike Santa Masino to anticipate softening in

0:16:15.720 --> 0:16:17.760
<v Speaker 1>the market. I think we've seen you know, if if

0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:20.080
<v Speaker 1>it's not the largest increase in mortgage rates in a

0:16:20.160 --> 0:16:22.920
<v Speaker 1>quarter ever, it's pretty close, um, and so I think

0:16:22.920 --> 0:16:25.760
<v Speaker 1>that's definitely going to have an impact on the mortgage market.

0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:29.520
<v Speaker 1>And this week's mortgage applications seem to prove that point.

0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:33.760
<v Speaker 1>Down eleven percent, people are not entering into contracts, are

0:16:33.760 --> 0:16:40.880
<v Speaker 1>trying to buy homes anymore because it costume much and

0:16:40.920 --> 0:16:43.880
<v Speaker 1>to take us through this housing market. Welcome now. Tom Shapiro,

0:16:44.080 --> 0:16:46.760
<v Speaker 1>He's president and chief investment officer of G T I

0:16:46.920 --> 0:16:49.960
<v Speaker 1>S Partners. They manage about four point three billion dollars

0:16:50.000 --> 0:16:52.400
<v Speaker 1>in real estate assets. Tom, thanks so much for joining

0:16:52.480 --> 0:16:54.200
<v Speaker 1>us on Wall Street Week. First of all, I want

0:16:54.200 --> 0:16:56.400
<v Speaker 1>to start with your take on where the housing market

0:16:56.440 --> 0:16:59.040
<v Speaker 1>is right now. We've seen some slowing even this week

0:16:59.080 --> 0:17:01.440
<v Speaker 1>with some new house in sales as well as existing

0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:04.919
<v Speaker 1>housing sales. Sure that first, thank you so much for

0:17:05.000 --> 0:17:07.560
<v Speaker 1>having me on the show. Why don't I just give

0:17:07.560 --> 0:17:10.159
<v Speaker 1>you a little anecdotal evidence of what we're seeing in

0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:13.439
<v Speaker 1>the field right now. Our home sales are down about

0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:17.359
<v Speaker 1>fifteen to but that's a headline number, and you know,

0:17:17.400 --> 0:17:19.480
<v Speaker 1>I think it would be helpful to kind of dig

0:17:19.680 --> 0:17:22.520
<v Speaker 1>a little bit deeper into that number. The reason, for

0:17:22.600 --> 0:17:25.879
<v Speaker 1>the most part is down is because we can't deliver homes.

0:17:25.920 --> 0:17:30.119
<v Speaker 1>We're still having tremendous supply chain issues. Also, we find

0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:32.560
<v Speaker 1>that a lot of home builders are actually holding back

0:17:32.800 --> 0:17:35.520
<v Speaker 1>on the number of homes they want to deliver, and

0:17:35.560 --> 0:17:38.520
<v Speaker 1>that is for a couple of reasons. One inflation because

0:17:38.600 --> 0:17:40.239
<v Speaker 1>costs keep going up and they don't know what it's

0:17:40.240 --> 0:17:43.720
<v Speaker 1>gonna actually cost to finish the house. And and too

0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:47.080
<v Speaker 1>they want to ride up the home price appreciation. So

0:17:47.400 --> 0:17:49.480
<v Speaker 1>I would say, for the most part right now, while

0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:52.800
<v Speaker 1>we see a fifteen to slow down in sales, your

0:17:52.840 --> 0:17:56.240
<v Speaker 1>over year, a lot of that is because of other

0:17:56.480 --> 0:17:59.879
<v Speaker 1>extraneige issues. It's more of a delivery issue than is

0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:03.440
<v Speaker 1>demand issue. With that said, we're definitely starting to see

0:18:03.480 --> 0:18:06.760
<v Speaker 1>a pullback. We're starting to have to go deeper into

0:18:06.880 --> 0:18:09.720
<v Speaker 1>our wait lists. But every house at this point that

0:18:09.760 --> 0:18:12.080
<v Speaker 1>we deliver in the markets were in, we are selling.

