April 10, 2025 • 32 mins
On Wednesday, Trump pulled back from the brink on most of the reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2. The market surged. But we're still in an extraordinarily challenging moment. We have new across-the-board tariffs. We have gigantic tariffs on China. And there's a possibility that a recession has already begun. So what does the Fed do in this environment, with so much persistent uncertainty? On this episode, we speak with Rob Kaplan, former President of the Dallas Fed, and now the Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs. We talk about the extreme uncertainty, the unusual behavior in the market, and what this all means for the energy sector.
Read more:
Fed Officials Worried Over Stagflation Risk Ahead of Tariffs
Wall Street Chatter Grows That Fed May Act If Bond Rout Worsens
Only http://Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox each week, plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlots
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 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I'm Jill Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Tracy, there are many dimensions of the ongoing market turbulent
and trade tensions that we can't stop talking about, but
a big one, and in a way, it's almost taken.
People aren't talking about it that much right now because
there's so many other things top of mind, a lot
of questions about how the FED is gonna think about
what's happening right here.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
Right And I know it's probably not very popular to
sympathize with the central bank, but I gotta say I
would hate to be Jerome Powell right now because in
my mind, the consensus right now seems to be that
we're heading for some sort of stagflationary scenario, at least
in the short to intermedia terms, so higher inflation, lower growth,
(01:03):
possibly even recession, and that to me just seems like
a nightmare scenario for a central bank which constantly has
to balance its twin mandate of price stability and low unemployment.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
It's really tricky, right because we've sort of been used
to environments where it's really obvious. Right, So in twenty
twenty two, twenty twenty three, it was clear that they
were missing on one specific side, which was the price
for much of you know, post two thousand and seven
or two thousand and eight, the story was we growth, disinflation, whatever,
so poor employment. I mean, this is going to be tricky.
(01:37):
And look, when we're talking about restructuring the global economy
or the internal economy, these are questions that there is
a limit to the degree to which one monetary policy
can solve them. They can maybe, you know, maybe things
a little bit, but at the end, these aren't really
monetary policy questions we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Here, right, And I think we all internalized that lesson
in the twenty twenty pandemic, Right, We saw all these
real world disruptions, supply chain issues, and that gave rise
to the infamous transitory inflation as the FED called it.
And it seems very much like that's a possibility again.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Right totally, And like we've been saying, we've been going
back to talking to all our old supply chain guests
because you know, the whole world may be redrawn anyway.
We're recording this after the market closed. It's April eighth,
twenty twenty five. It's four h nine pm. We just
had another crazy day in the market. S and P
five hundred and a down one point five to seven percent.
It had been up over four percent at one point,
(02:34):
so we continue to whipsaw. Anyway, I'm excited to say
we really do have the perfect guest, someone we've had
actually on the show once before. We are going to
be speaking with Rob Kaplan. He is a vice chairman
of Goldman Sachs, member of the management committee. Prior to that,
he was the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas. Prior to that, he had been Harvard.
Prior to that, he had been at Goldman Sacks. Truly
(02:56):
the perfect guest for right now, Rob Kaplan, thank you
so much for coming back Outlaws.
Speaker 5 (03:00):
Thanks for having me. Good to talk with you.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Tracy said she wouldn't want to be Jerome Paula. I
would still take that job, but I'm just let's start.
You're on this. Let's say you know this is all
happening a few years ago and you're still at the FED.
How stressful is this kind of environment for charting a
course from monetary policy?
Speaker 5 (03:18):
Well, the last time we had a tiff issue. Yeah,
you got to go back to twenty nineteen. I was
at the FED at the time, and you may recall
we preemptively cut the FED funds rate three times. I
think we called it a tactical recalibration or something like that.
(03:39):
And the reason we were able to be preemptive is
we didn't have an inflation issue, so we could afford
to be preemptive. As we're sitting here today, the FED
goes into this already before the tariff situation, with an
inflation issue, and that inflation's sticky. Now the irony going
(03:59):
into this, The source of the sticky inflation has been services,
not goods. Goods have been disinflating up to now, up
until say two months ago or a month and a
half ago, and China over capacity has fed that disinflation.
But despite that, you know, we're hanging around two and
(04:22):
a half two and three quarters on the PCE. And
I would argue that the excess inflation has been more
about excess demand due to outsized fiscal spending. So we
are now in a new administration where they are dialing
down fiscal spending, so that excess demand is being pulled away.
