Bloomberg Surveillance TV: June 10, 2025
28:32 Share

This is an iHeart Podcast.

As a global leader in alternatives today, PGM is capturing the potential of tomorrow. So as you look to diversify your portfolio, PGM offers expertise in seeding, developing and managing a broad range of liquid and illiquid strategies. With over $320 billion in alts across public and private markets, we are helping clients achieve their long-term goals. PGM. Our investments shape tomorrow, today.

How can you grow your business from idea to industry leader? Bring your vision to life with smart business buying tools and technology from Amazon Business. From fast, free shipping to in-depth buying insights and automated purchase approvals, they deliver everything you need to achieve your goals. It's not easy to stand out from the crowd. Simplify how you stock up to get ahead. Go to AmazonBusiness.com for support.

Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts. Radio. News.

This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Farrow, along with Lisa Abramowitz and Anne-Marie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics and geopolitics. From our global headquarters in New York City, we are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from 6 to 9 a.m. Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen. And as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App.

Mike Wilson of Morgan Stanley taking a very constructive view on things, writing, the rate of change has turned for the better on most fronts. This keeps us positive on U.S. equities on a 12-month basis. We expect pullbacks to be shallow and unsatisfying to those looking for a fatter pitch. Mike joins us now for more. Mike, good morning.

Good morning, John. I love the recent note, don't fight it. So let's talk about don't fight what? What elements of the market move shouldn't we fight? Well, it's kind of what we were just talking about. I mean, the headlines remain very noisy and uncertain. And I think, you know, this has been the case for the whole year. Our view, as you know, has been a bit different. We came in thinking the first half would be tougher and the rate of change on a lot of things like earnings revisions and some of the headline would be negative.

And in fact, what we think happens, that all got priced in the week after Liberation Day. It was violent. It was deleveraging. And so now, as we look at the data itself, it's all inflected higher. And so, you know...

Don't ignore everything, but ignoring the headlines is probably a good strategy and just focus on the data has turned up for the most part. And I think, you know, I don't know where the trade negotiations are going. Nobody does. But I think it's very unlikely we're going to go back to where we were, you know, a month and a half ago. Like, we bottomed in terms of the pain of that...

their initial announcement and how bad those tariffs were. So unless it really re-escalates in a negative fashion, I don't think the trade issue is even going to be enough to kind of take the momentum out of this market right now. You know what the bear view sounds like? They would say that maybe some of the data, some of the earnings we've seen have been flattered by pull forward and we'll get the bill for that later this summer. Do you think we're priced for that kind of slowdown, that weakness we could see in the summer months? That's probably right. And we had that view too. There was a pull forward in Q1. Q1 ended up being better than they feared because, you know,

the numbers came down a bunch. I think the second quarter, though, is expected now to be weaker. So that's going to be the key. I think the biggest risk for the market is going to probably be either rates, as we've talked about in the past, north of 4.5%, or we do go into earnings season, it's not as good as people were hoping for, and we have maybe a 5% to 7% correction. But that's not what people kind of want. People want another 10% to 15% drawdown to get more exposure. And I just don't think you're going to get that.

I mean, I've seen this a million times. You want it, but you're just going to have to have a shorter trigger finger. Well, you had seen retail largely buying the dip. That's who participated when you got those ruptures in April. If we're not going to get dips like that anymore, what is the willingness of institutions to continue to put money to work right now, especially they didn't even buy the past dips we saw?

Yeah, I think institutions have re-risked, but there's still more to go. The one area that I think that you have to watch is the systematic strategies, the CTAs, that price momentum money. We saw almost $500 billion of deleveraging in that period of early March through mid-April, and they've re-risked maybe 30%, 40% of that. So that's another bid that's sort of...

It's not fundamentally driven, it's just price momentum. So that's going to be kind of the underlying bit. And then I think most institutions have re-risked. But one thing I haven't talked about yet is people are still making the quality bet. And we agree with that, meaning this isn't the beginning of a new cycle. It's once again an extension of the existing cycle. And the Fed's probably going to be cutting at some point later this year, early next year. And that really behooves the large cap quality equities.

