Bloomberg Surveillance TV: June 9, 2025
29:08 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 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.

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.

Andrew Hornhorst of Citi pushing his Fed rate cut forecast to September from July, writing, we continue to expect the Fed to cut policy rates more aggressively than what the market is pricing. Andrew joins us now for more. Andrew, good morning. Morning. Let's start with the timing. So you push back from June to July and now from July to September. What's not going your way? The labor market data is what just

hasn't given the Fed that clear signal that they need to be cutting. And I think that's what's difficult here is that we see the signs in various data that they will be cutting eventually, but when that time is that they're actually going to make that first cut, they're going to have to see the unemployment rate move higher. It rounded to 4.2%. That's going to be enough to keep them on hold. So you've lost confidence on the timing, but maintained confidence on the degree

to which we will get a response from them, which will be much more aggressive than the market is priced for. Why are you maintaining that confidence? I think it's not that hard to get there if you look at things like the Fed Beige Book. Now, I know that the Fed is looking at the hard data. They're going to wait until they see that in the hard data. If you read the Fed Beige Book, it said the economy is contracting and employment was unchanged over the inter-meeting time period. So, we're not hiring people.

We have an economy that may be contracting, according to the Beige Book, at least slowing down significantly. Housing sector that's in contraction. So I think there's a lot of signs out there that we will see weaker data. You have to actually see that in the data, though, before the Fed's going to move. It feels like a Rorschach test. It is so difficult to get your head around. Yesterday, the data came out, or on Friday, it feels like yesterday. The data came out, and it was better than expected. Yay, people are looking at this. Not a bad number in this.

People take more time to look at it. Lots of bad numbers in this, in particular the two-month revision downward of 95,000 and the idea that the household survey lost over 600,000 jobs. There is this feeling that the economy, that the labor market is contracting, as you said. At what point do you think that it's going to be evident enough in the data? Do you feel like that's coming soon or do you feel like that's been what's been delayed?

I think that is what's been delayed. I think it is coming in the next few months. We know that this has been a very uncomfortable labor market where we've had a low hiring rate. We're starting to see in the weekly data, and that's what I would be watching here, continuing jobless claims. Those continuing jobless claims are starting to rise. So we don't have a big increase in initial jobless claims. People aren't being laid off from their jobs. But when people are out of work, they're finding it hard to get back into work. That's why the continuing claims are rising. That should mean the unemployment rate rises.

We saw something very similar last summer, and if you remember September, we got that 50 basis point cut. So I think we're kind of in a similar dynamic to what we saw last year, probably a couple months before you get the Fed move. It also raises a question of which rate is more important to watch. We're talking about the Fed funds rate, the one rate that the Fed has control over at the same time. There were question marks over 10-year, over 30-year treasuries, the auctions that are coming up in the remainder of the week on Wednesday and Thursday. How much do you think

that weaker growth infers lower rates substantially on the longer end, which is sort of key to stimulating the economy in any kind of real way in a downturn. Yeah, so that's a new challenge for the Fed that sometimes when we're getting weaker data now, we're seeing the equity market sell off. And usually you would think that would mean the treasury market would rally and yields would move lower. But we've had this phenomenon where sometimes the treasury market sells off and we actually get higher yields.

And that's an issue for the Fed because we can have lower growth now and higher yields in the long end. I mentioned the housing market, mortgage rates that have stayed higher. You really need to see those mortgage rates come down, I think, to get the housing market expanding again. It is contracting now.

What can do that now is the Fed cutting rates. It's just another reason that the Fed, I think, is going to have to cut. They're not going to look at that 10-year yield and say we're reacting directly to the 10-year yield, but indirectly they're going to see it in the data and that's going to lead them to react. Just to build on Lisa's questioning though, they did cut 100 basis points and the long end settled off.