(04:48):
You would normally consider that disinflationary. But now we've got
a supply shock issue related to tariffs, which relates ironically
to goods, not service. And so the most important thing
that FED is thinking right now is we don't have
to have this figured out, because we can't have it
figured out. If anything, they learned from the transitory episode,
(05:11):
don't try to jump ahead to predict things that you
can't know. And I think they're going to sit back,
let the situation unfold and try to understand it, and
they're going to be more reactive, not proactive, And I
think that will be the difference.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
You know, I mentioned stagflation before, which seems to be
becoming the consensus economic environment that everyone is talking about.
What's the playbook, I guess the traditional playbook for a
central bank that's starting or trying to battle stagflation. You know,
I'm thinking back to the nineteen seventies. Maybe Vulcar he
(05:52):
raised rates really aggressively and ultimately he was willing to
sacrifice employment in order to get down. Is there like
a normal playbook that central bankers can follow here?
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Not really in this case, in that you're right in
the seventies, we had a situation where we had slowing
growth and an inflation issue. One of the things I
would say about this situation, I think you have to
assess it for what's driving it, what are the structural drivers?
And I think that we have a lot of uncertainty.
(06:28):
You have government spending cuts, you have a dramatic reduction
in immigration and shutting down the border, which normally would
slow growth and might actually create some stickiness in the
labor force. And then you've got these teriff issues. But
the issue with the tariff situation is it's in flux.
(06:49):
You had the announcement last week on Wednesday, and it's
still very unclear. How much is the administration our administration
willing to negotiate, how much is this really about reciprocity?
And I think, honestly, how much of this is about
the administration might want to create more revenue and tariff
(07:14):
for revenue, and actually while countries may come back to
us and say we'll go down to zero and remove
non trade barriers, I think we're going to find out
how willing our administration is to in fact negotiate or
how much do they actually want hire tariffs to keep
the revenue, and so all those things are going through
(07:35):
the fed's mind, and so we don't know. And so
I think you just have to be patient, don't be
a prognosticator, be a risk manager, allow this situation to clarify.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Well, let me ask you a question. I mean, you
must talk all the time to both investors and to
real businesses of various sorts. Right now, when we're talking
on April eighth, do you think there is still some
belief that this can't be what the final tear of
schedule looks like, whatever it ends up being, maybe negotiations,
(08:07):
et cetera, That the idea that no, these numbers that
were unveiled on that chart on April second, they can't
really be what the new trading relationship with the rest
of the world is going to look like.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
Okay, so let's talk about both groups, businesses and then
capital allocators investors. I think there's a hope, there has
been a hope by both that yes, this was more
about reciprocity and there was going to be a negotiation,
and so this isn't where we're going to end up.
I think one of the reasons why the market is
(08:40):
behaving in the way it is. I think businesses are
still hopeful that this will be a negotiation, but they're
not sure about that, and they're starting to make plans
on how they're going to adjust, and there's a series
of things they could do. They're already talking about pressuring
suppliers to cut prices. They're talking about the potentially taking
(09:01):
some of this out of margin. There we're hoping up
to now that maybe the dollar would strengthen, and then
the other thing they're talking about is pricing, but they're
in the middle of trying to figure that out. They
are not, as much as you would hope, actively talking
about expanding capacity here because they're concerned that something they
(09:21):
build here is globally competitive, and you don't want to
build a high cost facility that only is competitive because
of the tariff mode. So that's where they are. They're
treading water and trying to be receptive and figure this
out and giving their views to the administration. Capital allocators,
on the other hand, started the year wanting to be
(09:43):
long the dollar dollar denominated assets, and what's happened is
they have been moving on the margin away from the dollar,
and you're even seeing in the last week that some
dollar weakness ten year treasury backing up as opposed to rallying,
(10:05):
which you would normally expect to see, and you're seeing
a move I think, not between asset classes. You're seeing
a move away from dollar denominated assets that is extremely unusual,
and again they're doing it to hedge their bets depend
on what the administration is trying to accomplish.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
I wanted to ask you about exactly this you mentioned earlier.
