17 Burst results for "Mister Powell"
The Paul Finebaum Show
"mister powell" Discussed on The Paul Finebaum Show
"To the Paul fine bomb show podcast. Back Matt from San Antonio. AJ? You know why? In our apartment, one of the best cars, Paul. That's one of my key people is real. I never lied to this show. About my life is a lie. AJ is not a fake fake. He's a much a fake, one of the loser Trump who thinks he's on the ring listing, and I'm on my way to upstate fighter and it's going to mark the floor right there. He's not saying he's a loser. That's reason why HA to stop calling this show unless a real car is part of Google Cloud back home to his money. And we're not going to go 8 in four inches. We're going to go with tennis 293 and our chance of delusional bunch of idiots playing games all over one. We're going to market forward them. Paul said, Matt, thank you very much. Jason is up next in Georgia. Hello, Jason. Hey, Paul, how are you doing? We're doing great. Thank you. Saturday down south guy there that you know what they say about opinions. Everybody has one just like something else. That everybody has. And he's excited to debate him, but I think he's wrong. I think not only is more than qualified, like you said, South Carolina auburn, you just heard that out the window. And I think there's something else that people need to think about. Tell you, I don't think my mom is going anywhere for years. So you could build something to stable a long-term and knowledge to keep on rolling. Go dogs. Thank you very much. In addition, he's got great contacts with coaches in the state. He understands the system. There's no transition. He's already there. Kirby smart is well aware he could have gone out and hired a flash coach, but he clearly felt he didn't need it. And it's just amazing to me how everyone is harping on that higher and then dismissing the rest of the hires as being great. Crawford is in Tennessee. Hello Crawford, you are on the air. Yes, Paul, thank you very much for allowing me to come on the air. I have been doing some research on the Internet as far as college football stance and I come up with time month and versus Mike Bobo and these are the stats from the college web way website that I got this from. Starting with Todd monk and his offense for three years averaged 37.33 points per game with 5 and four star players. While the defense allowed averaging 14.83 points per game. Now, OC Mike Bobo last three season, 2012, 2013 and 14 offenses, averaged 38 .6 points per game with four and three star players. With the defense allowing an average of 23.1 points per game, a deficit of 8 points versus defense as far as gorgeous defense. Note that's 1.2 difference. Now, not only that, time of possession, the 2020 21 and 22 offensive time of possession, they had the vowel to minutes and 41 seconds longer than the 2012 2013 and 14 teams. That means you got more than two minutes more of his a play in time, but you still had 1.27 last points per game average. So all in all, the office did better because they had to score more points to make up a difference of 8 points per game. Well, listen, I appreciate the stats, Crawford I don't think they mean a whole lot. I think everyone acknowledges that Bobo's offenses under Mark Rick were very good. The defenses were not. Ship is up next. Hello, chip. Welcome to our show. Good afternoon. Hello, mister Powell. Love your show and watch it every day. How about that? I appreciate that very much. I appreciate your knowledge and your insight. We've been talking a little bit about coach Bobo today and very frankly and I'll ask the question and then let you answer. What is your personal opinion, as far as mister pond, miss fine Bond himself goes on the hiring of coach Bobo, your personal opinion? I think it was a smooth decision. No, it doesn't, it doesn't register on the Richter scale for a wow higher because Bobo has some baggage, but I like the fact that Kirby smart did not blink an eye. Connor said that it was as if the higher was ready to go. And the reason for that is it was ready to go. Kirby smart probably knew as far back as two months ago that monkey possibly would be leaving and I think he made the decision in a split second that he was going to elevate Bobo. And I don't think it has anything to do with him being his roommate or best friend. When you get to the level of Kirby smart, you don't hire people out of loyalty. Not when you're playing, they're playing up on Mount Everest right now. This is not kid stuff anymore. Mister foul law agree with you on that end to be honest with you with Bobo had a little time around monkey and certainly and surely he learned something. Wouldn't you think? Yeah, and chip, I think that's the most important thing that he understands what Kirby smart is doing right now, but I think it's blatantly ridiculous to criticize him for what he did at Colorado state as a head coach and what he did in two quick hits as an assistant coach. Listen, you can take the most talented person at any field and put him in a bad position and they will struggle. I can assure you, I've worked at bad places before. And no matter how hard you try, there's only so much change you can affect when you don't have a good infrastructure. He went to South Carolina as
Tech Path Crypto
"mister powell" Discussed on Tech Path Crypto
"All right, a lively day yesterday with the FOMC meeting and mister Powell and his interesting remarks we'll get into a little bit of that today. Mainly what we want to do today is get into some charting for you. You guys love TA. Well, we've got a TA expert coming in to the show today to break down some Bitcoin. Some Ethereum and a handful of all coins and dive into all that good stuff. My name is Paul Barron. Welcome back into tech path before we get started I want to thank our sponsor that of course is I trust capital. If you're looking at long-term holding, this is the place to do it. And that is I trust. You can do everything there. You can handle your own trades. You can trade and buy gold, though I would do that in my trusty account. I would go with Bitcoin. But you have options here. That's the whole point. And the other thing it's fully self directed, no fees, until you start trading, no fees, monthly for you, so you're not paying them to have an account there. All these kind of things are great and beneficial. The other thing about I trust, which is really good, is secure storage and also a regulated custodian, which is one of the big things that I think we all are very worried about and concern about, again, those are things that they do to really kind of keep your crypto safe. 6.5 billion transactions about almost 200,000 accounts created. So check them out, use our link below. You'll get a $100 funding reward. When you create an account. All right, so I want to welcome in our guest today and that you guys know and we've had him on, I don't know if he's ever actually been on one of our live streams, so let's give him a big welcome. That's mister Thomas crown. How are you, man? Great to be here again. We met in Miami and we did a little recording there. It was great to meet you. We had a good chat. Happy day. It was. Yeah, it's good. We wanted to get you into the show and get your get your alpha on your charts. Tom, because I always love to watch you chart away at night. I'll just get a bourbon set back and watch you watch you go on Bitcoin. That's the way to do it. Yeah, right? I know. Let's talk a little about Bitcoin. Bitcoin spiked above 24 K obviously as chair Powell says, hey man, disinflation, man. There's a lot of it. He said that like 13 times. I think as I was looking at a couple of the reporters afterwards they were kind of looking at them. Anyway, Bitcoin spikes to 24 K seems to be holding around the 23.5 and positive. What are you looking at right now in terms of the Bitcoin charts and what you might see here in the next few days? Yeah, absolutely. I wish I would have been on a few days ago because it would have been maybe a more exciting call, but the charts looking really good, we're seeing sense of a turnaround a little bit, but unfortunately, I think we're at a very pivotal point. And I think that's maybe what analysts always say, but right now, doubly.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Bloomberg surveillance you've been talking about the debt ceiling, the deficit and all that. Well, there's another deficit too. There are twin deficits and part of that is a trade balance. It is pandemic influence. It's been amazing the expansion that we've seen in the trade balance in one symbol of a recovering America has been clearly what we've seen in improvement. At least it's been amazing to see the recovery in the trade balance. Well, a greater deficit, right? And we just got those numbers, $67.4 billion deficit a decline from the prior 61%. To me, this really shows the importance of the relationship between the U.S. and China. We talk about not having certain businesses, but trade is actually coming back and roaring back to the same degree that it was pre-pandemic. To fit this into the math and you get to mister Powell here in the 12 new shower, Michael mckean in Washington. Michael explain why the trade balance matters. Well, it trade balance is a component of GDP and when we have a wider trade balance it subtracts from GDP and at this point it looks like we are widening a little bit. Now the question we have to look at is why is it because we're exporting more or is it because we're exporting less that's the real question and a lot of this has to do with the strength of the dollar as well. It's been a long time since the dollars started weakening and we should start seeing some of the effects of that by U.S. exports rising a little bit more. But it is a component of GDP and it was a component of GDP in the fourth quarter because these are December numbers. So a stronger number, a strong fourth quarter, maybe a little bit weaker because the trade balance trade deficit is a little bit wider. This number doesn't necessarily move the needle like the one that we got on Friday, which definitely changed the narrative in a meaningful