So basically they cut interest rates and mortgage rates went up. And it's a belief that when they did cut, they weren't committed to anchoring inflation expectations. So no surprise this time around, what are they all saying? The core of the Federal Reserve, every single speech, the chairman over and over again, committed to anchoring inflation expectations, which raises the question about your ultimate goal. Can they move fast and decisively to respond to a downturn in the economy?

and at the same time cover themselves about anchoring inflation expectations? Yeah, it is a big challenge here and it really depends on the measure of inflation expectations that you look at, how worried you are about those de-anchoring. If you look at University of Michigan survey, for instance, we've had a big move higher in the inflation expectations. Other surveys, not so much. I think what they need to do is really focus on the fundamentals here. And this focus on inflation, I think, is fighting the battle of two or three years ago.

That was a time when the Fed thought that inflation was going to be transitory. It turned out to be persistent. We have now house prices that are moving down. This is not an economy that is just too full of demand with supply constraints and you get really high inflation. That's what happened a couple of years ago. I think this is an economy where we actually have demand that's cooling. That means we're not going to get a lot of inflationary pressure. That means they can look through if we have a one-time price level increase. Governor Wallace making a similar argument.

It's a convincing one. How lonely is Governor Waller on the FOMC? I think pretty lonely right now. I'd like to give him some company. I agree with the point that he's making. But again, I think that's why you have to see this so clearly in the activity data, which kind of means that the Fed is going to wait longer than they usually would before they cut because they want this really clear signal from the labor market because they're worried about inflation. They've talked about September. John Williams of the New York Fed has talked about September. I wonder if September is still too soon. Well,

Well, it depends on the data and whether you get some sort of reflection there. I mean, Peter Scheer of Academy Security is making the argument that if they really wanted to cut, they could have even looked at the non-farm payrolls report that we got on Friday and made an argument to cut. Right now, to Andrew's point, there is a fear that the runaway inflation that they failed to stave off immediately is going to be something that's repeated and they don't want to do that. So they're going to have to lean into inflation. And Wednesday's CPI print is going to be really important on that front. Things are super finely balanced.

If NFP was bad on Friday, because the rest of the week's data wasn't great at all, NFP was bad on Friday, we'd be having a very different conversation this Monday morning. Yeah, and probably President Trump would have more company with his one percentage point rate cut rocket fuel to an otherwise pretty solid economy. Andrew, it's good to see you. Thanks for the update. Andrew Honhorst there of City.

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.

Learn more about the technology, insights, and support available at AmazonBusiness.com.

Let's turn back to our top story for Wall Street. President Trump saying he expects talks between the U.S. and China to go very well after his phone call with China Xi just last week. Elizabeth Conomy of the Hoover Institution joins us now for more. Elizabeth, welcome back to this program. It's always good to hear your thoughts on a very sensitive issue. There's a phrase that you've used, strategic decoupling. Can we begin with that phrase? What does that phrase mean to you? And ultimately, with that in mind, what's the purpose of these talks in London?

So I think strategic decoupling basically refers to the fact that both countries have identified the other as their most significant long-term strategic challenge, and each sees it as in its interest to begin to reduce its dependency on the other in terms of trade and investment. And this is a process that's been underway certainly from the

Chinese perspective for a number of years. We've seen with their Made in China 2025 program, right, the effort to reduce dependency across 10 critical cutting edge areas of technology to ensure that Chinese companies dominate not only domestically, but also become global champions. And I think beginning with the Biden administration in the post-COVID period, a sense of the United States is too reliant on China for

a number of products of goods that we need for our human security. That was the personal protective equipment, but also as we see today, things like rare earth elements. And so I think that's the broader sort of strategic context for what we see taking place.

In terms of what that means today, in terms of these discussions, I think the reason that we see the two sides coming together at this moment in the sort of middle or early stages of the 90-day pause on the tariffs is that we've seen from the Chinese perspective the United States put, you know, export controls on the Huawei Ascend chips, on

computer design software and of course this big move on the visa revocations for Chinese students. So they view the United States as having not upheld the spirit of the sort of initial trade discussions that were held last month.