Don't be a prognosticator, be a risk manager, and that
sounds like we should make like inspirational posters with like
little kittens hanging from trees with that text below. But
on this note, one of the reasons this market move
is particularly painful is not just because it's very, very big,
(10:47):
a big downward shift, but also we're seeing bond sell
off at the same time, and I think we've moved
from like just under four percent on the tenure to
something like almost four point three percent. Now, again, that's
happening while stocks are selling off, which is something you
wouldn't expect to see normally. I have seen all sorts
(11:08):
of explanations for why this might be happening. I've seen
people talk about, well, maybe investors are liquidating what they
can sell in the current environment, not necessarily what they want.
And then secondly, maybe it's the basis trade being unwound. Thirdly,
maybe it's investors shifting away from US assets altogether. Where
do you sort of lie on that spectrum of reasons,
(11:31):
like what is the mix for why exactly yields are
going up right now?
Speaker 5 (11:36):
So we're seeing all those potential explanations. I think the
truth is we're not sure. There's certainly been comments in
the market, and we've seen them flows about the unwind
of the basis trade you referred to. We're seen among
some asset allocators a desire to reallocate and rebalance their
(11:57):
dollar exposures to other mare markets. And I think the
most insightful thing I can say, certainly if I'm at
the FED and sitting here at Goldmen Sachs, the only
thing we can all agree on. It's something we are
watching very carefully because it's a concern for a country
that has a let's say, thirty six thirty seven trillion
(12:20):
dollars of treasury debt outstanding and growing by at least
two trillion a year. It's very critical that we are
able to market our debt. We've struggled over the last
few years to sell duration and that we've tried to
front endload it. But it's critical for a country with
(12:40):
debt to GDP one hundred percent plus. You want to
be able to market your debt. You want confidence in
what we're doing here, and I think it bears watching,
and certainly if I were at the FED, I'd be
watching that very carefully.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
You've had a very long career, and Joe his intro
for you included many titles, many hats over your history
as a financial market veteran.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Have you ever seen anything like this?
Speaker 5 (13:23):
I think that normally what you're accustomed to in a
week like this last week, you would normally see a
flight to quality, you would see Treasury's rally, and you
would eventually start to get a better grip on what's
going on. Obviously, COVID was a good example of an
enormous uncertainty that took a while to resolve. It's been
(13:46):
unusual in my career to see a government led action
as opposed to an external shock, a government led action
I e. Man made that has in turn created this
kind of uncertainty. The good thing about this kind of situation.
If it's man made that created the uncertainty, it can
(14:07):
also be susceptible to man made actions that will address
the uncertainty. And I think that's what people in the
market are hoping for.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Do you worry that they? I mean this is this
has come up and it's certainly true, right because at
any given moment, Trump could say no, we're taking this back,
but this is his life mission, or we're doing some pause.
And we saw these sort of incredible rally Monday on
a fake headline about the pause tells you something about
the environment. But what the president can't do is undring
(14:35):
the bell because he can't really credibly say he'll never
do this again. Right, Like, do you worry that, like
this is going to permanently change America's economic relationship with
every country in the world.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Yeah, I just got back from Europe. Yeah there are certainly,
yes are strains around the world. Yeah, and yes those
bear watching. Having said that, I do believe that there's
a great opera coortunity to get this puzzle right and
make this work. But yes, there is some cost to
what's happened up to now. But I still think this
(15:09):
can get resolved. But it's going to require some action
on our part in order to do that. And I
think the markets in their up and down reaction today,
they're just not sure how imminent that is and whether
that's going to happen, And so you're seeing this uncertainty
prevail in the markets. The problem with uncertainty going on
(15:31):
for too long is it flows activity. If I'm a
consumer thinking about taking an action, I might pause it.
If I can tell you talking to companies, they're not
saying no, but they're saying not now. They have already
had other uncertainties they're dealing with in their business, how
to approach AI, which use cases for AI spending will work.
(15:56):
They have other issues that they're always wrestling with, and
I think all this does is cause them to be
more careful pause actions they might have otherwise taken. And
I don't think you want that to go on indefinitely.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Just going back to the FED for a second, what's
the pain threshold for the Central Bank in terms of
movements in the financial market? Like how bad does it
need to get before maybe they start rolling out some
tools to try to calm things down?