way, particularly for fed watchers. What are you expecting to hear from Fred cherry Jay Powell today starting at 1230 p.m. eastern when he addresses the reaction markets and then the subsequent labor market report that was to quote Tom, better than good. Well, Jay Powell is a dignified public servant and I don't think he'll stand up and say, yeah, I was right. But basically that's going to be the message. The fed is going to raise interest rates. The fed is going to keep interest rates high. The fed sees a much rockier path to 2% inflation and a soft landing than the markets have. And now the market seemed to be coming around to that view. So I think Powell will have an hour long question session about the fed and what they do. But I think the message he will walk in with already prepared is we're going to stay the course. And that's the thing he will want people to take away from today. Help me with Michigan on a believe it's Friday on February 10th as well. Will there be value Michael McKee to the Michigan confidence series plural? Well, there's a little bit of value in the Michigan numbers on inflation. If people think inflation is still coming down, then that helps the fed's case for getting to 2%. It is opinion based in large measure on gasoline prices. So if gas prices hang in there, they've gone up a little bit, but if they hang in there at lower levels, it should continue to improve. Then the question is, what do people think of the economy? There isn't a direct link between the confidence numbers and spending, but there's an implied link. It's more coincident than anything else. And so if we see people getting more confident in the economy, then that suggests that maybe a recession is a little bit farther away. Michael mckean thank you so much again with chairman Powell and David Rubenstein in the 12 noon hour today in Washington to another Michael now, Michael darda joins his chief economist Roth mcam. Michael darda, good morning to you. I thought krugman was brilliant at the Nobel laureate. I know you and Paul krugman are always on the same page and he said, look, there's a battle here about is it 70s inflation or is it Korean War inflation where we went up and then we came down, which is it? Are we back to 50 51 and onto the true Eisenhower deflation or is this a more real tangible persistent higher inflation? Tom, I don't think it's either one. I think this was a Milton Friedman money supply aided by fiscal policy monetary inflation, essentially a one time shot that's now reversed. You could see it in the explosion of broad money that never happened in the last ignored it. You could see it when the residential real estate sector took off like a rocket that ignored it in nominal GDP booming at a double digit annualized pace on average last 20 quarters of recovery. So that's the inflation, but it really started to reverse course at the end of last year, nominal spending growth for the domestic private sector was under 4%. So if that persists and this inflation problem is going to go away over time, I figures have been exceptionally weak. So if that's your framework, a more monitor is framework, I think you're optimistic about inflation coming down. If you're in a Phillips curve slack based framework like krugman and most of the FOMC, then you're probably more pessimistic about that. Michael, I look at Olivia Blanchard's new wonderful monograph, probably my book of the summer. I'm not there yet. In professor blond chard talks about the Biden stimulus. Are we still in the Biden stimulus? Is he speaks to the nation tonight? Well, Tom really, the fed determines that with their monetary stance. So they're going to take the fiscal policy that's given to them the feds of rapid adjustment and short term interest rates last year. And that's ongoing. They're going to continue, but just at a slower pace and the ongoing quantitative tightening that will continue in the background. I think is fully offset any additional fiscal tailwinds that are out there. So the fed can always offset a fiscal impulse over time by adjusting its monetary stance and that's what's happening. What is the fed telling us the reaction and function is get to restrictive and then hold their so that growth is below trend. That's how the fed believes inflation is going to come down. So when we get hot data like we did for January on the ISM services and the employment report, which was shocking and jaw dropping, that is simply going to reinforce the fed's resolve. They will slow this economy, probably put us into recession most likely. And if the data surprises you're just going to get a more hawkish fed. So we're kind of in a damned if you do damned if you don't part of the cycle. Shocking a draw dropping. Some people say hard to believe in terms of the labor market report that we got on Friday. How many people called you up and said, you really buy that? A lot of my clients said, you know, they thought something was fishy. I mean, it's really hard to explain those numbers. I mean, conspiracy theories aside. We'll have to see whether those data are revised, whether it was just a flash in the pan. What we know is last year domestic real final sales to the private sector were up less than 1%. Barely barely 1%. And that leads employment growth by a quarter. So these figures didn't really make a lot of sense. Either the economy is just suddenly accelerating, which is going to force the fed to tighten a lot more or these figures are more of flash in the pan and we'll see weakness reassert itself
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Your Bloomberg world sports update, Brian. Dan, thanks very much. Coming up on 45 minutes past the hour, so 15 to the top against his mark cranfield, Bloomberg M live strategists with us to try to make some sense of these markets. So Mark, it seems like we've transitioned into a risk off period here. On the U.S. side, we've got that strong jobs report and the services report and all that. We were already selling off a little bit in Chinese shares. We had a 5% sell off last week. And now we've seen tech stocks in Hong Kong drop about 8 or 9%. How long does this period last do you think? I think Jerome power is probably the guy to take guidance from that respect. I mean, he's been assisting for some time that he plans to keep interest rates high for some long period. And I think people are finally getting that message unemployment report last week, obviously it was so strong it really reinforces Jerome power's hand in that respect. So not only our rate is going to go a little bit higher in the U.S., but now you really has a very strong case for keeping with the rates of 5, 5 and a quarter, 5 and a half, wherever the plateau finally is. Keeping it there for the rest of the year now looks like a very strong position for mister Powell and markets are finally waking up to that fact. It doesn't mean to say that you can't have equity rallies within that, but they're just going to have to price in for a higher short term rate, which some people have been trying to ignore. If you look at the performance in January, it's as though people really thought the fed would be cutting rates this year. That's just not going to happen in drone power quite likely today. It's going to reinforce that message. Mark, the thing here is that if you are going to be data dependent, you got to be looking at you're going to be looking at some very, very confusing numbers out there, which in some ways a counterintuitive. It's about establishing a hierarchy and obviously the fed is inundated with many different reports. They see the whole spectrum of everything that goes on from the small to the beginning of the United States. And they have to decide within that. Okay, what really matters for monetary policy. And clearly, one of the things they've set their stall on is the employment situation. When you've got unemployment rate running well below 4% as it has been for some time, that is an indication that the American economy is not really slowing very much at the important levels, wage rates are still relatively high. They haven't come down far enough, although the CPI numbers are starting to which lower still 7%, which is way too high for the long term. So here's a question of deciding which things matter the most. And there is no way the fed could justify lowering interest rates when you've got unemployment at a three point something handle. Well, we don't know yet whether or not inflation will tick back up. It has been moving down, perhaps more slowly than people would like, but it has been moving down even with this growth that's under the hood. It wouldn't be the, I mean, we've certainly had plenty of times in the past when we've had strong growth and low levels of inflation. Why not now? Yes, I mean, it's quite likely that because of the base effects, these inflation numbers are certainly going to drift lower. When you see low inflation, do you mean the zero to 2% kind of range or Jimmy more like a two to 4% range, which is more like the historical. I think over historical periods, even with rates down there around zero to 3% or so you've sometimes had strong levels of growth and not had a lot of inflation. Yeah, I think this is what the fed is trying to maneuver us into the kind of situation where we have to understand unless there's a massive external shock. We are not going back to 0% interest rates. That's not happening. I think they've learned a lot of lessons from that policy. All they did was stoke a lot of unnecessary euphoria in the speculation in financial markets. So we're not going back to zero rates unless there's a catastrophe somewhere. So the floor for interest rates is going to be higher and that means the floor for inflation will also be higher. Mark, it doesn't really just bring up the point ultimately that we are normalizing interest rates now. Yes, I think what we're getting back to is more like a kind of a long-term average. So I think we're we have to get used to the idea is that the even when there's a rate cutting eventually comes somewhere like two to 3% is going to be the low end of the range not zero and the high end of the range could be anywhere between 5 and 6. That's I think more what you got to look forward to. It's awfully tricky to figure out because a lot of those forces like globalization and technology are still with us that brought rates down. Yeah, of course. But the best gains, the biggest incremental changes