0:18:12.680 --> 0:18:15.440
<v Speaker 1>But I think we have to be careful about what

0:18:15.600 --> 0:18:17.480
<v Speaker 1>we see, you know, on a going forward basis, because

0:18:17.560 --> 0:18:19.640
<v Speaker 1>definitely we're starting to see things slowing down. But that's

0:18:19.640 --> 0:18:21.720
<v Speaker 1>a really helpful way of putting up because we're having

0:18:21.720 --> 0:18:24.159
<v Speaker 1>those discussions about the overall economy. Is it supply, is

0:18:24.160 --> 0:18:26.560
<v Speaker 1>it demand? Is I understand you've got a supply problem

0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:29.160
<v Speaker 1>because the supply change. People say that's going to go away?

0:18:29.240 --> 0:18:33.440
<v Speaker 1>Is it going away? And how's it? Well, it's not.

0:18:33.600 --> 0:18:37.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, we definitely have issues. We have problems getting

0:18:37.160 --> 0:18:41.280
<v Speaker 1>trusses and windows and appliances. Um, we're delivering homes with

0:18:41.359 --> 0:18:44.960
<v Speaker 1>plywood windows at times. Um, it's we're having all sorts

0:18:44.960 --> 0:18:47.000
<v Speaker 1>of issues. And of course you know the war in

0:18:47.119 --> 0:18:49.880
<v Speaker 1>Ukraine and what's go on in China and the work

0:18:49.920 --> 0:18:55.600
<v Speaker 1>stoppage is there. Um, the deliveries and transportation is an issue,

0:18:55.640 --> 0:18:57.760
<v Speaker 1>and jobs are an issue, and trades are an issue,

0:18:58.040 --> 0:19:01.960
<v Speaker 1>so it's gotten marginally are but we still have tremendous

0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:05.119
<v Speaker 1>supply chain issues. Uh. And look if you look at

0:19:05.920 --> 0:19:09.600
<v Speaker 1>how many houses were delivering a year in total, this

0:19:09.680 --> 0:19:12.720
<v Speaker 1>is all all forms, it's about one point two million

0:19:13.240 --> 0:19:16.320
<v Speaker 1>housing units a year, which is sort of in equilibrium.

0:19:17.800 --> 0:19:20.520
<v Speaker 1>So Tom, some of the issue can be on the

0:19:20.520 --> 0:19:23.200
<v Speaker 1>demand side. At some point. We've heard about mortgage rates

0:19:23.200 --> 0:19:25.600
<v Speaker 1>going up to what five point five percent something like that,

0:19:25.880 --> 0:19:28.000
<v Speaker 1>so that must affect it to some extent. Are you

0:19:28.040 --> 0:19:30.480
<v Speaker 1>seeing some effects with that because we also have the

0:19:30.480 --> 0:19:32.359
<v Speaker 1>FED is going to start selling off some of those

0:19:32.440 --> 0:19:36.960
<v Speaker 1>mortgeback securities. Yeah, for sure. I mean, look, the consumer stretched,

0:19:36.960 --> 0:19:39.520
<v Speaker 1>so why are they stretched a stretch because of inflation?

0:19:39.920 --> 0:19:42.919
<v Speaker 1>So we have all sorts of issues. We have gas

0:19:42.960 --> 0:19:46.439
<v Speaker 1>prices are more expensive, and we have the costs of

0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:48.719
<v Speaker 1>food is more expensive, and of course, as you point out,

0:19:48.760 --> 0:19:51.680
<v Speaker 1>mortgage rates are our own issues. So the consumer is

0:19:51.760 --> 0:19:54.480
<v Speaker 1>stretch and that is certainly going to be an issue

0:19:54.480 --> 0:19:56.800
<v Speaker 1>on a going forward basis on housing. But we are

0:19:56.840 --> 0:19:59.920
<v Speaker 1>seeing you know, people taking less options, they're going to

0:20:00.040 --> 0:20:03.560
<v Speaker 1>slightly smaller unit types UM and their renting, So we

0:20:03.600 --> 0:20:06.520
<v Speaker 1>aren't necessarily seeing a slowdown at this point because of

0:20:06.560 --> 0:20:09.199
<v Speaker 1>Morgan traits. But again, I think we have to be careful.