Does it behoove companies specifically who can also wait out some of the tariff uncertainty? Because this had been a big part of the narrative, right? No one's making decisions. CapEx is largely stalled on last year tech. Is there an element where even though we don't have tariffs resolved,

that you get companies who just get on with it and start to put capital to work? Yeah, they've got to run a business. And that's another reason why large-cap quality businesses can do this. They can mitigate some of these risks, whether it's tariffs, whether it's maybe government cutting back on certain types of spending. And one of the things that is getting through this tax bill that I think is still underappreciated is the tax incentives for CapEx.

and R&D spending, we think that could add 3% to 5% to earnings growth or cash earnings for these large multinationals. That's a big tailwind in addition to the weaker dollar. So there's just a lot of tailwinds I see from an earnings standpoint. And this is almost a perfect environment to climb the wall of worry because the economic data, the political, geopolitical data is messy, it's noisy, it's scary sometimes.

but as long as the revision factors for earnings are heading north, it's just hard for stocks to go down. When you say capex, I just think of a handful of tech companies. Do you think it goes beyond just tech leadership? Oh, absolutely. I think this is about capital goods. I think this is not just about AI capex. Also, one thing to just keep in mind, the IT capex that's been good the last several years has really been concentrated just in AI. The traditional...

kind of upgrades you see in the enterprise and in the household have not been happening because there was a giant pull forward, remember, in 2020 and 2021 for work from home. So if you actually look at the IT CapEx cycle from 22 to 24, it was kind of a soft recession. And that's another part of our thesis. We've been going through these rolling recessions. And look, to me, the big catalyst to keep in mind for broadening out is going to be when the Fed starts to signal they're more dovish.

I don't know when that's going to be, but my guess is sometime in the third quarter they're going to start to signal that. And that's when you're going to get more broadening out to the lower quality parts of the market. Does the why matter? Do we need it because inflation has come again? Or is it going to be because the labor market is cracking? Well, I mean, look, last fall it was both. The labor market was cracking last summer. As soon as they signaled they were ready to step in, the market went up anyway. So that's why, I mean, I actually think a recession, if we finally get the broad recession labor cycle,

I don't think the equity markets are going anywhere near the April lows because the Fed will be able to act quickly and we're like Pavlovian, right? And if retail is buying when the Fed wasn't even cutting, if they are cutting, there's going to be a big bid there. So look, there's always risks in the market. There's always something to be worried about. There's always things to be bearish on and there's things to be bullish on. And that's our job. I think this year we've navigated that pretty well, being in the right places. And I think we're going to continue to have to shift what we want to own, not so much how much you want to own.

You've acknowledged the one thing that could be a headwind for equities is interest rates. You wrote about it over the weekend. What is it about 450 that's challenging to this equity market? Because based on the rally we've seen over the past few weeks, we don't see much of a challenge. Well, it's stabilized at 450. So we've identified this level almost two years ago, and it's been like a charm. I mean, as soon as you cross 450 on the upside, the correlation between stocks and rates goes negative.

and vice versa. Now, I do think that we kind of went to 470 in the April period, and then they calmed down again. I think the market is getting comfortable that they have enough tools, because the Treasury Secretary has talked about that, to keep it 450 or below if they need to. And I think we talked about this last time I was here. 475 is like the worst place, because that's where markets get really nervous. 5%

I actually get bullish because then I know that they're going to come and intervene with their liquidity injections or they're going to use these other tools that the Treasury Secretary has talked about. So we're, you know, we're optimistic that that could be managed.

In other words, that risk could be a risk for 5% or 7%, but ultimately that risk will get managed too. Do you get clients asking you now about the debt auctions, asking the equity strategists about the debt auctions that take place in the week? Well, I don't really ask the equity folks, but people do ask about it for sure. And once again, we have seen many auctions, soft auctions for the last two or three years. We've seen this occur, and then they get control of it again. I don't want to dismiss the risk from the back end of the market. That is still, to me...