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Growth. They want to see a reduction in growth. Right. Which reduces inflation expectations. All right, next time it's you, me and Tim, and we're going to do that follow up to mister Powell. We're going to be on that. I'm ready. In that audience. All right, Steve Matthews, thank you always economics reporter Bloomberg news via Zoom from Atlanta. Carol master Tim stenbeck, this is Bloomberg radio. Bloomberg radio on demand and in your podcast feed. On the latest edition of the Bloomberg surveillance podcast, the conversation with Julian Emmanuel. Quantitative strategist Evercore ISI, the issue is there's a lot of positioning going on in front of Thursday's CPI. So from the aspect of a cap being on risk assets like we saw basically two hours into yesterday's session, it probably does work. But it could be an entirely new narrative after that report comes out. You're shop invented the synthesis of equity analysis and economic analysis. A guy from Texas did this a few years ago. Synthesize right now that enduring Ed Hyman believed that America clears itself like nobody else. We will get through higher rates. We will get through all the tech layoffs and all the other drama. It's out there synthesize the optimism on your floor right now. Well, point blank, Ed has been of the view a good 9 months now that inflation is going to fall faster than the market believes. And thus far, it's starting to materialize. His full year inflation forecast is two and a half percent. The golden two handle, okay? That is an entire new set of circumstances for the fed to deal with if in fact that's right. And that is probably in and of itself the argument for risk assets that we think materializes at the end of the year. At the end of the year. But none of the beginning of the year. And this is what I wanted to raise, because I actually understand what max Kepner is getting at. People who are saying, wait a second. The data isn't that bad. There has been a change in facts with better than expected weather, warm with an expected weather, and a China that's
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Rate to 5 and a quarter, 5 and a half. And we may well get there in mid 2023. But I think it could be mid 2024 before they even consider adding for a moment. Easing a monetary policy, I think they'll end up keeping the rate at that level for a long period of time and probably surprise a lot of people in the process of doing so. Well, that's the thing. It depends on how you define a mistake, I suppose, because the markets at the moment, as you say, are seeing the fed retreating from a peak in rates next year, whereas the chair himself is maintaining that rates will stay higher for longer. And if you do that, if you keep them higher for longer and it causes a recession, but you beat inflation to summit would be a mistake to summit would be victory. Very, very good, very good statement. I think that's exactly what you should look at it to some of the mistake to some of your victory. If you're trying to fight inflation, it will be a victorious. It will be a victory. If you're trying to stave off recession, it will be you will lose the war. So Dennis, which would be the better mistake in your view. I think defeating inflation will be the better mistake. I think one has to see that anybody loses their job. And one hates to see an unemployment go from three and a half to 5 and a half percent. One hates to see any weakness in the economy whatsoever, but I think we need to see a modest recession to eke out the inflation rate and I think that's the better course of action. We'll see if that's the course that they follow. Mister pardon me, I have a very bad cold, so I'm losing my voice. But mister Powell has made it a bundle of clear that Rachel will stay, as you said, higher for longer than anybody wants to anticipate. And I think it will be at least 2024 before we see any sign of a movement from the other direction of easing the overnight head funds rate. Plus, we have the fact that the fed has almost now about 8.48 .68 .7 trillion balance sheet that they have to run back down to four to 5 trillion reports done taking $95 billion out of their assets over the course of the next four or 5 years, which I think will be deleterious to share prices generally anyway. So the economy has to fight a fed that's going to be tightening policy for a longer period of time than anybody right now wants to anticipate. Well, I was going to ask exactly that point, do you think that the effect of quantitative tightening is not really at the moment, perhaps being factored in I don't think it's being talked about. It should be talked about more seriously. I think it's far more serious than people want to anticipate people who want to think. And that people give it credit for. So I think that the fact that they're going to take and they have to be consistent about it because they made the statement that that's what they're going to do. They're going to be taking $95 billion out every month. That's just if you've taken your foot off the gas pedal for a long period of time. The car will slow down. It has to it can do otherwise. We have a lot of changes that are in our midst at the moment, which could really affect the fed's work is. One thing is this move of reassuring and friend shoring. One would think, I guess, that that is inevitably inflationary because the whole reason you are producing in China and Vietnam as it was cheaper. I mean, it was reliable. It's cheaper. You bring it home, it'll be more costly. The other thing is that maybe the economy because of the pandemic is restructuring and it takes a while for that to play out and then the supply chains and then there's China coming back to perhaps full growth with reopening and so it's a lot it's a lot to consider. You think the next 12 months is just really going to be bumpy. I think the next 12 months will be bumpy. I don't think there'll be, I don't think it will be deep potholes, but I think there will be potholes along the way. The car will bounce as we go down the street. I think that expecting China to do better and to do demonstrably better is an ill advised expectation that they have extreme problems over their demographic problems that are not going to go away for 20 and 30 and 40 years. And real estate profits, and I'm not going to go away for a decade. So I think that we're going to see China be far slower than people anticipate. And the reassuring of please excuse me, I'm sorry. And the reassuring of production of chips of steel of automobiles is going to be something that's going to be with us for a long period of time. My wife and I argue about that all the time. She thinks we should reassure. I think we should have continued to do what we've been doing for the past 20 years, which was to globalize. But right now, I'm losing that argument. And losing your voice, hopefully not, actually. So where does that leave you if you are an investor? I mean, the whole sort of growth versus value debate perhaps is a bit redundant now. What's your take? I'm very, I've been very sure stocks since January of this year. And as the chairman of the university of Arkansas endowment, I got us to move 5% of our portfolio, which in an endowment is a big move. I got us to move 5% of our endowment out to conserve spending capabilities and I got us to move 3% of the portfolio into gold a year and a half ago to hedge against inflationary risks. I, in my own account, I'm reasonably bearish or the equities market, not overtly so. I've been wrong now for the past 8 weeks. I've been right for the past 11 months. I think that the rally that we've gone through since the early September early October has been nothing more than a low volume bear market rally that probably saw as high as in the course of the past several days. And so I'm quite bearish or share prices. We'll see what happens as I've been, like I said, I've been wrong for the last 8 weeks. I've been right for the last 11 months. We'll see if the rightness of the 11 months trumps the a week none problem that I've had. You don't like equities, you do like gold. Do you like bonds here? I'm ambivalent to the bond market. I own a lot of two year notes from my own account and I've been buying them for the past several weeks when you get over to four and a half, four and three quarter percent, four and a half percent. I think two year notes make a great place to store cash. So I have a large position in my own account in two year notes. I don't want to extend out the yield curve. I don't go anywhere past the 5 year to be blunt. So I'm neutral of
