If this tariff battle ends in a trade war with China only…who wins? We ask economist and YMS money wiz David Bahnsen who has more to lose, the US, China or “we” the consumer in general??
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Previously on your Morning show with Michael Del Choano.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
One of the things that I value most about this
platform God has provided for me is I can give
people exposure to minds in a sea of voices, in
an ocean of opinions. Not all voices and opinions are
the same. So I get the unique opportunity to share
some experts with you, and I know you value them.
One of them you value most is David Bonson from
(00:26):
the Bonson Financial Group. You may have seen him on
Fox Business. You may actually go to his Dividendcafe dot
com weekly pieces that he writes and of course joins
us every Thursday. David, I want to give you the open,
en it easy question. You lived through the same last
twenty four hours we did in the last week we've did.
(00:49):
What do you make of all of this? And what
might we be missing and what shouldn't we miss the
last few days.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
We're really months and months of activity condensed in in
just a few days. It's men something that will be
in the history books, and I think just for listeners
that aren't interested in the kind of deeper dive as
to what was happening inside financial markets that just at
a high level. I would say, we're in a position
right now where there's like China and then there's like
(01:17):
the rest of the world. And I think that it
is really, really never going to make sense to me
why we didn't do this to begin with. And I'm
not at all convinced that we're in for an easy
ride in terms of the negotiations with China. I think
those that are predicting that we have all the leverage
(01:40):
over them have a really shallow understanding of how they
think and the differences in their society. But nevertheless, we
at least have been able to isolate, you know what,
now we want to go forward and attempt to do
I'm really curious to see in the months ahead what
will happen was of the unemployment. I'm getting a lot
(02:02):
of reports across my desk of damage already done to
dock workers at ports, with drivers, with other blue collar,
you know, middle class type American worker jobs, and I'm
hoping that some of that impact will not be as
bad as I severe, as as a severe as I fear,
but I do I do think that it's been a
(02:23):
wild ride and it is not over yet.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Okay, our biggest question today is and I resisted. And
when you listen to the nuance of what he's saying,
there's two kinds of bother. He expects it from enemies
like China. What really appalled him? This kind of like
you know, and when you listen to the nuance of
what he's saying, there's two kinds of bother. He expects
(02:46):
it from enemies like China. What really appalled him this
kind of like you know, Revelation three sixteen. It's our
friends doing it to us that made him want to
really spit and vomit. So I think he's addressed friends
taking advantage of us. He's got seventy four lined up
to renegotiate. That's going to take some time. He uses
(03:07):
the ninety day pause because the American people were behind
him in principle, but they weren't willing to pay a
lot of pain. And you know, especially in the market
with their retirement. He's managed to isolate our friends. They
know he means business. It's going to take time to renegotiate.
That could help cost of living. And he's isolated China.
So I'm going to take these one at a time.
(03:28):
How important is it that he has made this China,
not VERSUS America, but he's isolated them from the world.
I think that's a powerful outcome.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Oh, Michael, I couldn't disagree more. He has not isolated
China from the world. China and Europe right now have
the potential to be more allied than they ever have now.
I definitely agree it could go that way, but it
is not there yet. That is an intention, not a conclusion.
China and Europe are going to very likely end up
as higher trading partners out of this, soertainly agreed that.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
That would be.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
The thing I have to ask, is what we're talking
about when we say that we were offended by our
friends taking advantage of us? I just want to know
what friends were taking advantage to us. I have to ask,
is what we're talking about when we say that we
were offended by our friends taking advantage of us? I
just want to know what friends were taking advantage to us.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Well, the disproportionate trade agreements with Vietnam with India.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well what what disproportionate trade going at Vietnam? They paid
zero percent? They charged a zero percent tariffs.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
So you disagree with the White House number zero?
Speaker 3 (04:38):
No, the White House numbers don't say that the White House.