0:20:09.280 --> 0:20:11.600
<v Speaker 1>I think, you know, the crystal ball says it's going

0:20:11.640 --> 0:20:13.919
<v Speaker 1>to get a lot worse. We're not seeing it today,

0:20:13.960 --> 0:20:15.359
<v Speaker 1>but I think in the future where I'm going to

0:20:15.400 --> 0:20:19.080
<v Speaker 1>see a slowdown. Um And as I mentioned, so we're

0:20:19.119 --> 0:20:21.960
<v Speaker 1>seeing your over your decline at this point isn't a

0:20:22.000 --> 0:20:25.560
<v Speaker 1>demand issue. But I think we shouldn't kid ourselves that

0:20:25.600 --> 0:20:27.800
<v Speaker 1>we are seeing it again. Our traffics down in a

0:20:27.840 --> 0:20:30.360
<v Speaker 1>lot of our communities. It is starting to slow down.

0:20:30.400 --> 0:20:32.320
<v Speaker 1>So I think we're gonna start to see the slowdown

0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:34.600
<v Speaker 1>common The next couple of quarders, Tom, thank you so

0:20:34.680 --> 0:20:36.520
<v Speaker 1>much for joining us at Waalter Week today. That is

0:20:36.560 --> 0:20:41.840
<v Speaker 1>Tom Shapiro of G T I S Partners. Coming up.

0:20:41.920 --> 0:20:44.359
<v Speaker 1>We wrap up a week with our special contributor, Larry

0:20:44.400 --> 0:21:05.840
<v Speaker 1>Summers of Harvard. This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week with

0:21:05.920 --> 0:21:16.160
<v Speaker 1>David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. This is Wall Street Week.

0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:18.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm David western We are joined once again by our

0:21:18.359 --> 0:21:20.639
<v Speaker 1>very special contributor in Wall Street Week. He is Larry

0:21:20.720 --> 0:21:23.480
<v Speaker 1>Summers of Harvard. So, Larry, this was quite a week

0:21:23.480 --> 0:21:25.720
<v Speaker 1>in the market. You saw equity markets and really selling

0:21:25.760 --> 0:21:28.000
<v Speaker 1>of rather substantially. It's got a lot of people nervous.

0:21:28.400 --> 0:21:31.119
<v Speaker 1>Is that gonna help or hurt the Fed's effort to

0:21:31.200 --> 0:21:34.640
<v Speaker 1>address inflation? I think it's part of the Fed's efforts

0:21:34.680 --> 0:21:40.360
<v Speaker 1>to address inflation. The way monetary policy works is by

0:21:40.440 --> 0:21:44.600
<v Speaker 1>raising the costs of capital and discouraging investment. The way

0:21:44.640 --> 0:21:49.400
<v Speaker 1>it works is by reducing wealth, which reduces spending. This

0:21:49.480 --> 0:21:53.399
<v Speaker 1>is part of the process. This is a feature, not

0:21:53.520 --> 0:21:58.960
<v Speaker 1>a bug, associated with uh the tightening of monetary policy

0:21:59.040 --> 0:22:03.080
<v Speaker 1>that we've had, and the reason I've been reasonably confident

0:22:03.160 --> 0:22:06.919
<v Speaker 1>that the economy will slow down but not so confident

0:22:07.000 --> 0:22:11.520
<v Speaker 1>about just where interest rates will go is because of

0:22:11.560 --> 0:22:16.720
<v Speaker 1>the uncertainty about what economists call the transmission mechanism, how

0:22:16.840 --> 0:22:20.480
<v Speaker 1>large a decline in markets, how much of a discouragement

0:22:20.520 --> 0:22:23.880
<v Speaker 1>of housing you get as rates go up. Well, it's

0:22:23.880 --> 0:22:26.200
<v Speaker 1>at that very point. What is the risk from where

0:22:26.240 --> 0:22:29.119
<v Speaker 1>you see it right now, of the Fed essentially getting

0:22:29.160 --> 0:22:31.480
<v Speaker 1>cold feet as we see the markets really come up