From the U.S. perspective, of course, what we're concerned about in the moment is the sort of toughening export licenses on rare earth elements. The Chinese--it was our understanding that the Chinese would lift these licensing restrictions

after the first set of negotiations, that didn't happen. And so that's why both sides are now at the table. This certainly feels a lot more complicated than it did in the president's first term. In the president's first term, a lot of these issues could just be addressed with purchase agreements. We've heard them talk about those purchase agreements, but I just wondered this time in your mind whether you believe these can be addressed, can be pushed to one side with just a simple purchase agreement and a narrowing of the trade balance, or at least the commitment to do that.

Well, I think we saw in terms of the president's first deal with the U.K. that in large part that's what it amounted to. I think for China, of course, there are other issues tied to economic and national security that will continue to be irritants in the relationship. But I believe

that for the president, for President Trump, that significant new purchases by the Chinese would at least go some way to addressing his concerns around the bilateral trade deficit, which is, of course, you know, at least initially what impelled a lot of, well, impelled this global

sort of set of tariffs. So I think they could make some progress if they were to announce, you know, big new purchases. But I think you're right that it wouldn't solve what's really at the heart of the challenge here. And Elizabeth, there's been this discussion around how much incentive China really has to make some sort of agreement, to come to some sort of resolution or have some sort of purchase arrangement with the United States, given the fact that

that President Xi Jinping seems to be doubling down in a pretty significant way and willing for the economy to slow as long as there are certain strategic goals that are achieved over not necessarily the next year or two, but 10 years. How much do you feel like the leverage has shifted, that the desires have shifted here?

Yeah, I think it's a really important point. I think the United States miscalculated at the outset when it believed that we had so much more economic leverage over China because, as Secretary Bassett said, you know, we import five times as much from China as China imports from the United States. But that ignored, I think, two things. Number one, that China has spent the past eight years reducing its economic, its trade dependence on the United States. You know, since pre-COVID levels,

the share of exports, global exports from China to the United States has reduced from 19 percent to 14 percent. And so I think that's one important element of it. The second is, as you suggested, you know, in your discussion earlier, China has been

routing exports to the United States through third countries. So it's still seeing an ability, a path through to maintain its exports to the United States. And it ignored the fact that we have a greater sole source dependency

on goods from China than China does from us. What that means is that for roughly 30 percent of the goods that we import from China, we have a 70 percent dependency or more on China. China doesn't face that same sole source dependency on a wide array of U.S. goods. So I think we miscalculated the outset. China has been thinking strategically about how to reduce its dependence on the U.S. market, you know, for five to eight years, really since the first Trump administration.

And so I think that the leverage has shifted over the past five to seven years. So that said, Elizabeth, overnight, we saw data that showed deflation for a fourth straight month in China. You have a price war with BYD that has gotten the attention of authorities in China worried about cannibalization from their own market and this idea that,

there's going to be a race to the bottom when it comes to electric vehicles and really sort of undermining the perceived quality internationally. How much structurally, though, do they have a challenge that forces them to the table to ultimately come to some sort of even stopgap measure that could last a couple of years with the U.S.?

I mean, I think China has been facing these challenges, the ones that you just suggested, for a couple of years now. This deflation issue is not actually new. The sort of incredible competition in many industries just within China, again, is not new.

it's part of the process that they undergo every time they have this, you know, overinvestment in certain industries. We saw it in solar panels and wind turbines. Now we're seeing it in EVs. We could see it in batteries moving forward. I think

that's why we see the exports, right? And what China's doing now with the EVs is looking not just to the United States or to Europe, but they're looking to Africa, to Southeast Asia, to Latin America. They can export very cheap cars there. They're looking to build manufacturing capacity in those countries. So China's looking globally, not simply at

the wealthiest markets for their goods. And I think this is part of a long-term strategic plan, and I think they're trying to bet that, you know, they can endure this short-term pain for a kind of longer period of, you know, strategic and economic gain.