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is balance power on Bloomberg television radio. I'm David west and yesterday we had the markets really reeling from what's going on in China. Today, well, they're really a little bit. To take us through it, we welcome now pretty Gupta. So pretty, where are we on the markets overall? So the market has dropped quite a bit. The S&P 500 down about four times the 1%. We were in the green earlier, but not with a ton of conviction. I think that's the game changer here. It's kind of feels like there's some complacency in the market. If you're looking at the volume, you're actually seeing less volume than even last week. I like to look at the 5 day gauge and if you look at the 5 day gauge, volume on the S&P 500 is actually down, but it's up to the tune of 20%, 21% on the NASDAQ, which tells you that from an equity perspective, a lot of the moves that you're seeing in apple and Tesla and Nvidia. A lot of the read through from yesterday's story on China is still really the dominating trade. This idea of production, the idea of how are people going to kind of rejigger some of these supply chains as COVID zero continues to be an also sure caught here on Tuesday between the Monday China store and the Wednesday Powell story. Where are we with what we're expecting out of mister Powell, the chair of and it's a Q&A as well. So the stakes are really high for chairman Powell and that he does actually is going to get kind of grilled by journalists and by reporters. And I think this is crucial when it comes to what the path actually is. Goldman Sachs, for example, is just one of the firms that are starting to say, well, maybe the kind of step down approach and the rate hikes that we're expecting are going to end in early spring. Maybe they're going to go, maybe, June, closer to the summer. So there are some calls out here that this path that the fed is on. It's actually going to take much, much longer, and that's something that it's unclear how you actually price that in. At the end of the day, the terminal rate is still expected to be 5.2. Okay, so fit all that together with some big corporations going to the bond market and raising a lot of money like Amazon, for example. Right. Do they a huge story $7 billion of what the Amazon what Amazon is Tapping the investment grade market for now it's a 5 part deal. And I think this is so important when big tech companies, which by the way, are sitting on piles and piles of cash. That's a legacy of the pandemic. Some of the richest companies Apple Microsoft, for example, this is about a $7 billion like I said, 5 part offering ten issuers are expected to follow suit when you have one of these big companies come in and say, you know what, we're going to tap the market. We're going to try to borrow now because we think rates are going to go higher later. It does kind of encourage a lot of other issuance as well. And this is a big deal for the likes of Amazon that are making these kind of bets. This is their second bond issuance this year. It makes you wonder that even in this kind of macroeconomic slowdown environment, why do you need that kind of cash when you're sitting on so many profits to begin with? Are they going long? I mean, what sort of duration they have in this? And what's going on with the bond market in general, long versus medium versus short? Well, the short end is anchored to the federal to Federal Reserve. And that's what's really crucial if you're looking at a 5.5% terminal rate, which is a call. I saw earlier. Well, the two year yield still has some ways to go to meet that if that's indeed what is pricing it. But so you kind of have to say, look at the front end. There's a little bit of a broken gauge because of that Federal Reserve kind of stamp on it. Essentially, the long end is where it gets really interesting because the longer you go out on the curve, the more risk you're taking, which I think is another reason this Amazon deal is so important because they actually did favor the long end of the curve. So this is really more of a duration play than it is a fed play. One last quick one, we had some consumer confidence numbers out today. Did it make any difference? Not really. I think it was a 100.2 was the reading yesterday. It was a hundred. So it was kind of right on par, but let's see if it holds up. That's going to be the trick into holiday season. Thank you so much. Always great to have you with us. That's pretty Gupta. And you can catch her again anchoring at 1 p.m. Eastern
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Growing up in a country that's told me that I wasn't worth anything and I came from a slave class. But he did not apologize. In San Francisco, I met Baxter. This is Bloomberg, Brian. Made somebody else's fault. The time 8 minutes past the hour, let's get to our guest, Terry spath, CIO at Zuma wealth. So Terry, the schizophrenic nature of the fed statement and the pal commentary suggests to many an issue here of some sort, either mister Powell went too far or they are a divided house. So how does that play out for you? Right, yeah, I don't think they're divided house because the dot plots were pretty consistent, but in the fed continues to be data dependent. The issue is that that's all backwards looking data and they seem in recent years to be picking one mandate rather than both of their mandates. The fed has a dual mandate. It's low inflation and low unemployment. And for years, the message that was that they would let inflation get hot in order to lower unemployment kept rates at zero dumped money into the economy. And that's textbook textbook for inflation. So now here we are on the flip side with red hot inflation and very low unemployment and they seem to be saying, well, we're just going to keep we're going to keep slamming on the break. So I was going to say pedal to the metal, but I think it's really the statement suggested that a pause to assess could be coming and then pal comes out with a sledgehammer. Yeah, it was, I think he really wanted to make it clear. Like, hey, don't get too excited about this. It was interesting because that's exactly what happened is the statement was very much benign in terms of how aggressive they might be with raising rates. And I do think that we can trust to some extent that they'll continue to keep a close eye on everything. But the reality is is that the fed is a blunt instrument. They're not a laser scalpel. And I think when we're talking about 50 basis points versus 75 basis points, we're making the mistake of thinking that this is a laser scalpel and it's not. Well, Terry also, he says that in another, it's a sledgehammer. Well, well, they're doing. I forgot my train of thought actually, Brian. I've got to say, was that, you know, the thing is that they aren't driving so hard to deal with and not just, of course, inflation. But dealing with their own credibility that they could in turn by doing that, it inflict greater pain that's needed. If I monumental pain on the U.S. economy, really resulting them not even being a stage hammer, but being a steamroller. Yeah, I mean, we've got a lot of great analogies going on and I love this. And maybe I'll throw another one in. They're going a hundred miles an hour on a slick road. And slamming on the brakes is just, I think there's a lot of question, at least personally I am as well as this is how we're guiding investors is like, this could be too blunt. When you raise rates essentially 12 times in this year and now they haven't raised it 12 separate times, but they've done 12, 25 basis point hikes. And that is a really heavy so I'll throw the analogy back at you that they're speeding on the slick road. Of course it's dangerous to slam on the brakes, but why are you speeding? We'll continue Terry in a moment. I also want to ask you if inflation working in Starbucks favor gets your attention. Should it get ours? Harry Smith is CIO at Zuma
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Do. Another quarter of the market I wanted to point out, Paul, is the casino operator. So looking over at wind resorts, investment Tillman for tita has taken a 6.1% stake in the resort operator according to an SEC filing, and when shares rallied 5 and a half percent pre market and that's ticker symbol wi. And then looking over at other casino operators like melco resorts and Las Vegas Sands, they also rose after Chinese authorities said that mainland residents can apply for electronic travel permits for Macau starting November 1st. That is really big. Right, so we're seeing shares Las Vegas stands, ticker symbol LBS, up 2% while moko ticker symbol ML CO jumped four and a half percent. So Lisa, when you go to Vegas, what's your favorite? Where do you hang? What's your place? Take me home. I'm not a gambler. You're not. No, this is enough fun for me to be able to just come and hang out. Where would you go? Do you actually? Bellagio. Mister Sweeney, how are you, sir? High roller suite is ready for you, right? The balance. Really, you're really on brand today, Paul. I mean, I love this. You're like, gotta shut out the bankers. You can go to the high roller stable. Fabulous. The last thing I'll add with apparel maker, Haines brands, ticker symbol HDI dropped 4% after Wells Fargo double downgraded the stock to underweight based on rising risks for the macro outlook and the company's balance sheet. Macro outlook for underwear? It is a series that looks also like the lingerie. All right, the whole time going. Things that they have, they have shirts. Do they? Okay. All right. You wouldn't even know that. That means brand shirts, like the undershirts for boys. If you have children, just men, thanks so much for that. We appreciate just and she's our equities reporter here. Cameron price is with a presumably phoning it in again. I mean, the guy hasn't known an office chair. I don't know since when. But camera Christ brings the game here. Cameron, we got a busy week coming up here. We've got your Federal Reserve coming up. We've got jobs. What are you looking for this Wednesday from your Federal Reserve? I disavow ownership first and foremost. Well, I mean, I think they're going to hike 75. And whether smoke there's fire. So presumably, mister Powell will indicate, in fact, as you've done for the last several meetings, that they will eventually move towards a slower quantum, a smaller quantum of tightening, perhaps he'll articulate that more clearly for December. And that's kind of what the market is thinking now. Is he following the market or is he leading the market on that kind of thought there? Well, it depends upon your view of his relationship with mister Timur's of The Wall Street Journal. Okay, wait, hold on a second. Yeah, carry on with that. I want to actually ask you something about that. Please. Because the market was priced, not quite entirely, but quite heavily skewed towards 75 in December. And then we had the Nikki leaks episode a week ago Friday. That suggested for mister Timur's that the fed is thinking about how about talking about how to articulate that they're going to slow down the pace of tightening. The thing is these days you don't know if it's the guy's own view or if he's had a word in his shell like they say. Hold on a second, Nikki leaks. I like that. Make it leaks. I think I'm going to have to have to take that and run. I'm