The White House said they were going to say that
that they were going to focus on reciprocity, and.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Then when it came out, they had one of.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
The highest numbers of Vietnam, and it said that this
was the teriffs, and then it put in parentheses or
other trade barriers, and then this is what we talked.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
About last week.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
That really what they were defining that as is the
trade deficit, that it was unfair that Vietnam sold us
ten times more things than we.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And we sold them all.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Let me, but I just want to know how that
is anybody treating us unfair, because that, to me is
the fundamental issue that really has done the most damage here.
And you're right he said it to Opra nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
He was talking not about China. He was fired about Japan.
Speaker 5 (05:23):
So it doesn't really seem that his predictions of Japan
eating America's lunch economically played out very well, since they
even went in a thirty year period of the zero
percent growth, well.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
America grew more than any other country on Earth. So
if that is us getting ripped off, I hope every
country will rip us off the same way.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
To David Bonds and joining us in the Bonds and
Financial Group. That brings up my most important question I had,
which is and this goes back to bb Neetnyahuo at
the Oval Office earlier in the week when he talked
about not just release lowering tariffs, but releasing trade barriers.
I don't want to get in the weeds because we
lose people economically on that, but explain to the difference
(06:05):
between tariff levels and barriers in which are more dan
which are more detrimental.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
And this is where I'm.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Most critical of the White House Cnichel, because I think
that they poison the well in this secession. Because I
do believe there are such things as trade non tariff
trade barriers, things that aren't care IFFs, but other things
a country can do that is a barrier to trade.
Manipulating your currency or setting certain quotas or limits on
(06:34):
certain goods, so you're just kind of mudding up the
field a little bit. I don't think it happens a lot.
It does happen to some degree, and.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
We do it too. By the way, I don't like
any of it.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I like there to be less impediments to trade with
ally nations now what the White House did is, as
I just said a moment ago, define a trade barrier
as a country that sells US more than we sell them,
which is called a trade deficit. So that's why Vietnam,
I'm South Korea, Switzerland, the evil country that sells US
(07:07):
chocolate became one of the worst countries we were going after.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
After the announcement last week.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
One of the things that I am most confirmed by
in my theory here that this was their fatal mistake
is there's not one person in the White House willing
to admit that they came up with that idea. Steve Moran,
a CEE was a CEA, was originally said to have
done it. He said no, he thinks it came from
Commerce Commerce, as it came from Treasury. Treasury says it
(07:35):
came from USTR. They're all pointing the finger at each other.
But a trade barrier is a real thing. And just
like national security concerns are a real thing. But when
you start saying everything is a national security issue, then
nothing is a national security issue, and the same goes
for trade barriers. I believe we have to get our
terms straight still that we can make progress, so we
(07:56):
can have better deal so we can protect American workers
and impot meant what.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
President Trump's ultimate agenda is here.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
But we can't do that if we're using dishonest or
disingenuous terminology. And a trade barrier is something you're doing
to impact, to keep or impede trade from happening.
Speaker 4 (08:15):
Trade deficit is not a trade barrier.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Final two questions for me, and then I want you
to just be able to say whatever you want to say.
But the recovery yesterday when the President announced the pause
was that shocking to you? Do you expect it to continue?
Futures the futures have been wrong a lot this week.
They said we'd lose four percent. We lost less than
one percent. In fact, no.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Mike,
I gotta jump in.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Futures are never wrong.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
The futures are not predicting what the market's going to
close at. The futures are predicting what the market's.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
Going to open at. They haven't.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
They've never been wrong on that. Anything can change in
the middle of a trading day. So that's different than
say the futures are wrong. The futures are just simply
current at that moment, and the facts change, the market changes.
So the future said yesterday markets were going to be
opening down, and they did open down. And then at
(09:08):
ten thirty Pacific time one thirty Eastern, the President made
his announcement, and of course markets violently reversed and.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Right now open eight hundred to one thousand down, did they?
I didn't know.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
No, the futures had been ticking slowly better throughout the morning.