The risk. I mean, it's the risk not only for markets, it's the risk for the US. Like, we have too much debt. And this is a focus. And if we don't, I mean, ultimately, if we don't cut the budget over time, like, and maybe the market is now giving them a lead, like, okay, we'll give you 12 months.

But if we don't get serious about budget reconciliation and actually reducing the size of the budget over time, this is an issue that's going to stay with us. Mike Wilson of Morgan Stanley. Three words over the weekend. Don't fight it. Don't fight this market, Mike. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

If this government spending in defense goes towards things like R&D that have dual-use civilian purposes, you could get spillovers that actually end up enhancing productivity in Europe and so have a more long-lasting impact on growth.

To learn more about the intersection of national security and global trade, subscribe to PGM's The Outthinking Investor in your favorite podcast app.

How can you grow your business from idea to industry leader? Bring your vision to life with smart business buying tools and technology from Amazon Business. From fast, free shipping to in-depth buying insights and automated purchase approvals, they deliver everything you need to achieve your goals. It's not easy to stand out from the crowd. Simplify how you stock up to get ahead. Go to AmazonBusiness.com for support.

Joining us now to continue the conversation, Henrietta Trace of Vader Partners. Henrietta, welcome to the program. So this was framed quite simply yesterday, going into the room. We were told the U.S. would push to drop some restrictions on their side in order to ease the limits on rare earth shipments from the Chinese side. Now, I guess we've got two options now. Either that's proving more difficult to do as we go into day two, or they're shooting for something much bigger today.

than just that. Is there reason to believe it's one and maybe not the other? Well, I'd like to offer a third alternative and connect a few dots here. I don't think we're talking about tariffs anymore. And I think that's something that the street is coming to understand right now and China has already grasped.

which is that when we got a CBO score suggesting that these tariffs that are in place today are generating $2.8 trillion in revenue, and the White House starts immediately putting out memos incorporating that threshold into their public records,

presentations on the state of the tax bill on the reconciliation package, we're not negotiating for tariffs to come down. The tariffs that are in place today are very likely to continue across all nations, not just China, but Japan, South Korea, the EU. And they're gonna also see sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, trucking, aircraft.

in the months ahead so what they negotiated are the extraneous issues that of course since the Geneva meeting both sides have ratcheted up whether that's on limiting student access to United States for Chinese students or the Huawei chips or AI

or rare earth magnets. They're expanding the scope of this war and no longer negotiating just the tariff rates. I think that they're looking for an excuse to get past Liberation Day, which in this case is in August, and come up with any reason to keep tariff rates where they are while they fight on different fronts.

Henrietta, can they use tariffs as a crutch then? Can they use the tariffs in the negotiation? Or are you suggesting that they are just completely to one side, they will remain, and that's not going to be touched for the foreseeable future? I think they can go up.

I don't think that they're gonna come much further down. 30%, as we all recall, is obviously way lower than the president initially wanted. He gave Besson to go ahead to drop rates down to 80. We know that anything above 50% is effectively an embargo on trade. And 30%, cargo is just now starting to get back to where it was before April 2nd, before Trump took office.

I don't think they're gonna go much lower than 30 percent again that revenue score 2.8 trillion is just too attractive so the threat is permanently there of tariffs rising and I believe they will on a sector basis and I was speaking with another former USTR recently and he suggested that one or two nations could be made an example of Nicaragua for example

But for the most part, these tariffs are here, they're here to stay, and we're gonna have to fight on other fronts. What does that say about negotiations with other countries, Henrietta? When the 90-day pause comes due in July, is it your expectation that we also get a resumption of higher levels of tariffs, something like we saw on Liberation Day?