wondering how much this has been an ongoing relationship, right? There's always been a reporter, usually at The Wall Street Journal, it's at the fed is sort of whispering to, right? And that's sort of what people know. Is that a problem for people? I mean, I guess it depends on whether you walk. I mean, what do you work at The Wall Street Journal or not? It's difficult, it's difficult for people like us to have an unbiased view, right? Because we are sort of with a competitor as it were. That happened said, I didn't always work for Bloomberg and I thought it was Mickey Mouse when I was a fund manager. And I continue to think it's Mickey Mouse. Particularly in an environment where the fed is trying to maintain sort of an elevated level of market risk premium. Sort of providing these little hints to the market so that there's no surprise at the meeting is sort of runs contrary to what policy is trying to accomplish. I mean, you're going to surprise the market one way or the other. Why not do it officially rather than with some newspaper article? So taking a setback so that people don't think that we just have sour grapes because I'm genuinely asking this as just sort of a market observer. And it's something that I've been talking about with other fund managers. Again, it is hard to talk about it and sound unbiased. There is a larger question though for Marcus, which is is it really so good for the fed to step down to not raise rates as quickly if they're still going to raise rates to the same level and you do see the pain being expressed by smaller margins and pretty negative outlooks. Well, as we know, the fed is a fan of tapering. We've seen that in the way that they sort of drawn down QE purchases. And I think they're viewing this rate policy through the same, a similar type prism. We don't want to sort of go full gas or the opposite of full gas. We don't want to have our foot jammed on the brake and then all of a sudden lifted off totally. They want to modulate the braking. As the saying goes. And sort of help the economy sort of glide to a slower path. And that I mean, what would you rather have? 50 in December and 25 in January or 75 in December and then saying that's done. The fact is, is that if they do that, then they could actually get quite a significant easing of financial conditions once they say, okay, we're done or the market thinks that they're done. And that might run that's actually runs contrary to what they're trying to still trying to accomplish at the moment. Whereas if they kind of draw it out for a while, there are still sort of that sort of damocles hanging over the markets head. And I guess to a lesser extent the some extent the economy has had, which will kind of keep demand or speculative excess restrained, and that's ultimately what they're trying to accomplish. Just real quick, Cameron. I mean, in any scenario there, this sounds bullish to me. I could see the end of the tunnel here. Well, I mean, why? If the reason that they ultimately stop is that the economy is very obviously juddering to a halt. I don't think that's particularly bullish. I mean, the market
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"It wants to use the new cash to grow its partnerships and launch new ones. Let's bring in strike CEO Jack mallas to discuss Jack. Congrats on the round. What does it mean for you? What are you going to use that pile of cash for? Thank you, my fine sir, I appreciate Bloomberg having me back. What am I going to use the money for to continue to improve payments? We think lightning network in Bitcoin is some of the biggest and most broad stroke innovation in the history of payments and there's a lot to do because it's one of the biggest industries in the world. So it's a cool moment. We're very proud of it, but we have our work cut out for us. And there's a lot, a lot, a lot to do to solve payments globally. Jack, take me back to basics. What is the Bitcoin lightning network? I think it's helpful for the audience to know what it is that it kind of underlines what your company does. Yeah, so we're going to kiss, keep it simple, stupid. The lightning network allows Bitcoin to move instantaneously and at relatively no cost. And to the novice on the couch, you'd probably go like, wow, who's this kid in the hat? Why is that important? I don't care. Yeah, but you might care because Bitcoin is a digital instrument. It's actually value. It's globally recognized as value. And then the fact that it could move in real time and settle instantly is something that no payment network has ever been done able to do in the history of payments. You have payments that actually take weeks to settle. They're very expensive to settle. They involve two to ten parties. And the fact that Bitcoin could be digital global recognizable value and move at the speed of light and at relatively no cost, you have to put your thinking cap on and be like, huh, I bet we can do a lot of cool stuff with that. And from a very high level, that's why the technology is fast hanging. And that's why I founded the company is because we got to use that technology and make it commercially viable for people in the real world to realize those benefits. Jack, we focused a lot on the volatility in Bitcoin in recent months. I'm just looking at a one year chart on my Bloomberg, but if you go from June to where we are now, we've traded in a more narrow range of around 20,000 U.S. dollars. We've called you a Bitcoin maximalist. Give us your take on what's happening with Bitcoin specifically. Yes, I think what's interesting when we think of Bitcoin and payments, we actually use it to escrow value and we don't care about the volatility. So the services that my company offers, we allow you to move dollars over it or Euros over it or any Fiat currency over it. So volatility doesn't matter to our customers because our customers are never subjected to holding the actual asset. Now, as a Bitcoin holder, someone who holds Bitcoin in my portfolio, I mean, what? You want to talk about Bitcoin, you want to talk about Netflix stock or you want to talk about the British pound. I mean, the macro environment is a little bit of a mess and I'm happy to talk about it. But the real main point, this is the one I want to stick. The reason that Bitcoin is an attractive asset and it's an attractive money to hold and it carries the properties that are enticing to someone that wants to store wealth in it, have not changed. And that's by design. No one can change them. And so the theory and the thesis on why Bitcoin is important to the world and increasingly so is as profound and as sound as it's ever been and it will always remain that way. And so I think Bitcoin's got nothing but time on its side. And as the macro environment kind of continues to play a game of twista and figure itself out, Bitcoin is going to do its thing. It's very simple supply demand metrics when you know that the supply is fixed and demands the only thing that sets the price. So Jack Bitcoin is going to do its thing. I think the other consideration we're always focused on the regulators and thankfully fed chair Jerome Powell has been speaking about crypto. Let's have a listen. We think that the Central Bank is and will always be the main source of trust behind money, stablecoins essentially borrow that trust from the underlying issuer and in many cases these are dollars. Stablecoins. So they're really borrowing that trust. Jack, I appreciate he was talking about stablecoins and Alex example, but he's essentially saying that trust has to come from central banks. Your system and your thesis is kind of the opposite of that, right? Yeah, trust has to come from central banks. The guy that runs a Central Bank didn't happen to say that, did he? I mean, come on, let me tell you something. I'm an individual. I'm an American. Trust in money comes from whatever I want my money to be held in and who I want to trust. That's not defined for anyone other than myself. This democracy. I appreciate the comment, mister Powell, but I'm going to decide like who I trust and what assets I want to hold, unless that's all of a sudden illegal or not, is frowned upon. So that's my take. Listen, I like a system that's bounded to the fiscal realities of the world. Money can not just be created out of thin air, creating money can not be free. What do I want the cost to create money? I really like a natural resources that's bound to the physical world like energy. I think that that's an awesome way to understand who gets to create money, the expense to which and create it in a programmatic adjustment in a distributed network to see how hard it is. So I don't know. I mean, call me crazy. I prefer something like that. Right. Jack, we're running short of time, but I want to ask you, and I appreciate talking about the industry with you. But you've just raised money and you're a founder and you're a CEO. How difficult was that in this environment? You sort of crypto volatility aside. What was your experience of raising those funds? Oh man, I mean, I'm 28 years old, and I've learned so much. Listen, running a company is not easy, it's difficult. And building a business around making the world a better place is a really exciting challenge. So health is wealth