0:22:31.520 --> 0:22:35.200
<v Speaker 1>substantially SMP now really in bear market territory. What's the

0:22:35.280 --> 0:22:37.800
<v Speaker 1>risk that they'll let up too soon on the interest

0:22:37.880 --> 0:22:42.760
<v Speaker 1>rate hikes. Look, there's two risks in a situation UH

0:22:42.920 --> 0:22:46.960
<v Speaker 1>like this, that we overshoot the runway and that we

0:22:47.640 --> 0:22:52.280
<v Speaker 1>land the plane too hard, and those are both very

0:22:52.359 --> 0:22:58.600
<v Speaker 1>real risks in UH this situation. It's a very very

0:22:58.680 --> 0:23:03.080
<v Speaker 1>difficult landing that the FEDS attempted. Is I've said on

0:23:03.160 --> 0:23:06.560
<v Speaker 1>your show before, David, there's never been a moment when

0:23:06.600 --> 0:23:12.000
<v Speaker 1>we had unemployment below four an inflation above four when

0:23:12.040 --> 0:23:16.000
<v Speaker 1>we avoided having a recession within the next two years,

0:23:16.119 --> 0:23:20.240
<v Speaker 1>And that just goes to show the huge difficulty of

0:23:20.280 --> 0:23:24.840
<v Speaker 1>the task UH that is before the FED. My own

0:23:24.920 --> 0:23:29.040
<v Speaker 1>judgment is that it's distinctly more likely than not probably

0:23:29.160 --> 0:23:31.760
<v Speaker 1>two and three or three and four, that we will

0:23:31.800 --> 0:23:35.399
<v Speaker 1>have a recession that will start UH sometime within the

0:23:35.440 --> 0:23:38.280
<v Speaker 1>next two years. When we look at the markets right now,

0:23:38.320 --> 0:23:40.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot of this reaction we think is a reaction

0:23:40.600 --> 0:23:43.160
<v Speaker 1>to the possible of higher interest rates. Is it possibly

0:23:43.160 --> 0:23:46.000
<v Speaker 1>it's actually bleeding over into the underlying economy itself. Because

0:23:46.040 --> 0:23:48.720
<v Speaker 1>we also saw some retail sales numbers that concern people

0:23:48.760 --> 0:23:52.280
<v Speaker 1>from Walmart and from Target this week. Maybe people aren't

0:23:52.400 --> 0:23:54.600
<v Speaker 1>spending as much money. We also have seen some softening

0:23:54.640 --> 0:23:57.160
<v Speaker 1>housing numbers. There are various indications and by the way,

0:23:57.640 --> 0:23:59.120
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the things that people are buying, their

0:23:59.160 --> 0:24:03.480
<v Speaker 1>buying with increase credit card loans. So I think that

0:24:04.080 --> 0:24:08.199
<v Speaker 1>the prospect of recession is looking much more real to

0:24:08.359 --> 0:24:12.920
<v Speaker 1>markets right now than it was a few months ago.

0:24:13.440 --> 0:24:16.320
<v Speaker 1>You see that in UH the way in which certain

0:24:16.359 --> 0:24:19.879
<v Speaker 1>retail stocks have been hammered. You see that in the

0:24:19.920 --> 0:24:26.680
<v Speaker 1>way some credit spreads have UH widened UM and it's

0:24:26.760 --> 0:24:31.400
<v Speaker 1>just you see it in the behavior of the overall

0:24:31.640 --> 0:24:38.200
<v Speaker 1>UH market. So I think you still have UM more

0:24:38.320 --> 0:24:40.920
<v Speaker 1>room to go. And as I say, I do think

0:24:41.040 --> 0:24:46.439
<v Speaker 1>we're unlikely to get out of this with sustained expansion.