I don't think so for most nations. I think that the administration is looking for an excuse to extend the July 9th date out into the future. I don't have a good sense of how long they want to extend it out into, 30, 60, 90 days. But one thing that I really can't

square is that the liberation day of 2.0, July 9th, is well before when I anticipate the tax bill passing. So you have this awkward dance between Republican lawmakers trying to pass this bill on the Hill and the July 4th, 4th of July rally that the president is hoping to have.

and then the July 9th expiration date. So I think the dates are a little bit fuzzy and they don't really quite have a streamlined narrative. The tariffs and the tax bill haven't quite blended perfectly. I wonder whether that might come into the conversation. There's one more piece of the puzzle at the moment. As you know, the White House increasingly distracted by what's happening on the West Coast in Los Angeles. Henrietta, do you take the point, maybe make the argument that they're much more comfortable with that story?

developing in Los Angeles. And maybe that takes some heat off the passage of the bill, the tax bill in Washington. Oh, yeah, they got to love it. And the timing is perfect. Tomorrow or Thursday, the Judiciary Committee is putting out their one hundred and seventy five billion dollar package that is going to spend money on immigration. And one of the things that has been lost in the last week of Elon Musk and Donald Trump feuding over Twitter is that the whole

package, the reason we're doing one big beautiful bill instead of two is because there's a tremendous amount of dessert in this bill. There's $350 billion in funding for the military and immigration. And that's what's going to carry this bill over the finish line. I've only seen one senator come out against those spending levels, and that's Rand Paul.

And even he wants some level of spending at 75 billion. He just doesn't think we need the full 175 billion. So I 100 percent expect for this immigration conversation, the raids in L.A., sending in the National Guard advances my odds that the OBBB gets signed into law. When all is said and done, how different will that bill look to what was passed in the House?

It's going to be substantially more deficit increasing. I'd say at least $400 billion more in deficits. The SALT cap is not going to be as generous. The IRA tax credits cannot be cut back as much as they have been. This is just a tremendous job growth in key states that need it, including Alaska and North Carolina, where there's at-risk Republican members. It's going to change quite a bit. Henrietta Trace, Evaded Partners. Henrietta, thank you.

So here's the latest this morning. $119 billion in Treasury notes up for auction this week as traders look to gauge appetite for U.S. debt. Tony Rodriguez of Nuveen writing, long duration is attractive as a hedge for equities and broader risk assets. Tony joins us now for more. Tony, good morning. Good morning, Jonathan. Do you think that more comfortable correlation does return then? Are you seeing signs of that?

We are seeing signs of that. You've seen that in some of the little hiccups we've had in the equity market. And when you think about why that's taking place, it's that we finally have a yield level that's reasonably attractive. And you also have markets that we would argue are fully valued. Whether you look at the equity market, whether you look at risk assets, it's hard to argue anything's super cheap.

So right now, when you're looking at the economy slowing down, rates being high, an investor that's looking for income and a hedge, we think you'll see that rally in treasuries because we think that will really reduce any inflationary pressure that comes into the economy through wage pressures. And therefore, rates can fall in a really negative outcome, which is not our problem.

base case. But in that tail risk, we think it will serve as a good hedge. That's the risk aversion test for the Treasury. Let's talk about the supply test for the Treasury market this week. $4.50, close to that on 10s, close to 5% on 30s. Sufficient levels to bring in that demand when we get those auctions this week?

Yeah, we don't think they're cheap enough to bring in excess demands. You're not going to get the strongest auction statistics you've ever seen. But we think we're at fair value. So we're not expecting to see a failed auction this time. And we haven't really seen that, right? So bid to cover ratios have been okay. The tails have been average. We're expecting a similar story. But everybody's on alert for that first auction that actually shows a really negative soft outcome.