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Also the strong dollar and also the fact he can stay in a 3475 ft² three room seat overlooking the elysee Paris you've got a palace you've got your own dining room and it's only €30,000 and I am the ocean. It takes two. Could watch Emily in Paris in your room so I go into New York and expect his Sex and the City. All right, thank you, Leon garands. Now the main event for the markets today is the decision by the Federal Reserve, 75 basis points all but certain, but with an outside possibility of a full percentage point hike. Joining us now is Mark Oswald chief sorry, global strategist and chief economist at ADM in Esther services. Mark, the ricks banks already surprises with its hundred basis point move. We've had all this hawkish talk at Jackson hole from Jay Powell and others. Could the fed do the same? I think it unlikely. Because apart from anything else, the feds and the different place to the right bank and has been very different considerations. The main reason for the fed not hiking by a hundred basis points is it would smack a panic. They've already ratcheted up from 50 to 75. Now, this far in the rate height file to move then up to a hundred basis points, basically would sound like, well, you seem to be responding to a single data point when they're saying they're looking at the bigger picture. And you seem to be panicking and that would definitely send the wrong sort of message to financial markets. Remembering above all that financial conditions have tightened very considerably, we're not in Dire Straits in terms of financial conditions. But if they were to take another bit of precipitous action, you could tip some of those risk assets into a bigger downturn than they're already in. Lots of attention going to be paid to the dark class for future expectations of rate hikes. What are you expecting to see? Will that be where the subtle signaling will be done? Well, there's no real control of it because each member votes for the things in terms of he or she thinks in terms of where the endpoint is. If it comes in above four and a half percent as the end point, then that would definitely upset markets because the price for four and a half and if that happens and depending on mister Powell says above all in terms of could they start to dial back a little bit if economic data allows it. Markets might take that quite well. But a signal that basically actually the endpoint is beyond where markets are pricing would be probably one of the bigger risks for markets. Thinking about the BOE now, traders have ramped up their bets for the BOE as well. They're now wagering two outsize hikes by the end of the year. But the NPC can't do 50 without looking dovish can it given the international context. Well, this is one of those difficult situations. The fed only yaks in terms of its domestic considerations. And I think the BOE would be well advised to think about its domestic considerations because we have this conflict between obviously very high prices, hopefully the measures which are the more detailed measures which are announced on Friday in the fiscal event will help to mitigate some of that. But the economy is weak as the retail sales basically underscored last week and the idea of the Bank of England going twice by 75 basis points before the end of the year to me still seems a little bit like overkill and the economy, which is particularly fragile. What can the government do with its various policy announcements this week to try and avoid a recession? Can it avoid a recession? I think it unlikely, I think it very unlikely. But at the end
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"I have no idea what we're gonna do with this next segment, so I'm gonna throw it to you. Well, I have been waiting for at least a week to get Neil Grossman back in here. Since the fed decision, he has worn many hats on Wall Street as a prop trader at JPMorgan. He took risk for the norges bank, the Central Bank of Norway. He ran a hedge fund. Yeah, for sure. I told you he was in Norway. The road for Cambridge. I saw a great picture from must've been the 70s. Really? Over the weekend. But now he is a vintner and an historical fiction author. Neil Grossman joins us in the interactive broker studio. Neil, I want to get your take first on the fed's inflationary goals because they already were aiming for 2%. A lot of people have a problem with that to begin with. But now we've well overshot that and if we ever want to get the average back to 2%, it's going to take years. Well, let's start with why you should get the average back. Yeah. Mister Powell and before him, mister Bernanke spent a lot of years explained to us that having inflation a little under 2% was not really good. Despite the fact, of course, that this statutory mandate is actually zero price stability. That's just what Congress says. They can do whatever they want, right? Well, we can argue that too. Yes, they do whatever they want. That's not really the idea. But they spent a lot of time and then arguing that they wanted to let the economy run a little hot to push up inflation over to so you could average it. So let's using that as a baseline now that the fact is is that they let it run amok. To get it back to a 2% average, let's use a reasonable time frame like ten years, you're going to end up this year probably about 12 to 14% over what the 2% trajectory was, which means you're going to really have to have inflation average like 1% for 8 years is something like that to get you even close to the 2%. And that's let's face it, kind of a pipe dream. Well, they're not talking about that. Mister Powell has said, I want to get inflation just back to 2%. And let's talk about the probability of what that takes and Paul Volcker got raised into the 20s and it took 25 years pretty much to get a stable 2% ambient environment. I mean, you had your moments down, but for the 90s, we were still averaging three to three and a half percent. That's 5 o'clock. What's on anybody's business other than Congress is? They're the ones who have to say that's not right. I actually think that there's a legitimate reason for having low inflation. It creates an extraordinarily healthy environment done right. It minimizes only Matt and I were doing some calculus this morning about how to maximize the area inside of a fixed geometrical. This is interesting. If you take, I can see doing that. Any four sided shape, right? I would have thought the area, you know, if the total perimeter around the perimeter is, say, 36 inches. I would have thought it doesn't matter. You can stretch a rectangle out, make it a square. It's all going to be the same area. It's not. A square is the maximal area, and any end gone, cube, or whatever else. The maximum area is equal size, which applies to returns on your investments, and it also applies to things like compounding of inflation. So for example, if I say to you over a ten year period, you can choose either 10% returns each year, or you can have 11% this year, 9% next year, 11% of the year after that 9% that year after that 11% that you're after that 9%. You're much better off choosing 10% each year. Okay. In fact, there's an R, I would take the ten inch short 11 9 for eternity and I walk away richer than Bill Gates. But the point is this applies to things like what the fed should be doing to manage the economy. The fed should find reasonable trajectories of GDP, inflation and everything else. And even the stock market and you want to find a sustainable trajectory where you're minimizing the variability, minimizing the volatility. That's actually how you get the maximum long-term. But in their mind, is that I don't think that well, their mind, well, 2% is an interesting issue. 2% is a two factor optimization. They have two mandates, employment, full employment and price stability. And they're not totally consistent. So 2% has become their sort of maximal of both at the same time. They beat that. That was the sad thing. They were ahead of that. About 8, 6, 7 years ago, they didn't like that. All right, as my first sales manager, pain Webber would say, after I went through my big pitch about what I wanted to do with media stocks, he would just interrupt me and say, Paul, are we buying them or are we selling them? What are we doing here? Well, last time, two times ago is on I was short. I went a little long, and yesterday I started going short again. I think the market's got a lot more dances. And by the way, I think this is also quite healthy. You need sort of a washout to equilibrate, and that without that, I think we're going to have a lot more volatility going forward. I think you need to just get some of the energy out of the system and then I think at least for a while, you can be quite positive I remember yesterday I was telling you, Neil, Neil's target for the S&P at the end of the year is 17%. No, no, no. That's my target probably next year. Next year. Or whatever. What? 1776. We're trading at $4000. But think about it. I am a patriot. I get it, but you do honestly think that we're going down. I think we're going down and I think we're going to go down a larger than people. Partially because once you start to go down, because the markets are still functionally long and over invested, the fact is that people have to be forced out and to reduce their exposure. And when that process happens, markets extend an overextend. So you can pick what you want. I think the earnings are too high. That's the I think that the bottom line is that the PEs are too high. And again, going back to one last thing, interest