Speaker 5 (16:27):
All right, So the Fed back the headline, what I'm
worried about is full employment and price stability. Stock market
going down substantially does not by itself necessarily cause me
to do anything other than I'm aware of it. Credit
spreads beginning to gap out gets my attention more because
(16:50):
I'm concerned that that, in fact would be an amplifier
of a potential slowdown. I e. Businesses might not fire
people because there's is down, but they might start to
if they see their business slowing and credit spreads widening
and they're worried about financeability. So I'm watching that still
not acting normally. If you see a potential demand shock
(17:14):
and the soft data, which is what we're seeing, weaken,
but the hard data is still hanging in there, you
might start thinking. If you didn't have an inflation issue,
you might think about taking some action. But the FED
does have an inflation issue, and so I think you'll
see the Fed, as we said, be more reactive until
(17:35):
you're clearly seeing evidence that there is a slowing and
you're going to want to see at the FED to
act more than just an inching up in the unemployment rate.
You start seeing a much more dramatic move up, and
then you're going to realize that we could be entering
into a demand shock which would actually be disinflationary, which
(17:58):
might offset part of this supply shock. And that's where
you'd see the FED be more willing to act. But
it's going to be at least a period of time.
It's not the main meeting. I think they're going to
watch it very carefully, and I think the sooner you
might see that materialize would be into June and over
the summer. The only other thing I'll mention that I'd
(18:19):
be watching for very carefully at the FED is you
want to make sure there's orderly market function and particularly
orderly treasury market functions. And again, as long as that's
the case, I think the FED will watch all these
things I just said, but be patient, and they're going
to want to see real hard evidence of the slowing
before they took an action. And the reason is they
(18:42):
don't want to jump the teriff situation gets resolved and
at the aftermath we still have an inflation issue and
they regret that they've jumped into it and cut the rate.
I think they're going to need to be more reactive,
which does mean that by the time they move, you know,
normally say that are going to be on Maybe you
could be accused of being late that. I think they're
(19:03):
willing to take that risk.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Let's pivot a little bit. Tracy wrote about something last week,
or maybe it was two weeks ago. My brain is
getting fried, so I don't have any concept of time anymore.
The the Dallas Fed's energy survey, which I think comes
to a quarterly, unlike the manufacturing is service. It's just
unbelievable stuff up there. And this is from an industry
(19:27):
which we all know tends to be, you know, probably
pretty sympathetic to the current administration politically. They're talking about
uncertainty like they've never seen. They've talked about the increased
cost of all of their parts for drilling. I mean,
it was like kind of apocalyptic. And that was actually
before the last week and a half. One of the
things in Vestent's three three three plan was getting three
(19:50):
million more barrels of oil drilled and expanding energy dominance. Meanwhile,
WTI just falling to his lowest level in four years,
in part because opek is turning on the gusher, in
part because of these recession firms tell us what's going
on down there on the energy patch.
Speaker 5 (20:05):
So we started the Dallas Fed Energy Survey when I
was running to Dallas Fed, and we did it particularly
for this reason. We wanted to get a grip on
what will break even levels, at what levels are you
profitable at, what prices are you more likely to drill,
and what we're seeing as the following four years ago,
(20:27):
when the industry heard drill, baby, drill, they would be
they were very excited about that. I think over the
last three or four years they have been drilling subject
to cash flow. They've been pressured by shareholders to return
more capital, and cost to drill have gone up, and
tariffs will increase cost to drill more. And so the
(20:50):
industry will drill at one level if the price is
eighty dollars, but it's going to drill at a lower level,
all things being equal, if prices get into fifties or sixties.
And so I think we may well find over this
next year that actually the level of drilling activity doesn't increase,
and I think people who are drilling are going to
be more careful, particularly as the price has come down.
(21:13):
You see OPEK. I think the US may have more
success pressuring OPEC and Saudi Arabia to produce more, and
we will in this country make it easier to permit
a refiner, will make it easier to build transmission. So
I think the price will come down. Is coming down
and may stay down, but it may not be because
(21:34):
of more US drilling, and maybe because of demand falling
off because of concern about tariffs, and also because OPEK
actually producing more, probably under some influence from the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
I'm looking at h chart of the Baker Hughes oil
and Gas re account right now, and it's kind of funny.
I guess we'll take what we can get nowadays. But
it went up in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty
two quite a lot under the Biden administration, and since
I guess for most of twenty twenty four, it's kind
of been flatlining. And in fact, Joe, the energy survey
(22:12):
that I wrote up, I think the headline on our
newsletter was instead of drill, baby drill, it was nil
baby nil, right, because there's no new oil and gas
rigs actually getting built and not much more production coming
on stream.