It had been about one thousand down at three thirty
in the morning Pacific when I woke up, and then
it was seven hundred and six hundred, five hundred.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
It was slowly but surely moving forward. And then and
then it did open better. Particular Nasdak, what you had
was what's called.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
A margin than just a lot of people that had
got wiped out.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
This is the whole story of the bond market too,
as people said.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Oh gosh, these treasure yields are going higher, not lower.
And the reason is more and more people were selling
off bonds to pay for the margin calls on their stock.
And I don't mean people like mister and missus Smith.
I mean large leveraged institutional players. So it was a
real mess in markets.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Okay, so but today now the future's point to perhaps
starting down, what are you anticipating today hours.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Later because nobody knows.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
I think that the issue the markets have to price
in is and then the nazak is what's down the
most this morning, and it's what was up the most yesterday.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Later because nobody knows.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
I think that the issue the markets have to price
in is and then the naszak is what's down the
most this morning, and it's what was up the most yesterday.
So you do probably have some people that are just
taking the recovery they got yesterday and looking to hit
the sell button today, just kind.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Of like I don't want to mess with this right now.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
But look, if we were just announcing yesterday not after
one of the worst weeks of the market in history
and going into a full blown bear market, if all
we were doing was at a flat level, and then
we announced one hundred and twenty five percent tariffs on
China and ten percent tariffs elsewhere, the market would be
down thousand. The point it's not up thousands. It was
(11:02):
only thousands because it was recovering from what was such
a worst place. So the markets do still have some
uncertainty ahead now President Trump's saying I'm confident we're going
to get a deal with China versus I don't care
if we get a deal with China, We're going.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
To keep these tariffs on forever.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
That to me was a sign that the White House
is still optimistic as to where this is going to go.
But one hundred and twenty five percent tariff is not
a way to impede trade. Them charging US to eighty
four percent retaliatory tariff is not a way to impede trade.
That's just a way to cut off trade. That's just
like they're going to have a full blown cessation of
(11:38):
trade with the two largest countries on Earth. So they're
they're we're in, We're in, you know, go time here
to try to get through some of these things. And
I think the markets are going to have to stay
volatile because that China issue alone is still a big deal.
But hey, at least we took Swiss chocolate off the
list of national emergencies.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Don't mess with our chocolate. Final question, which is how
will the Fed respond all this? Do you think this
this uncertainty is going to equal no cuts and interest
rates or how much.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
They're definitely they're definitely going to be cutting.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I don't know if they cut in May or not.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
The market, the future's market has doubted about a fifty
percent chance. I always say, look to the market, not
to what the Fed says. But June is almost one
hundred percent chance. So the next cut is coming very soon.
And then the more important part is that the market
is now predicting five rate cuts, or at least a
good chance of five rate cuts by the end of
the year, and four is basically a given a full
(12:35):
one percent lower. But that's not because of the Fed
responding to uncertainty. That's the prediction as to how bad
the economy is going to be, that the Fed's going
to have to be cutting throughout the year. So I
still believe we have a very good chance of tipping
into recession in the second quarter. We may not know
we went into a Q two recession until Q three,
but you know, the Fed generally is cutting rates when
(12:57):
we're seeing some kind of recession. The issue right now
is how my it may or may not be, and
how quick it may or may not be.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Last question was the one we were going to start with,
which is if this turns into a trade war with China.
Who has more to lose us or China? Are both? Yes,
I knew you were gonna end with that. David Bonza,
What's on the Dividend Cafe this week?
Speaker 3 (13:19):
All about the trade issues, the tariff issues, what happened
in the bond market this week? You know, I would
say that Dividend Cafe last week really talked about a
lot of the things that happened this week. So I'm
proud of the work we did last week, Michael, And
you know what, I'm proud to be on your show.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
My friends.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Oh, I love you very much. And listen. If people
love these weekly visits, you get it in depth and
even more in the Dividendcafe dot com.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Miss a little, miss a lot, miss a lot, and
We'll miss you. It's your morning show with Michael Delchruno.