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"That. Our next guest Dan Jens. All right, he's a CEO, CIO, chairman of this RNC gender capital management. That's all good. And we'll get to the markets there. But there's also a graduate of the University of Southern California. It's like California day. I know, so I have to ask the question Dan and maybe you don't have an opinion, but southern Cal and UCLA are leaving the PAC 12 for the Big Ten. What do you guys thinking? You know, I don't know what they're thinking. The back ten has always been very, very competitive. I think they just kind of don't like the way it's being run and look, when you look at the domination of college football here in America, certainly the SEC has dominated. They don't have any chance to go that way, but they can move a little further east. Just get a little more integrated. And I think they're just trying to increase the level of play. And frankly, get a little more competitive with regards to being able to recruit new players. So I think that's the strategy. We're going to have to travel a little further to go to game. I'll tell you that. I will buy Dan a ticket to a Rutgers game in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Money says he doesn't show up, though. I mean, they're not going to travel to champagne. What does it mean for the rose bowl? I don't know. I don't know. The world experiments. I don't know, guys, but you offer some champagne, maybe some good whisky. And I think we've got a bet going here. He's on board He's on board, all right. Hey dad, we've had a rocky few days here, a rocky 2022, what are you telling your clients here as boy, you know, mister Powell is certainly making good on his interest rate rise regime. Yeah, you know, gentlemen, I've been doing this for 43 years and despite the fact of how much everybody tries, we're just dealing with a very, very classic. You can't fight the fed situation. And we can talk about all the theories behind that, but to basically reality is is that when you're significantly increasing the cost of capital, you're going to adjust PE ratios and that's exactly what we're seeing. I mean, this is not an earnings issue. The economy really is fairly solid across the board, which is also I think what's confusing people. But when you're going to compress margins and you're going to compress earnings and you have this kind of uncertainty, that's why we're sitting at a 16 and a half P right now and it's going to be even though the earnings, look, we're going to be up 9% next year based on projections at about two 43 and we're doing pretty well this year. So this really is not an earnings economic issue. It's a consolidation issue based upon cost of capital and there's not a near term end in sight in that. You don't think that strategists are going to have to bring down earnings expectations into next year. I mean, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America are already warning that because of this interest rate environment, they're going to have to, you know, analysts are going to have to continue to bring the bar, lower the bar. I think they're going to have to, but the uncertainty is that nobody knows where because the same thing was said about this year, yet we're still really on track to be two 30 this year. Because people have raised prices. You've actually not had that much margin compression just because they've been able to raise prices and revenues have actually gone up about 14%. So I think that's really where people keep trying to fight this back saying, hey, what is the fed seeing that we're not seeing? Is that things just don't look that bad? And then when the fed comes out, like Paul did and doubles down and saying, well, we don't really care. We're going to keep slamming on the break here. And you better be careful. Have your seat belt on and all the luggage that's not strapped down to the back is going to come flying forward. So that's what people are looking at. Well, they can. I mean, the fed can continue to raise rates as long as we're looking at three and a half percent unemployment, right? As long as jolts numbers come in, the way they did today, as long as the economy feels like it's smooth sailing, you know, the contraction and growth in the first and second quarter notwithstanding. This is why I don't get how come so many on the buy side don't take the fed at its word. Why are so many people who have been, you know, you're in the market for 43 years, Paul and I had lunch with a guy who's been in this market for 20, 30 years. I know some very big fund managers who've been in this market for 30 or 40 years and they're all fighting the fed, they don't believe Powell's narrative and they think they're going to have to cut in 2023. Well, look, the fed has a long-term history of basically trying to walk back the economy. And I think for a lot of veterans, they are not convinced that they're not trying to do that. I think they're becoming more convinced and certainly the comments this week, which I mentioned kind of double down is that, hey, our foot's on the break and we're going to keep pushing harder. And people are finally getting the message that that's going to happen and the concern is that they're going to over that they're just going to overdo it. You mentioned USC, one of my professors at USC's business school was art laffer. And one of the things that art always said is be careful the bullets that you shoot out there because you're not going to know where they hit the target for 9 to 12 months. And by the time you know where it's hitting the target as the target gets shattered, then you've got another 9 months before you can try to put up a new target and correct it. And so that's what's concerning people right now is to say, hey, are they just overdoing it to get inflation numbers down so they can post that? And what we're going to do is now they're going to take what's a pretty good economy, drive it into a recession and then we're going to see earnings really come down. All right, Dan, 30 seconds, give us your pitch on ENB. I know it's a name you like. Well, look, the energy space and utilities are the only positive for the year. Even though it's having a rough day today, we think it's going to continue and it has the largest North American infrastructure midstream as the biggest gas utility in Canada. You've got a 6.2% yield while you wait at only an 18 PE. It's a good place to hang out and make some money while you wait this out. Energy, love it. It's having its time in the city. And they like healthcare, Gilead. Yeah, I know. They're all over that stuff. We'll talk to Dan about that next time. Dan Jens, CEO, CIO, and chairman of RNC gender capital management. And they like big blue. They do? You know what? The next time we have him on, I want to ask why he's stayed in California this long, 'cause he has been a California devotee and just mentioning art mentioning art laugher makes me think of someone who said, you know what, I'm packing up my bags and moving to a lower tax state because laffer did that, he moved to Nashville. Southern cows pretty sweet. All right, Bloomberg markets brought to you by Commonwealth supporting more than 2000 independent financial advisers with the solutions they need to grow a thriving business Commonwealth. Go where
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"You. That's a Bloomberg business flash, Tommy and Paul. Do you notice Paul that is bit dog goes down and he just reports a short? Yes. Exactly. This is not much to talk about. We need to thank you for that. You're welcome. Let's go. His will, futures up 58. We're watching Japanese young very seriously. Yen is weakened out. This is a global watch for international economics and markets one 36 21. Right now we're that's the only guy in the room who knows who Augustus Freeman's Hawking Freeman Hawkins is and also the gentleman from Minneapolis always Hubert Humphrey is, well, there was Humphrey Hawkins. I still call it that. That was deemed inappropriate and there's now the monetary policy report. Boring is Trump all gonna be boring tomorrow. Anyone of a certain age still calls it. The required the fed chairman to testify twice a year. Thank you for explaining that. And that legislation expired, but they passed new legislation that continue it on, but it's the monetary policy. It was the win of it. 1978, Carter was president. It was a dismal 70s. Is there an equivalency where we are now in chairman Powell is to the grimness prevot? Well, I would go back to the old saying about history doesn't repeat it rhymes. I mean, there are similarities. We call that the Boston Red side. And there are similarities here, but it's not exactly the same. And so the question is, how hard does the fed have to go? The people who look back at 70 say, well, look what Paul Volcker did. And he drove interest rates to 20%. This fed doesn't think they need to do it because if you look at the economy, it's in better shape than it was then, and unemployment is extraordinarily low, so then you get people like Larry summers doing some maths and saying, it could take a 5% unemployment rate to get you there to get inflation down. Jay Paul said 4.1%. So they're in the ballpark, but it's nothing like the 11% we had back in the 1980s when we got 20% fed funds. So fed chairman chow going in front of Congress, how's that different than going in front of you and your compatriots at his periodic meetings when they talk about the fed policy? I mean, more political does he try to, does he have a different strategy? I mean, or is he just trying to survive? Yes, he could. Well, you have all kinds of people. In Congress. The Senate tends to be more serious. The house tends to focus much more on politics. But there will be some politics, no doubt, because there's all these questions about what the Congress should do about inflation, gas tax, et cetera, and he'll get asked, and he'll say, well, we don't insert ourselves into the legislative process you guys figure it out. And then they'll be efforts to say, mister Powell, isn't it Joe Biden's fault? Mister Powell isn't Donald Trump's fault or isn't it Grover Cleveland's fault? Something like that. But the key question tomorrow is how far and how fast do you think you need to go? Whether we get any kind of more complete answer than we got from the news conference. Right. Hard to say. David Goldman, who was a iconic at Bank of America and full disclosure was in my book years ago. Wrote off the Pacific Rim today. That we had a fiscal impulse of 30% of GDP where the normal impulse like that is 20%. How do they pull back the fiscal impulse? Well, the fiscal impulse just dies on its own. Rescue act and that just phased out, basically, and we're falling off a fiscal cliff there. And the people who think that recession isn't inevitable point to that. Exactly. We're going to see some natural slowing in demand because people aren't going to have. Is that what Powell's going to say tomorrow? That's why I brought it up. It may come up. There's senator Hawkins asks. The late great. If he asks, we're going to have some news. Yeah. Actually, he was in the house, but surveillance correct. Yeah. But yeah, I think it's an important point. It's one of the reasons why there's a chance that that doesn't have to go as hard or as far to the other is that we may see the economy. In some inflation that was caused by the pandemic, slow down. Surveillance option, we can always do this with Michael McKee, explain to our listeners coast to coast right now. Why they should care about a week. The