Speaker 5 (22:26):
That's right. And you've seen the reason for that trend
you just described is prices were higher in twenty one
and twenty two that led to more drilling as prices moderate,
and they're actually lowering now. I think you'll see more
tepet activity as you just described.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
And in terms of your experience at the Dallas FED,
I wanted to ask you because you were there, I
think it.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
Was fifteen through twenty one, thank you.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Thank you for doing my research for me. But that
included twenty eighteen when we saw the tariffs under the
first Trump present, did and see what was your experience
like then and what lessons or surprises did you encounter
at that time.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
So Texas is a very large exporting state, and we
did an enormous amount of work at the Dallas said
on the impact of tariffs, and I probably in those
years read every tariff paper that I could get my
hands on. And what we concluded, me and my team
concluded is tariffs could have some price impact, but the
(23:30):
biggest impact we saw if tariffs is of the potential
of they had to slow growth and so as a
result of it. You may remember back in eighteen and
nineteen I said, I think we should be more proactive
here lower rates, and that if you wait to see
the weakness in GDP and employment, you've waited too late.
(23:53):
And the thing is I had the luxury of being
able to argue that in those years because we did
not have an inflation all right.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
So clearly there is a lot going on, some of
it in many ways very unprecedented. What are you looking
out for next in terms of not just the impact
on the FED and how this might influence their immediate
monetary policy path, but also in terms of the sort
of big structural trends of the global macroeconomy, of geopolitics,
(24:23):
you name it.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Yes, so they're including tarifster. Five big structural changes going
on right now. We've already hit on on. The Number
one is we are attempting to reduce fiscal spending with
the desire and obviously it's been somewhat risk of stating
the obviously been jarring, but with the desire to try
to reduce the current six and a half seven percent
(24:47):
of GDP deficit to something lower than that. We've gone
from twenty nineteen to today debt to GDP in the United
States net approximately in the mid seventies over one hundred percent.
And so first structural changes tried to have an economy
that is less fiscal spending lead and more private sector led.
(25:11):
That's number one. Fiscal spending reductions, though slow growth might
in fact be disinflationary, but that's the first one. Second
one is regulatory review in every industry with the ambition
of improving productivity growth. In an aging country that is
highly leveraged, the X factor that can help you deleverage
(25:33):
is productivity growth. The issue with regulatory review is they'll
take some time for that to translate into greater growth,
and that's the issue. It'll be a time like third
big change, which we've talked about, is I would say
a restruction of the energy ecosystem. Encouraging drillers here we
(25:54):
just talked about to drill, although they're going to be
more reluctant, but then encouraging Saudi Arabia and others to
produce more and addition will be easier to permit a refinery,
easier to create transmission and the idea is to help
low moderate income families here visibly who've lost twenty five
percent plus purchasing power to allow them to pay a
(26:17):
lower price at the pump and for power. The fourth
big one is two big drivers of US EXSGDP of
the last three or four years. One I would argue
was excess fiscal spending, and then the second was immigration
and labor force surge is due to some percentage of
undocumented immigrants entering the workforce that obviously has ended. Workforce
(26:41):
growth will decline this year from previous years. And there
are millions of undocumented immigrants in the country who are
uncertain of their status, and they make up half the
construction workforce in a state like Texas, they make up
a chunk of the agriculture workforce, and other workers in
(27:02):
the service sector. And what I'm hearing from employers is
some number of those workers are not showing up at
work because they're concerned about an ice rade and they're
concerned about their status. They're certainly not spending. And I
think there's going to be a question as we go here,
do we want to clarify, does the government want to
clarify how far they want to go here so those
(27:24):
people can get back to their lives. But the juries
out on that. And then the last one we just
talked about is tariffs, which has created all the impacts
of potentially stickier prices, which is a supply side shock,
but also is likely based on our work it's likely
to slow growth. So that's the package of things going on,
(27:49):
and so the question then with all that, it's one
thing that growth slips from what it might have been
two and a quarter two and a half percent. We
thought some number of weeks ago to say one and
a half for one and three quarters, but you now
have our own economists and other economists are now suggesting
that growth is going to slip well below that, approaching
(28:10):
zero or half of one percent. And if these tariffs
continue it those estimates may even get revised down. You've
got a risk of a meaningful slowdown in growth. Again,
it doesn't have to unfold this way, but a lot
of it is going to be a function of what
actions are taken here over the next days and weeks.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Robert Kaplan, you know, when we scheduled this episode several
weeks ago, I didn't think we realized it would be
quite such interesting times. But this was the perfect timing,
perfect guest. Thank you so much for coming back on.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Odd lotch That was great.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Great to talk with.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
You, Tracy, that was great. I, like I said the end,
didn't quite realize how much there would be to talk about.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
You know what I think I shouldn't have said that.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
You should have just been like, yeah, we were thinking
about what's going on in markets, and we had Rob
Kaplan on speed dial and he was We knew he
was the perfect person.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Knew who you know what, Tracy? That tenure yield four
point twenty eight, it was at four on the fourth
so on Friday. Yeah, that's a crazy chart. That's an
ominous chart. It's an ominous chart.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
You know what worries me more? Yeah, I'm looking at
swapspreads right now.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
It's never a good sign when you start seeing headlines
about swap spreads like these are supposed to be relatively boring,
and uh, they're not boring right now.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
So what's going on in swap spreads?