That being said, they have tried to do and take a number of actions over the past year to boost consumer confidence. They've had these massive goods trade-in programs. They've done things in the real estate market to encourage people to start buying property again.

But overall, they're not willing to take the steps that are actually necessary, which is to move investment right away from, you know, investment in technology, investment, military into education and health and into the pension system so that people and consumers feel confident that they can spend because their other basic needs are being taken care of. Elizabeth, you're one of the best. And it's good to get some time with you this morning. We appreciate it. Elizabeth Economy there of the Hoover Institution.

♪♪♪

Francisco Blanch of Bank of America writing the following, the oil market is poised to remain oversupplied and we believe Brent crude may average 62 a barrel for the balance of the year. Macro tensions also mean that oil prices could temporarily sink to $50 a barrel. Francisco, join us now for more. Francisco, good morning. Good to see you. Good morning. Thanks for having me. Let's start with OPEC Plus because I think that's been the main event for the crude market over the last several months. What's policy now and what's the strategy behind it?

So you could make a case that OPEC is trying three things at once, right? It's trying to increase market share. I think it's more of a Saudi thing. You could argue there is a discipline element to what Saudi is doing because it's really driven by Saudi Arabia. And the third bit of it is, well, why now? Clearly, lower oil prices can help offset some of the upside pressure of inflation on US tariffs. So let's say it's...

Trump administration pressure to get those barrels in. So I think maybe the three of them are objectives, but what's important about this strategy is that we believe this is not a price war that's going to be short and steep. Rather, it's going to be a price war that's going to be long and shallow.

And it's going to be long and shallow for a couple different reasons. First, because in 2024, Saudi became a net borrower for the first time. Whereas the shale patch is actually in pretty good health from a debt perspective. They don't really issue that much debt anymore and they can flex their muscle up and down depending on where prices are.

But the shellpads themselves have their own issues, right? Because the higher tariffs are also bringing up costs. Remember, oil is steel on the ground and steel is 50% more expensive than it was at the beginning of the year.

So margins are coming in. Lower oil prices, higher steel costs. We are seeing a big drop in the rig count, and that's exactly what Saudi is trying to do. They have the lowest market share they've had in a very long time, not just against non-OPEC, but also even within OPEC, Saudi has lost market share. They've done this price support already for, by themselves, pretty much for three plus years, right? Having this huge share response. They're done with that. They need to get, it hasn't really worked, $85, $90 oil,

6 million barrels a day of exports. Not working. I mean, you want to get maybe lower prices or just more barrels. Can we stay on that price war just a little bit longer? They tried this about 10 years ago. I forget whether it was November 14 or November 15. You remember the dates. -14. -14. Okay. -Pravely. -November 2014. It's there in the memory somewhere. What's different about what they did then compared to what they're doing now? Well, back then, what they were doing, it was a much deeper price war.

But it ended up lasting longer than they hoped. And part of it is that back then, again, the shale patch was very levered. So they had a lot of cash in the bank when they started the price war. And it was just at the beginning of shale, right? So we still have grown dramatically in the last 10 years. I mean, the US has pretty much added 50% plus of the incremental oil and gas in the world for the last 15 years, right?

So, I think we are getting towards the end of the shale cycle and Tier 1 acreage is becoming more exhausted and companies are pushing to Tier 2 acreage which is more expensive and now you have this additional costs. So, I think it's a different moment in time and to be honest, I mean, I think, like I said, saw these supported prices for a long time and they've realized that just keeping them so high

only means losing markets here in the long run. So that's what's different. But also their opposition is different. They want to build out the kingdom and that's very important. You talk about the war of attrition and this idea that it's a long, drawn-out period of time where potentially you could see the $60 a barrel.