Previously on your Morning show with Michael Del Choano.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
One of the things that I value most about this
platform God has provided for me is I can give
people exposure to minds in a sea of voices, in
an ocean of opinions. Not all voices and opinions are
the same. So I get the unique opportunity to share
some experts with you, and I know you value them.
One of them you value most is David Bonson from
(00:26):
the Bonson Financial Group. You may have seen him on
Fox Business. You may actually go to his Dividendcafe dot
com weekly pieces that he writes and of course joins
us every Thursday. David, I want to give you the open,
en it easy question. You lived through the same last
twenty four hours we did in the last week we've did.
(00:49):
What do you make of all of this? And what
might we be missing and what shouldn't we miss the
last few days.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
We're really months and months of activity condensed in in
just a few days. It's men something that will be
in the history books, and I think just for listeners
that aren't interested in the kind of deeper dive as
to what was happening inside financial markets that just at
a high level. I would say, we're in a position
right now where there's like China and then there's like
(01:17):
the rest of the world. And I think that it
is really, really never going to make sense to me
why we didn't do this to begin with. And I'm
not at all convinced that we're in for an easy
ride in terms of the negotiations with China. I think
those that are predicting that we have all the leverage
(01:40):
over them have a really shallow understanding of how they
think and the differences in their society. But nevertheless, we
at least have been able to isolate, you know what,
now we want to go forward and attempt to do
I'm really curious to see in the months ahead what
will happen was of the unemployment. I'm getting a lot
(02:02):
of reports across my desk of damage already done to
dock workers at ports, with drivers, with other blue collar,
you know, middle class type American worker jobs, and I'm
hoping that some of that impact will not be as
bad as I severe, as as a severe as I fear,
but I do I do think that it's been a
(02:23):
wild ride and it is not over yet.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Okay, our biggest question today is and I resisted. And
when you listen to the nuance of what he's saying,
there's two kinds of bother. He expects it from enemies
like China. What really appalled him? This kind of like
you know, and when you listen to the nuance of
what he's saying, there's two kinds of bother. He expects
(02:46):
it from enemies like China. What really appalled him this
kind of like you know, Revelation three sixteen. It's our
friends doing it to us that made him want to
really spit and vomit. So I think he's addressed friends
taking advantage of us. He's got seventy four lined up
to renegotiate. That's going to take some time. He uses
(03:07):
the ninety day pause because the American people were behind
him in principle, but they weren't willing to pay a
lot of pain. And you know, especially in the market
with their retirement. He's managed to isolate our friends. They
know he means business. It's going to take time to renegotiate.
That could help cost of living. And he's isolated China.
So I'm going to take these one at a time.
(03:28):
How important is it that he has made this China,
not VERSUS America, but he's isolated them from the world.
I think that's a powerful outcome.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Oh, Michael, I couldn't disagree more. He has not isolated
China from the world. China and Europe right now have
the potential to be more allied than they ever have now.
I definitely agree it could go that way, but it
is not there yet. That is an intention, not a conclusion.
China and Europe are going to very likely end up
as higher trading partners out of this, soertainly agreed that.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
That would be.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
The thing I have to ask, is what we're talking
about when we say that we were offended by our
friends taking advantage of us? I just want to know
what friends were taking advantage to us. I have to ask,
is what we're talking about when we say that we
were offended by our friends taking advantage of us? I
just want to know what friends were taking advantage to us.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
Well, the disproportionate trade agreements with Vietnam with India.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Well what what disproportionate trade going at Vietnam? They paid
zero percent? They charged a zero percent tariffs.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
So you disagree with the White House number zero?
Speaker 3 (04:38):
No, the White House numbers don't say that the White House.
The White House said they were going to say that
that they were going to focus on reciprocity, and.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Then when it came out, they had one of.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
The highest numbers of Vietnam, and it said that this
was the teriffs, and then it put in parentheses or
other trade barriers, and then this is what we talked.