It seems like we've been on alert for a while, Tony, and it has yet to happen. Where it has happened is abroad. You saw weak auctions in Japan, and that was enough to move around the U.S. Treasury market. How fragile and how exposed are we still to international results from auctions and just more generally higher bond yields across the ocean? Yeah, they're very correlated markets. We've seen term premium rise across multiple global markets, right? We've seen yields rising. So very integrated. So we are sensitive to that.

But the good news is that you've seen policymakers also respond to that. So the Bank of Japan responded to that. So their quantitative tightening, they might slow that down. We saw the U.S. Treasury Secretary say that they may consider adjusting some of their supply, you know,

expectations over the coming months. So policymakers are responding to the potential for soft demand and longer duration assets, and that's supportive. - Is that not a problem though, that policymakers have to respond? Tony, this is usually the thing you see in emerging markets.

that there's not enough demand for longer term debt so you get changes or you get inability to actually issue longer term debt. Is the very actions within themselves the fact that they have to do it a problem? Yeah, we don't think it's a problem, but we do think it's reflective of the fact that the fiscal pressures that we are seeing globally, but dominated really by the US right now in terms of 6% to 7% deficits, those are going to be something that has to be reckoned with.

It's just that unlike in emerging market countries where that debt balloon pops and you get an immediate crisis, the debt balloon in a country like the U.S. is more like Japan in the 90s where the air comes out slowly. So the U.S. is not going to, in our minds, have some sort of immediate sharp crisis, but it will have this kind of slower weakening that takes place from

elevated rates that are a weight on growth, that take away some of the supply and ability for companies to finance this attractively. And so that just places a dampener on growth broadly. So it's a slower kind of pain than necessarily a sharp disruption. You said risk assets were fully valued. Does that include credit and high yield?

Yeah, we think it's fully valued in terms of reflecting what are strong fundamentals. So we're not expecting a lot of price performance from tightening spreads, right? We think the carry, the yield, is pretty attractive. You can kind of earn that 7.5% type of return, which is comparable to equities with a lot less risk. And it's reflective of solid balance sheets, good cash flow, right? Defaults that are going to rise, but not very much.

Where we're a little hesitant because spreads are only fair is to go down to the deepest end of the pool. So triple C credit risk might do great if the economy really performs well, but that risk reward is not as attractive as sitting in double B credit, higher single B credit, where again,

fair compensates you for good fundamentals and strong technical conditions. - You could fool yourself into thinking though that there's no concern with the junkiest of credit, just given the issuance we've seen. I think 4 May was the strongest amount of junk bond issuance since October.

There's demand there and there's also taking advantage of a lull. But is it a false sense of calm? Are we tricking ourselves into believing that it is calmness, especially for the more risky edges of the market, especially headed into July where tariff deadlines come due?

Yeah, well, you bring up a good point. So a lot of companies, typically they fail because of lack of liquidity. They're necessarily business fundamentals they can't work through. So that liquidity is very important. The high-yield market had been kind of having below normal supply, and now that's kind of accelerated a bit, but it hasn't gone to an excess level in our minds. It's just gotten back to a normal supply-demand relationship. We think that's healthy. We think that liquidity is going to remain in place. So that's

part of why we think the default story, while we'll see an increase, it's not going to be a sharp rise unless you get a really negative kind of exogenous shock, which could come from tariffs, could come from geopolitical. Absent that, the underlying fundamentals for cash flow and the liquidity conditions are pretty supportive of kind of remaining at these fair value levels. Tony, I've known you for a long time. Just listening to you here, it feels as if April never happened.

And looking at where markets are priced at the moment, it looks like April never happened. Has anything changed for you fundamentally? Yeah, well, yes. What has happened is that the kind of fragility that exists is greater today. So we thought we'd be growing at 2% coming into this year without the April news. Then you can kind of absorb a punch, whether it was oil prices, geopolitical issues.

Now we're thinking 1% growth. So that, at 1%, any shock, a disruption to a auction, for example, that can now push you into recession. So that tail risk has increased for us. So recession risk, 20% coming into the year, 35% now.