At $60 a barrel, could you see the shale patch become a lot more productive? You see rigs that are permanently taken offline and it really becomes that much less profitable because ultimately it is much more expensive to drill there than say over in Saudi Arabia. I think that's exactly what's going on. I think we're going to see slowing production here for oil.

in some ways, it's already happening. If you look at the rate count, if you look at marginal cost of production, many companies are facing oil in the 50s, maybe as high as $60 a barrel. And therefore, this price range doesn't make things particularly appealing. Now, having said all that,

that. These companies are cash cows. They are paying out huge dividends to shareholders in a world where interest rates are also high, which is a big difference. Back then, we had zero rates. Today, we have 5% rates. And shale's not a cheap operation when money is not free. Yeah. And I'm looking right now, and in 2023, the U.S. oil and gas industry contributed about 8% to the U.S. GDP. So this isn't exactly a small part of the overall economy in the United States. I am wondering on a broader scale, we

We haven't even talked about supply on the demand side and whether demand is going to materially drop off to sort of add some of these price declines. Based on what we've seen in the price of oil, how much is tied to the idea that demand is just declining, especially as trade really falls off?

So, demand held up pretty well in the first quarter. We had relatively cold weather. And also remember, the first quarter there was a lot of pent-up consumption because people were trying to rush in the imports, right? So, we had actually a pickup in global trade in the first quarter. We've had a slowdown, of course, in the last couple months.

We'll see what the negotiations between the U.S. and China and other countries end up looking like. But I do think that, you know, you raise a great point. $60 oil is also going to help demand in the medium term, right? And it just makes EVs less attractive. It makes a lot of energy sources less attractive. Remember, oil is the best energy source we got for a lot of reasons, right, in terms of

of its energy density, its flexibility, how easy it is to transport and store it.

And oil's cheap, $60 a barrel. I mean, it's $10 on an MBTU. It just, frankly, think about it, all the inflation we've had for the last 10 years, right? So I think that also will encourage consumption. And ultimately, what I think Saudi is trying to do is saying, well, we don't want to run around with so much spare capacity because it's expensive to maintain. And we're also changing the way we consume energy domestically, which means our demand locally will go down because now we're going to use a lot more renewables domestically. So

So, all of that, you put it together and say, "Well, we have to get going and get this spare capacity into the market." And I think that's really the plan. So, you get more consumption, you release your spare capacity, and maybe oil just doesn't do a lot in the next year. Let's finish on something that's gotten more expensive. Gold. 3320, up by more than 26% now for the year. What's the call from you and the team?

So we think there's been a bit of a double top in the first half of the year. So we think maybe second half, we need to see a real shock for prices to break away from where we are. And we have a $4,000 target, which we think maybe at

2026 story. But if you look at the action in the precious metals, it's really coming from other areas. It's coming from platinum, which is really where things are starting to move in a big way. We've seen 1200 hit this morning and potentially we're going to go higher in platinum. We think platinum will trade well ahead of palladium, which is also being dragged along.

And even silver. Silver is now 36 and change and heading up to 40, we believe, right? So gold's had a good run. Now we're getting the rest of the precious metals. And then based on whether geopolitics and maybe the U.S. budget deficit situation worsens, then we'll have another leg up. But I think second half of the year might not be as great as the first half has been for gold. Francisco, appreciate the update. Thank you, sir. Francisco Blanche there of Bank of America. Thank you.

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.

Let's focus on this story. Claudia Sarm of New Century Advisors writing the following. As early signs emerge that tariffs will drive up prices, the Fed faces a crucial question. Will tariff-induced inflation be short-lived?

or will it persist? Claudia joins us now for more. Claudia, welcome back as always. We could spend some time with you talking about the US economy right now. Let's get to that first line, that first piece of that sentence. As early signs emerge that tariffs will drive up prices, what are you focused on right now? Where do you see that at the moment?