0:24:46.680 --> 0:24:48.520
<v Speaker 1>There are some thoughts. There are other ways as well

0:24:48.560 --> 0:24:51.159
<v Speaker 1>to address the inflation problem. One of the suggestions is

0:24:51.320 --> 0:24:55.600
<v Speaker 1>increasing corporate taxes. That's something suggested by President Biden. Mr Bizos,

0:24:55.840 --> 0:24:57.840
<v Speaker 1>Amazon came out against that. You had a little bit

0:24:57.880 --> 0:25:02.640
<v Speaker 1>of a disagreement on Twitter this week. I've been hardly

0:25:02.880 --> 0:25:06.800
<v Speaker 1>consistently supportive of everything the White House has said on

0:25:07.960 --> 0:25:12.359
<v Speaker 1>fiscal UH policy, and now I haven't been consistent with

0:25:12.440 --> 0:25:18.280
<v Speaker 1>everything they've said on policy towards business UH either. And

0:25:18.480 --> 0:25:23.000
<v Speaker 1>I've got great respect for Jeff Bezos as a business

0:25:23.119 --> 0:25:26.280
<v Speaker 1>leader and as an observer of the economy, but I

0:25:26.320 --> 0:25:29.600
<v Speaker 1>didn't really see his point. It seemed to me that

0:25:29.840 --> 0:25:34.080
<v Speaker 1>it was pretty natural to raise corporate taxes so as

0:25:34.160 --> 0:25:38.200
<v Speaker 1>to reduce spending when you had an economy that was overheating.

0:25:38.720 --> 0:25:43.000
<v Speaker 1>And it seemed to me pretty reasonable strategy to try

0:25:43.040 --> 0:25:47.000
<v Speaker 1>to raise taxes to reduce spending in ways that would

0:25:47.040 --> 0:25:51.280
<v Speaker 1>affect the most fortunate people in uh, the society. And

0:25:51.280 --> 0:25:54.280
<v Speaker 1>it seems to me that that's what President Biden was

0:25:54.800 --> 0:25:57.720
<v Speaker 1>is trying to do, and that's what he pointed up

0:25:57.760 --> 0:26:02.919
<v Speaker 1>in his remarks. So I didn't understand why, uh Jeff

0:26:02.960 --> 0:26:07.439
<v Speaker 1>Bezos was suggesting that they were somehow an obfiscation or

0:26:07.520 --> 0:26:13.120
<v Speaker 1>somehow an inappropriate uh kind of commentary. You can agree

0:26:13.240 --> 0:26:18.960
<v Speaker 1>or disagree with the President's policy, but I found Bezos's comments,

0:26:19.119 --> 0:26:22.679
<v Speaker 1>uh to be somewhat off base. Another way that President

0:26:22.680 --> 0:26:25.320
<v Speaker 1>Body suggests we might address some of the inflation problem

0:26:25.440 --> 0:26:28.080
<v Speaker 1>is by more vigorous enforcement and trusts. We had the

0:26:28.680 --> 0:26:31.000
<v Speaker 1>Assistant of Trade General for antitrust this week come out

0:26:31.000 --> 0:26:33.480
<v Speaker 1>and say he thinks he's got some problems with private equity.

0:26:33.480 --> 0:26:35.240
<v Speaker 1>What do you make of the efforts at the FTC

0:26:35.520 --> 0:26:38.560
<v Speaker 1>and the Probate of Justice on a trust front. I'm

0:26:38.680 --> 0:26:44.040
<v Speaker 1>very worried about whether they are in the right direction.

0:26:44.800 --> 0:26:46.679
<v Speaker 1>I don't think there's any question that we need to

0:26:46.720 --> 0:26:50.200
<v Speaker 1>step up INTI trust enforcements in America. I don't think

0:26:50.200 --> 0:26:53.800
<v Speaker 1>there's any question that there are areas where we have

0:26:54.040 --> 0:26:57.879
<v Speaker 1>too much monopoly power that should be process that should

0:26:57.880 --> 0:27:04.679
<v Speaker 1>be prosecuted prince ably, where individual firms are merging to

0:27:04.880 --> 0:27:09.520
<v Speaker 1>get excessive market shares in particular industries, and the budgets

0:27:09.520 --> 0:27:13.119
<v Speaker 1>of those agencies have been allowed to erode in ways

0:27:13.160 --> 0:27:18.159
<v Speaker 1>that are quite damaging. What I think is badly misguided

0:27:18.480 --> 0:27:24.080
<v Speaker 1>and potentially dangerous to our economic future is the set

0:27:24.119 --> 0:27:28.600
<v Speaker 1>of doctrines that people jokingly referred to as hipster uh

0:27:28.720 --> 0:27:36.199
<v Speaker 1>antitrust or the new Brandisians after Justice brandis. That's a

0:27:36.359 --> 0:27:43.560
<v Speaker 1>theory that says antitrust shouldn't be about maximizing benefits to consumers,

0:27:43.560 --> 0:27:50.520
<v Speaker 1>but should be about some other different set of abstract objectives.