Speaker 4 (04:56):
About last week.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
That really what they were defining that as is the
trade deficit, that it was unfair that Vietnam sold us
ten times more things than we.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
And we sold them all.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Let me, but I just want to know how that
is anybody treating us unfair, because that, to me is
the fundamental issue that really has done the most damage here.
And you're right he said it to Opra nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 4 (05:20):
He was talking not about China. He was fired about Japan.
Speaker 5 (05:23):
So it doesn't really seem that his predictions of Japan
eating America's lunch economically played out very well, since they
even went in a thirty year period of the zero
percent growth, well.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
America grew more than any other country on Earth. So
if that is us getting ripped off, I hope every
country will rip us off the same way.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
To David Bonds and joining us in the Bonds and
Financial Group. That brings up my most important question I had,
which is and this goes back to bb Neetnyahuo at
the Oval Office earlier in the week when he talked
about not just release lowering tariffs, but releasing trade barriers.
I don't want to get in the weeds because we
lose people economically on that, but explain to the difference
(06:05):
between tariff levels and barriers in which are more dan
which are more detrimental.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
And this is where I'm.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
Most critical of the White House Cnichel, because I think
that they poison the well in this secession. Because I
do believe there are such things as trade non tariff
trade barriers, things that aren't care IFFs, but other things
a country can do that is a barrier to trade.
Manipulating your currency or setting certain quotas or limits on
(06:34):
certain goods, so you're just kind of mudding up the
field a little bit. I don't think it happens a lot.
It does happen to some degree, and.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
We do it too. By the way, I don't like
any of it.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
I like there to be less impediments to trade with
ally nations now what the White House did is, as
I just said a moment ago, define a trade barrier
as a country that sells US more than we sell them,
which is called a trade deficit. So that's why Vietnam,
I'm South Korea, Switzerland, the evil country that sells US
(07:07):
chocolate became one of the worst countries we were going after.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
After the announcement last week.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
One of the things that I am most confirmed by
in my theory here that this was their fatal mistake
is there's not one person in the White House willing
to admit that they came up with that idea. Steve Moran,
a CEE was a CEA, was originally said to have
done it. He said no, he thinks it came from
Commerce Commerce, as it came from Treasury. Treasury says it
(07:35):
came from USTR. They're all pointing the finger at each other.
But a trade barrier is a real thing. And just
like national security concerns are a real thing. But when
you start saying everything is a national security issue, then
nothing is a national security issue, and the same goes
for trade barriers. I believe we have to get our
terms straight still that we can make progress, so we
(07:56):
can have better deal so we can protect American workers
and impot meant what.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
President Trump's ultimate agenda is here.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
But we can't do that if we're using dishonest or
disingenuous terminology. And a trade barrier is something you're doing
to impact, to keep or impede trade from happening.
Speaker 4 (08:15):
Trade deficit is not a trade barrier.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Final two questions for me, and then I want you
to just be able to say whatever you want to say.
But the recovery yesterday when the President announced the pause
was that shocking to you? Do you expect it to continue?
Futures the futures have been wrong a lot this week.
They said we'd lose four percent. We lost less than
one percent. In fact, no.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Mike,
I gotta jump in.
Speaker 4 (08:41):
Futures are never wrong.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
The futures are not predicting what the market's going to
close at. The futures are predicting what the market's.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
Going to open at. They haven't.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
They've never been wrong on that. Anything can change in
the middle of a trading day. So that's different than
say the futures are wrong. The futures are just simply
current at that moment, and the facts change, the market changes.
So the future said yesterday markets were going to be
opening down, and they did open down. And then at
(09:08):
ten thirty Pacific time one thirty Eastern, the President made
his announcement, and of course markets violently reversed and.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Right now open eight hundred to one thousand down, did they?
I didn't know.
Speaker 3 (09:19):
No, the futures had been ticking slowly better throughout the morning.