Speaker 4 (29:39):
So they're dropping quite a lot, and I guess the
speculation is whether or not that has to do with
hedge funds unwinding that basis trade that we mentioned.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
It's really funny, man, it's really funny also thinking that,
you know, I totally forgot basically until right during that
conversation that three three three bestent thing, which just seems
like such old news. The idea is like, Okay, we're
gonna modestly decrease the deficit over time.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
It doesn't come up that much anymore.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
We're gonna have three percent GDP Brothers like, man, they
really just took a They really did not go with
that approach. Did they to say the least?
Speaker 5 (30:15):
No?
Speaker 4 (30:15):
No, they did not show. Here's a question, do you
still want to be fed chairman?
Speaker 5 (30:20):
I would take it.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
If you become FED chairman? Will you come on on
my solo All Thoughts show and talk to me?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
It would be fun if you go. It's so great
to reunite with you, Tracy. I got a new job,
but it's always fun to come back and check out.
How Yes, I'll do that. I'll leave it. I would
even be a regional FED president. Can yeah, can listeners
tell that we're totally fried?
Speaker 4 (30:42):
I wonder like, yeah, our our banter y is not
great at the moment, but okay, shall we leave it
there on the note that we cannot banter any longer?
All right? This has been another episode of the au
Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at
Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
And I'm Jill Wassenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart.
Follow our producers Kerman Rodriguez at Kerman Arman, Dashel Bennett
at dashbot and kel Brooks at kel Brooks. From our
Oddlogs content, go to Bloomberg dot com slash od Lots.
We have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes,
and you can chat about all of these topics twenty
four to seven in our discord discord dot gg slash
(31:22):
od loots.
Speaker 4 (31:22):
And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you like it
when we tap former Fed presidents to talk about what
the Central Bank is going to do right now, then
please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform.
And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can
listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All
you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on
Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
Thanks for listening in
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
I'm Jill Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Tracy, there are many dimensions of the ongoing market turbulent
and trade tensions that we can't stop talking about, but
a big one, and in a way, it's almost taken.
People aren't talking about it that much right now because
there's so many other things top of mind, a lot
of questions about how the FED is gonna think about
what's happening right here.
Speaker 4 (00:41):
Right And I know it's probably not very popular to
sympathize with the central bank, but I gotta say I
would hate to be Jerome Powell right now because in
my mind, the consensus right now seems to be that
we're heading for some sort of stagflationary scenario, at least
in the short to intermedia terms, so higher inflation, lower growth,
(01:03):
possibly even recession, and that to me just seems like
a nightmare scenario for a central bank which constantly has
to balance its twin mandate of price stability and low unemployment.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
It's really tricky, right because we've sort of been used
to environments where it's really obvious. Right, So in twenty
twenty two, twenty twenty three, it was clear that they
were missing on one specific side, which was the price
for much of you know, post two thousand and seven
or two thousand and eight, the story was we growth, disinflation, whatever,
so poor employment. I mean, this is going to be tricky.
(01:37):
And look, when we're talking about restructuring the global economy
or the internal economy, these are questions that there is
a limit to the degree to which one monetary policy
can solve them. They can maybe, you know, maybe things
a little bit, but at the end, these aren't really
monetary policy questions we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Here, right, And I think we all internalized that lesson
in the twenty twenty pandemic, Right, We saw all these
real world disruptions, supply chain issues, and that gave rise
to the infamous transitory inflation as the FED called it.