0:27:51.160 --> 0:27:55.159
<v Speaker 1>And I think that tilts very easily into a kind

0:27:55.200 --> 0:27:59.840
<v Speaker 1>of dangerous populism. If the head of the antitrust Division

0:28:00.400 --> 0:28:06.280
<v Speaker 1>thinks that there are mergers that are headed towards monopoly,

0:28:06.359 --> 0:28:09.040
<v Speaker 1>he should try to block those mergers. If the head

0:28:09.040 --> 0:28:13.359
<v Speaker 1>of the antitrust Division believes that there are companies that

0:28:13.440 --> 0:28:20.240
<v Speaker 1>are engaged in inappropriate exclusionary business practices, he should prosecute

0:28:20.240 --> 0:28:22.800
<v Speaker 1>those companies. Okay, there are one quick one here. At

0:28:22.840 --> 0:28:25.480
<v Speaker 1>the end, there was a big objection from the shareholders

0:28:25.520 --> 0:28:28.920
<v Speaker 1>to Jamie Diamond's conversation was a fifty million dollar bonus

0:28:28.920 --> 0:28:30.360
<v Speaker 1>that they were going to pay him that they really

0:28:30.400 --> 0:28:33.680
<v Speaker 1>objected to. What did you say that? Look, I think

0:28:33.720 --> 0:28:36.840
<v Speaker 1>taxes ought to be more progressive, and so Jamie Diamond,

0:28:37.440 --> 0:28:39.440
<v Speaker 1>Jamie Diamond and everyone else who makes a lot of

0:28:39.480 --> 0:28:43.320
<v Speaker 1>money ought to be uh paying more in taxes that

0:28:43.480 --> 0:28:46.040
<v Speaker 1>ought to be much harder for them to pass large

0:28:46.080 --> 0:28:50.600
<v Speaker 1>fortunes to UH their kids. But God, if you look

0:28:50.680 --> 0:28:56.960
<v Speaker 1>at what Jamie Diamond has contributed to the market value

0:28:57.240 --> 0:29:02.360
<v Speaker 1>of the share owners of JP Morgan, I don't think

0:29:02.360 --> 0:29:08.000
<v Speaker 1>there's anything unreasonable about his being paid and making as

0:29:08.080 --> 0:29:11.560
<v Speaker 1>much money in a year as a really great pro golfer.

0:29:12.440 --> 0:29:20.400
<v Speaker 1>And uh, so I was surprised at those objections. I

0:29:20.440 --> 0:29:26.000
<v Speaker 1>think the way to get at issues of inequity is

0:29:26.160 --> 0:29:33.520
<v Speaker 1>to have more progressive taxation, more burdensome taxation on the states,

0:29:34.160 --> 0:29:39.600
<v Speaker 1>get rid of a whole set of UH loopholes, but

0:29:40.160 --> 0:29:46.000
<v Speaker 1>driving people out of leading public companies into the private

0:29:46.080 --> 0:29:50.320
<v Speaker 1>sphere away from public companies. I don't think that's smart

0:29:50.400 --> 0:29:53.680
<v Speaker 1>strategy for our country. Okay, thank you so much. Always

0:29:53.680 --> 0:29:55.760
<v Speaker 1>great to have you this. That's Larry Summers of Harvard

0:29:55.760 --> 0:29:59.440
<v Speaker 1>are very special contributor here on Wall Street Week. Finally,

0:29:59.560 --> 0:30:04.280
<v Speaker 1>one more thought, the unknown unknown. That's what Donald Rumsfeldt

0:30:04.400 --> 0:30:07.400
<v Speaker 1>warned about when he was Defense secretary. There are things

0:30:07.400 --> 0:30:10.120
<v Speaker 1>we know, things we know our issues but don't know

0:30:10.160 --> 0:30:12.880
<v Speaker 1>the answer to, and then there are the things we

0:30:12.920 --> 0:30:16.400
<v Speaker 1>don't even know. We don't know. Right now, investors face

0:30:16.520 --> 0:30:21.000
<v Speaker 1>their fair share of known unknowns, like where inflation is heading.