It had been about one thousand down at three thirty
in the morning Pacific when I woke up, and then
it was seven hundred and six hundred, five hundred.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
It was slowly but surely moving forward. And then and
then it did open better. Particular Nasdak, what you had
was what's called.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
A margin than just a lot of people that had
got wiped out.
Speaker 4 (09:44):
This is the whole story of the bond market too,
as people said.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Oh gosh, these treasure yields are going higher, not lower.
And the reason is more and more people were selling
off bonds to pay for the margin calls on their stock.
And I don't mean people like mister and missus Smith.
I mean large leveraged institutional players. So it was a
real mess in markets.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Okay, so but today now the future's point to perhaps
starting down, what are you anticipating today hours.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Later because nobody knows.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
I think that the issue the markets have to price
in is and then the nazak is what's down the
most this morning, and it's what was up the most yesterday.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Later because nobody knows.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
I think that the issue the markets have to price
in is and then the naszak is what's down the
most this morning, and it's what was up the most yesterday.
So you do probably have some people that are just
taking the recovery they got yesterday and looking to hit
the sell button today, just kind.
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Of like I don't want to mess with this right now.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
But look, if we were just announcing yesterday not after
one of the worst weeks of the market in history
and going into a full blown bear market, if all
we were doing was at a flat level, and then
we announced one hundred and twenty five percent tariffs on
China and ten percent tariffs elsewhere, the market would be
down thousand. The point it's not up thousands. It was
(11:02):
only thousands because it was recovering from what was such
a worst place. So the markets do still have some
uncertainty ahead now President Trump's saying I'm confident we're going
to get a deal with China versus I don't care
if we get a deal with China, We're going.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
To keep these tariffs on forever.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
That to me was a sign that the White House
is still optimistic as to where this is going to go.
But one hundred and twenty five percent tariff is not
a way to impede trade. Them charging US to eighty
four percent retaliatory tariff is not a way to impede trade.
That's just a way to cut off trade. That's just
like they're going to have a full blown cessation of
(11:38):
trade with the two largest countries on Earth. So they're
they're we're in, We're in, you know, go time here
to try to get through some of these things. And
I think the markets are going to have to stay
volatile because that China issue alone is still a big deal.
But hey, at least we took Swiss chocolate off the
list of national emergencies.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
Don't mess with our chocolate. Final question, which is how
will the Fed respond all this? Do you think this
this uncertainty is going to equal no cuts and interest
rates or how much.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
They're definitely they're definitely going to be cutting.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
I don't know if they cut in May or not.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
The market, the future's market has doubted about a fifty
percent chance. I always say, look to the market, not
to what the Fed says. But June is almost one
hundred percent chance. So the next cut is coming very soon.
And then the more important part is that the market
is now predicting five rate cuts, or at least a
good chance of five rate cuts by the end of
the year, and four is basically a given a full
(12:35):
one percent lower. But that's not because of the Fed
responding to uncertainty. That's the prediction as to how bad
the economy is going to be, that the Fed's going
to have to be cutting throughout the year. So I
still believe we have a very good chance of tipping
into recession in the second quarter. We may not know
we went into a Q two recession until Q three,
but you know, the Fed generally is cutting rates when
(12:57):
we're seeing some kind of recession. The issue right now
is how my it may or may not be, and
how quick it may or may not be.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Last question was the one we were going to start with,
which is if this turns into a trade war with China.
Who has more to lose us or China? Are both? Yes,
I knew you were gonna end with that. David Bonza,
What's on the Dividend Cafe this week?
Speaker 3 (13:19):
All about the trade issues, the tariff issues, what happened
in the bond market this week? You know, I would
say that Dividend Cafe last week really talked about a
lot of the things that happened this week. So I'm
proud of the work we did last week, Michael, And
you know what, I'm proud to be on your show.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
My friends.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Oh, I love you very much. And listen. If people
love these weekly visits, you get it in depth and
even more in the Dividendcafe dot com.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Miss a little, miss a lot, miss a lot, and
We'll miss you. It's your morning show with Michael Delchruno.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.