Still not base case, but enough to say what gets tipped over into default in that environment, it's those triple C weaker credits. So if they survive, we avoid recession, they're going to do fine. But if we have that little hiccup, that's where you want to be a little bit higher in quality, a little higher in liquidity to give you room to be able to adjust to those weaker conditions. Got it. Tony, appreciate it as always. Tony Rodriguez there of Nuveen on Fixed Income.

If this government spending in defense goes towards things like R&D that have dual use civilian purposes, you could get spillovers that actually end up enhancing productivity in Europe and so have a more long lasting impact on growth.

To learn more about the intersection of national security and global trade, subscribe to PGM's The Outthinking Investor in your favorite podcast app.

How can you free your team from time-consuming office tasks? Amazon Business empowers leaders to not only streamline purchasing, but better support their teams. Smart business buying tools enable buyers to find and purchase items fast so they can focus on strategy and growth. It's time to free up your teams and focus on your future. Learn more about the technology, insights, and support available at AmazonBusiness.com. ♪

Matt Lazzari at Deutsche Bank is with us around the table. Matt, good morning. Good morning. It's good to see you, sir. Let's talk about whether it's too early to see that kind of inflationary impact from the tariffs tomorrow or not. Is it? So I think from a broad-based perspective, it likely is. I think if you look back to the previous CPI, you began to see it showing up in some of the data points.

But that's been offset by some of the discretionary services item where we've seen weakness such as airfares. You saw it in the PPI data last month and it typically takes a few months for that really to begin to show up into the CPI. And so our baseline expectation is you have a little bit more evidence of it in tomorrow's print, but really it takes the June, July and then August data to get stronger evidence of tariff pass though. What would you need to see to say, you know what, I think this would be sustained, this could be sticky, it's not a one-off shock?

So I think it's going to be hard in this environment. I think typically what, you know, if you go back to what we saw in the post-COVID environment, initially there was this view that it might be transitory or temporary. And that view was dominated by the fact that it was narrow on a few items, used cars, other core goods at that point in time. I think to think about it being stickier, you want to see it broadening out across the basket. So probably not just in core goods items that you can readily identify for tariff effects,

But other items, so for example, as you get vehicle tariffs, you're likely to see car repair pick up with some lag. Car insurance inflation is going to pick up alongside of that. I think those are the effects that you'd want to see to get some sense that it's a little bit stickier than anticipated.

There was an expectation that in this 90-day pause with China that you'd see a lot of shipments come in that people would front run it and make the data messy, etc. We haven't really seen that. There hasn't been a lot of action in the ports. Is this still an economy in suspended animation and when does that change if so?

I think for a lot of ways it is. Now a lot of this halting or stalling out is just give back for surge in imports that we had in Q1. And so particularly in the trade data, you've had this massive volatility where net exports were very weak in Q1 are going to be very strong in Q2, lifting the GDP data.

But I think the market kind of understands that. I think we're now in an environment of where's the pass-through to the other components of especially what the Fed cares about. The labor market, are we seeing layoffs take place and hiring dip? So far I think the answer is not yes. Last week's jobs report was mixed but resilient enough I think for the market.

And then secondarily, when we begin to see it in the inflation data. Again, I think we've seen in the PPI data so far, still waiting to see it for the CPI. We're not surprised that you haven't seen it yet. Our baseline expectation, if you go back to 2018, 2019, is that it was always going to take until the June, July, and August data to see the effects. I just want to flag some of the language you used when you asked, has there been weakness in the labor market? You said not yes. You didn't say no. Are there pockets of weakness that you're looking at that you're concerned might bubble up into something more concerning?

I think you still have this labor market which has been identified by a low hiring and firing environment. If you look at the JOLTS data last week, the hiring rate remains low, but layoffs remain extraordinarily low as well.