yen is unraveling. There's no question about that. That's what the chart says. What's this so what? Well, the problem there becomes the rest of the countries in Asia who trade with Japan whose currencies get stronger and they suffer for that. And then we have the likelihood that the Japanese economy weakens and it's an engine that helps drive the rest of the world with the yen falling. You can import more inflation now. The question is, do they want more inflation? And that's one of the big debates about whether the bank of Japan should get involved because the bank of Japan wants them to get to 2% and stay there. That's been their target forever. Are they doing modern monetary theory? I think they're doing modern Japanese theory. It's their own kind of. Their own kind of thing where they can run big deficits and not worry about it. And control the yield curve. They're still trying to inflation. Devo could play the party. Yep, Mike but you thank you so much. Greatly appreciate that. Seriously, the chairman's the chairman's testimony tomorrow, Paul. I don't think this is routine. I'll be very and we're going to have live coverage of it tomorrow all around starting in the morning. There's going to be some tough, tough questions. On that. And, you know, we make jokes about it, but there's no jokes. Futures, they left there was sort of a feeling across the weekend as pulse Sweeney was stuck in three airports. That we are lifting futures up 59. The Vic's 30.36 and we're watching that weekend. Wow, one 36 21 on Japanese yen. One 15 to one 36
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Creating layoffs It's that impossible but I would say it's a very long shot and it's going to be very very difficult scenario to engineer So what are you expecting in the jobs numbers tomorrow We're going to get a readout tomorrow not just a number of jobs created but also of increases in wages So our base cases that we'll see is 475,000 increase in payrolls There's probably a little downside risk to that given what we saw from the ISM reports But if the number does come in weaker the question that we're going to have to ask ourselves is why are job gains slowing Is it because demand is slowing or because supply is becoming more constrained And I suspect that if there is a slowdown it's very much supply driven That's why the wage number is going to be very important I actually think there's some upside for way just tomorrow Consensus is looking for four tenth increase we're looking for 5 tenths But I think that's the number that will actually drive the market reaction and that's going to be much more important for fed policy going forward If you could help interpret with the yield curves telling us right now because the increase particularly on the long end of the curve is that telling us the markets have some doubts or mister Powell and his colleagues at the fed really can get inflation under control Are they losing some credibility Yeah I think the market today is questioning the fed's commitment and just how serious they are about fighting inflation again The fact that Powell had the option to get to the neutral rate faster and he didn't take it I think that is what the markets reacting to that just increases the odds that the inflationary dynamic will become more ingrained Again without getting to the neutral rate for September that that is actually not really going to start tackling inflation in a serious way until the fourth quarter and then you have policy logs and it's hard to see how inflation can normalize by next year not scenario And so again I think in the end that means likelihood of a bigger over relative to the unit for rate or just a more sustained inflationary dynamic and that's what you're seeing I think in the cell of the long end of the curve today And as I understand it that assumes we know what the neutral rate is even when asked yesterday chair Powell said it's somewhere between two and 3% a pretty wide band As I understand it that's not fixed in stone We're not sure Are we where the new toy is That's very true And keep in mind also longer neutral rate assumes that inflation is at 2% I think what we should really be thinking about is the current neutral rate which is the current rate of inflation or the underlying rate of inflation plus some equilibrium real interest rates was just assumed that that's half a percent but even if underlying inflation is 4% today that still means that the funds rate has a very very long way to go from here And then it finally we also had a decision and announcement from the Bank of England today which stood out in part For me at least because it projected almost no growth at the same time they're talking about something like 10.2% inflation next year Are we looking at the prospect of stagflation here in the United States Because certainly the Bank of England looks like it's contemplating that possibility in the UK So I think the risk of stagflation in the U.S. is much lower than in other countries I think we're actually the ones exporting inflation to the rest of the world This is where it started with fiscal policy We have the underlying wage dynamic that can sustain inflation By creating the purchasing power to allow people to actually pay these higher prices and to boost volumes on top of that that's exactly what we saw in the first quarter And we also have extremely strong balance sheets both in terms of households and businesses So there's a lot of capacity to offset price increases here in the U.S. and I think that means that the inflationary dynamic here will be sustained and that we won't necessarily see demand destruction as quickly as we are likely to see it in Europe and other places And then this is very helpful Thank you for your time today That's anonymous of Jeffries Coming up.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Question But I know that economic research shows that high housing costs for workers are making it difficult for people to live close to where they need to be going for work and it is limiting the ability of people to be in the workforce and ultimately limiting our economy So I will say that last question you mentioned in your impacts essentials like food house and transportation what does this do to the poverty rate increased inflation And because I know unemployment is down does that necessarily mean poverty is coming down or does it stay continue to rise with inflation So those things would have offsetting effects to the extent inflation is going up and people faster than people's wages And that's actually not the case for people at the lowest end of the spectrum because that's where the highest wage increases have been Niagara But to the extent that we're happening that would potentially increase poverty but to extend people are going back to work that would decrease it Thank you Let me show you Thank you very much I'd like to thank mister Powell for his testimony today without objection all members will have 5 legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response I ask mister Powell to please respond as promptly as you are able without objection all members will have 5 legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record This hearing is adjourned All right that was fed chairman Jay Powell testifying to the House financial services committee today Some of that key highlights I took away he says that he does back a quarter point rate hike in the March meeting swipe perhaps that may take off the 50 basis point speculation in the marketplace He also says that inflation should peak this year As it relates to the Ukraine war the fed course impact still unknown So we'll have to play that one out I'm Paul Sweeney sitting in for David Weston for this next hour of balance of power Let's get a reset on these markets with Charlie pellet Charlie what do you have for us Maybe we do not have Charlie pellet where is our friend Charlie pellet We'll see But.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"mister powell" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"As you would like It asked you a question Okay I'm going to support you I'm for you How can we help you I do think honestly we have the tools and we have to use them to we will use them to get inflation under control But to the extent we get help from the supply side it will make that job so much easier it's about labor force supply It's really about supply constraints and shortages and that kind of thing It's also about exogenous events like a war which will drive up the price of oil and gas and that'll get into prices certainly And we'll make sure that it doesn't provoke a cycle of inflation This is what happens when you have to rely on other people for your food cheese and energy Thank you very much miss chairman Thank you mister Sessions You can help Mister Powell by asking your Friends on the Senate side to confirm his appointment The gentleman from George and misses Scott who is also the chair of the House agriculture committee is now recognized for 5 minutes His Democrats David Scott of Georgia Thank you How are you mister Scott I want to sound the alarm here to this morning And I want you to listen to me and I want the nation to because I'm a chairman of our House agriculture committee And I'm very worried about this turmoil over and Ukraine and Russia's violent illegal and criminal action that they're taking and the impact that this has on global trade and most importantly our own food security we could very well be on the verge of a hunger crisis all over this world I want to share with you some research and the nation So we can understand what this Ukraine Russia situation is causing Today Russia alone is producing more than two thirds of the 20 million metric tons of fertilizer use to go corn and wheat around the world One country producing 66% of the fertilizer that is needed and when you combine Ukraine and Russia also these are the two largest exporters of wheat corn and barley producing a quarter of the world's sweet and these two countries Making this impact crisis of soaring magnitude When you have this much and these two countries are warring each other So.