Right. Well, the first place we're going to be looking for it, and we ought to see more of it this week, is in the goods prices. And that is both on consumer-facing prices, and we're also looking in the producer prices. I mean, we are terrifying intermediate goods as well, and that will eventually have some impact on consumer prices. So it's, you know, looking at the data. And again, as we said before, these magnitudes will matter and how long we see this, you know, uptick in prices.

So, Claudia, that gets to the next question. Short-lived or will it persist? How instructive is the labor market with that in mind? When we start to think about that, how much of a guide can we take from where the labor market is currently? Right. Well, you know, the labor market is important. It is holding up. We saw modest signs of cooling, but not a dramatic, you know, weakening. When you talk to businesses, one of their first priorities when they think about pricing is consumer demand. I mean, it is the

hey, if the labor market holds up, it may be an opportunity for businesses to pass more of these tariff costs on to consumers in terms of prices. I mean, right now we have a false shock for businesses, and it is an empirical question as to where it's going to end up. Is it going to end up with consumers paying higher prices? Is it going to be fewer workers with paychecks? Is it going to be less profit? And we're just, we are at the front edge of seeing how businesses are dealing with that really difficult question.

And Claudia, there's this lack of clarity around exactly whether this is a transitory, I hate to use that word, or short-lived inflationary move or whether it has longer legs. There's also a lack of clarity around the labor market. On Friday, we got the jobs report that the headline numbers seem to suggest was still really robust and better than expected, an upside surprise. If you look under the hood, though, there are a number of analysts who are raising questions, especially with the downward revisions.

and some of the other modeling that points to maybe a weaker outlook. Where do you land on that, on this dual side of the mandate when you take a look at the labor side of the equation?

We have an economy that's still largely at full employment. So a 4.2% unemployment rate, we have payroll gains, while not stellar, are still solid. The question is, there are real signs of slowing, and we are seeing some modest slowing. It's not happening rapidly, and that's important, but the labor market, especially in terms of the Fed's thinking...

they're close to their mandate. I mean, there is a reason why they're giving such focus to thinking through what's going to happen with inflation over the coming months, because largely they're in a good place on the labor market side. So, yes, and I think it is important

important to understand that while the labor market has been resilient and things are looking like modest flowing, we don't have the same strength that we did, say, two years ago. We have much narrower job gains. Like, we're down to a few large sectors that are really pulling above their weight in terms of job gains. We have an unusually low hiring rate. Like, we're not set up to really be hit hard in terms of the labor market. But for right now, things are looking

Claudia, it sounds like you disagree with Andrew Hollenhorst, who came on and said that the Fed is fighting the wrong battle and that inflation is in a very different spot than it was last year or even three years ago when there was a lot more heat in the economy. He thinks that there isn't as much of a risk on the inflation side and that there is a more significant risk on the employment side. I'm just wondering if, let's say, this Federal Reserve took Donald Trump at his word, cut

by a percentage point, would that lead to significant unmooring of inflation expectations and the potential for long-term yields to rise really considerably? Well, the Fed listening to the president doing what he says probably won't do good things for yields in general. But just thinking about that, like, could the Fed be cutting right now? So there is an argument to make. But remember, the context is so important. Inflation has been above the Fed's 2% target for four years.

Right. And even a modest increase in inflation at this point is going to move us further from that. So I think there are good reasons. And we really did get burned by the persistence of the shock. Even if this time we have smaller shocks inflation, I think that is likely the right call here.

the persistence of it does risk embedding that we just aren't a 2% inflation economy. And the Fed does not want that to happen. So I think at this point, they can balance these risks and waiting and seeing the surge in inflation comes back down, which I think is the textbook case. I think that's the most likely case. But the Fed is going to want to see it in the data. And I think that is appropriate at this point. We get another read.

on Wednesday, again on Thursday. Claudia, appreciate you for you as always. Claudia Salm there of New Century Advisors. 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 backed by their 360-degree guarantee. So it arrives right and on time. Explore more at 4imprint.com. 4imprint.

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. This is an iHeart Podcast.