That's always been a fragile equilibrium. Now, nothing has broken. That equilibrium has persisted. But there was worries, at least initially, that the tariff shock, the uncertainty that's come along with it, if financial conditions were tightening, that could lead to the layoffs that could kind of break that fragile equilibrium with the labor market weakening more materially. We didn't see that last week. But I think that's still a risk as you look ahead. You mentioned something in a recent note about interest rates maybe stabilizing around 400%.

to 4.5%. Can we sit on that story just for a moment? I thought it was a fascinating note. Do you think we've adapted, fully adapted to an interest rate with something close to 4%? And what does that tell you about how much this Fed might cut if we see some weakness down the road? Yeah, so I think the main chart of that piece was showing, if you look at where the Fed funds rate has been, we've been at 4.3% since December. If you look at headline PC inflation, at least, it's at 2.1%, basically within spitting distance of the Fed's target.

And you look at the unemployment rate, we've been stuck at 4.2% for several months at this point. That 4.2% is exactly in line with what the Fed thinks the long-run unemployment rate is. And so if you look at that chart, it looks like you've settled into what economists would call a steady state for the economy. It actually looks like you've simulated the economy through a model where you're at kind of equilibrium and everything is working its way out. Now, we've been in the higher star camp for a while. We've pegged at the nominal neutral rate between 3.5%

and three and three quarters. So we've always expected this cutting cycle to be shallower. But we're just proposing the possibility that there's not much evidence that we're very far away from neutral at the moment. This conversation was kicked to the sidelines because of the tariff story over the last few months. I get all that. But is the Fed moving towards you? Do you see the Fed moving closer towards you in the coming meetings? I think so. And we'll get maybe some evidence of that next week. We'll get the dot plot next week where I think there's broader expectations that the Fed will signal a more hawkish stance.

We'll be looking at the long run dot. Does that continue to migrate higher? My guess is that it does. So they've been at 3% for the long run nominal neutral. That probably continues to move higher. I think the balance of estimates that we look at are kind of closer to 3.5%. But I think to really fully embrace the idea that neutral is materially higher, you have to get beyond the tariff concerns

the uncertainty shock that we've had and have a labor market that still looks resilient three to four months ahead. - Since you took us to next Wednesday, let's sit on next Wednesday. How useful is the rest of the SEP from the Federal Reserve?

I think it's an environment where, you know, the Chair Powell likes to, I think, downplay the signal from the SEP when it's kind of convenient. This will be an environment where it's probably very convenient. I think the market will, you know, if they only show one cut next week, which I think is broadly anticipated, the market will move to what next year's forecasts show. Does inflation rise a little bit? Are they showing some stickiness there? Are they showing less cuts through next year? I think

I think that that could signal kind of a more hawkish stance, but I would also anticipate that Chair Powell kind of tries to walk that back in the press conference. I think they don't know, we don't have huge confidence about what policy's gonna do this year because there's still tariff-related uncertainty, fiscal policy uncertainty.

a view towards next year about policy is going to be very fragile. He's not going to be there through much of 2026. Does that complicate signaling at the top of the Federal Reserve? I think for now, they're kind of more focused on the near term. And so they're sending a strong signal that they're in a wait-and-see mode, that they're well-positioned to respond to risks. And I think that signal will continue. You know, certainly over the summer months, as perhaps you get some evidence of who is

President Trump may appoint to the board, I would expect that in replacement of Governor Kugler in January, that that could be the next potential Fed chair. Certainly the market focus will shift to that. Matt Lozelli, F. Deutsche Bank. Matt, appreciate your time.

This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics and geopolitics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from 6am to 9am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen. And as always on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business Hour.

In business, plans change fast and your brand has to keep up. That's why teams rely on 4imprint for promotional products that deliver. 4imprint offers thousands of options including apparel, drinkware, tech, and trade show gear. Many available with 24-hour turnaround, helping you move quickly and never compromise in quality. You'll enjoy free samples, expert support, and every order back by their 360-degree guarantee. So it arrives right and on time. Explore more at 4imprint.com. 4imprint.

This is an iHeart Podcast.