0:30:21.120 --> 0:30:22.840
<v Speaker 1>You know it's not going to be good for a while,

0:30:23.040 --> 0:30:26.360
<v Speaker 1>Whether we're facing a recession next year, every single American

0:30:26.360 --> 0:30:29.480
<v Speaker 1>workers going backwards right at this minute, whether China's problems

0:30:29.480 --> 0:30:33.760
<v Speaker 1>with COVID will continue, our supply chain problems. Clearly China's

0:30:33.760 --> 0:30:36.920
<v Speaker 1>industrial might was slowed by the lockdowns. What the endgame

0:30:37.160 --> 0:30:40.840
<v Speaker 1>is for Russia's war with Ukraine. I think the off

0:30:40.920 --> 0:30:44.720
<v Speaker 1>ramps have gotten slightly narrower. And of course, whether we're

0:30:44.720 --> 0:30:49.280
<v Speaker 1>facing another wave of COVID cases, are organizing hospitalizations arising,

0:30:49.440 --> 0:30:53.479
<v Speaker 1>But those are the known unknowns, Congress has now added

0:30:53.520 --> 0:30:56.360
<v Speaker 1>an unknown unknown to the list we need to be

0:30:56.400 --> 0:31:01.880
<v Speaker 1>worried about UFOs. The House Intelligence Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism

0:31:02.040 --> 0:31:05.480
<v Speaker 1>held hearings this week to get some answers on unidentified

0:31:05.520 --> 0:31:09.760
<v Speaker 1>flying objects. We have seen an increasing number of unauthorized

0:31:09.840 --> 0:31:13.320
<v Speaker 1>and or unidentified aircraft or objects in military controlled training

0:31:13.360 --> 0:31:17.440
<v Speaker 1>areas and training ranges and other designated airspace. And in

0:31:17.480 --> 0:31:20.200
<v Speaker 1>case you wonder why our Congress was so much else

0:31:20.200 --> 0:31:22.280
<v Speaker 1>on its plate, has decided to take up the question

0:31:22.280 --> 0:31:25.400
<v Speaker 1>of UFOs. Fear not, it's been on the case for

0:31:25.520 --> 0:31:29.720
<v Speaker 1>over fifty years now, dating back to Gerald Ford, now

0:31:29.720 --> 0:31:32.400
<v Speaker 1>when he was president, but when he was House Minority

0:31:32.480 --> 0:31:36.240
<v Speaker 1>Leader and organized the hearing after complaining the testimony from

0:31:36.360 --> 0:31:41.200
<v Speaker 1>an Air Force expert calling reported sightings swamp gas was flippant.

0:31:42.000 --> 0:31:44.960
<v Speaker 1>So as you go through your portfolio and consider the

0:31:45.040 --> 0:31:48.760
<v Speaker 1>upside and downside risks, you might want to include the

0:31:48.760 --> 0:31:53.280
<v Speaker 1>possibility of alien intervention. That, as Rod Serling put it,

0:31:53.600 --> 0:31:57.200
<v Speaker 1>we've moved into a land of both shadow and substance,

0:31:57.920 --> 0:32:01.000
<v Speaker 1>between light and shadow. It is an area which we

0:32:01.120 --> 0:32:04.640
<v Speaker 1>call the twilight zone. I'll leave it to you decide

0:32:04.680 --> 0:32:07.160
<v Speaker 1>whether that's a risk to the upside or a risk

0:32:07.280 --> 0:32:10.080
<v Speaker 1>to the downside. That does it. For this episode of

0:32:10.120 --> 0:32:13.000
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street Week, I'm David Weston. This is Bloomberg. See

0:32:13.040 --> 0:32:21.360
<v Speaker 1>you next week.