And it seems very much like that's a possibility again.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Right totally, And like we've been saying, we've been going
back to talking to all our old supply chain guests
because you know, the whole world may be redrawn anyway.
We're recording this after the market closed. It's April eighth,
twenty twenty five. It's four h nine pm. We just
had another crazy day in the market. S and P
five hundred and a down one point five to seven percent.
It had been up over four percent at one point,
(02:34):
so we continue to whipsaw. Anyway, I'm excited to say
we really do have the perfect guest, someone we've had
actually on the show once before. We are going to
be speaking with Rob Kaplan. He is a vice chairman
of Goldman Sachs, member of the management committee. Prior to that,
he was the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas. Prior to that, he had been Harvard.
Prior to that, he had been at Goldman Sacks. Truly
(02:56):
the perfect guest for right now, Rob Kaplan, thank you
so much for coming back Outlaws.
Speaker 5 (03:00):
Thanks for having me. Good to talk with you.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
Tracy said she wouldn't want to be Jerome Paula. I
would still take that job, but I'm just let's start.
You're on this. Let's say you know this is all
happening a few years ago and you're still at the FED.
How stressful is this kind of environment for charting a
course from monetary policy?
Speaker 5 (03:18):
Well, the last time we had a tiff issue. Yeah,
you got to go back to twenty nineteen. I was
at the FED at the time, and you may recall
we preemptively cut the FED funds rate three times. I
think we called it a tactical recalibration or something like that.
(03:39):
And the reason we were able to be preemptive is
we didn't have an inflation issue, so we could afford
to be preemptive. As we're sitting here today, the FED
goes into this already before the tariff situation, with an
inflation issue, and that inflation's sticky. Now the irony going
(03:59):
into this, The source of the sticky inflation has been services,
not goods. Goods have been disinflating up to now, up
until say two months ago or a month and a
half ago, and China over capacity has fed that disinflation.
But despite that, you know, we're hanging around two and
(04:22):
a half two and three quarters on the PCE. And
I would argue that the excess inflation has been more
about excess demand due to outsized fiscal spending. So we
are now in a new administration where they are dialing
down fiscal spending, so that excess demand is being pulled away.
(04:48):
You would normally consider that disinflationary. But now we've got
a supply shock issue related to tariffs, which relates ironically
to goods, not service. And so the most important thing
that FED is thinking right now is we don't have
to have this figured out, because we can't have it
figured out. If anything, they learned from the transitory episode,
(05:11):
don't try to jump ahead to predict things that you
can't know. And I think they're going to sit back,
let the situation unfold and try to understand it, and
they're going to be more reactive, not proactive, And I
think that will be the difference.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
You know, I mentioned stagflation before, which seems to be
becoming the consensus economic environment that everyone is talking about.
What's the playbook, I guess the traditional playbook for a
central bank that's starting or trying to battle stagflation. You know,
I'm thinking back to the nineteen seventies. Maybe Vulcar he
(05:52):
raised rates really aggressively and ultimately he was willing to
sacrifice employment in order to get down. Is there like
a normal playbook that central bankers can follow here?
Speaker 5 (06:07):
Not really in this case, in that you're right in
the seventies, we had a situation where we had slowing
growth and an inflation issue. One of the things I
would say about this situation, I think you have to
assess it for what's driving it, what are the structural drivers?
And I think that we have a lot of uncertainty.
(06:28):
You have government spending cuts, you have a dramatic reduction
in immigration and shutting down the border, which normally would
slow growth and might actually create some stickiness in the
labor force. And then you've got these teriff issues. But
the issue with the tariff situation is it's in flux.
(06:49):
You had the announcement last week on Wednesday, and it's
still very unclear. How much is the administration our administration
willing to negotiate, how much is this really about reciprocity?
And I think, honestly, how much of this is about
the administration might want to create more revenue and tariff
(07:14):
for revenue, and actually while countries may come back to
us and say we'll go down to zero and remove
non trade barriers, I think we're going to find out
how willing our administration is to in fact negotiate or
how much do they actually want hire tariffs to keep
the revenue, and so all those things are going through
(07:35):
the fed's mind, and so we don't know. And so
I think you just have to be patient, don't be
a prognosticator, be a risk manager, allow this situation to clarify.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Well, let me ask you a question. I mean, you
must talk all the time to both investors and to
real businesses of various sorts. Right now, when we're talking
on April eighth, do you think there is still some
belief that this can't be what the final tear of
schedule looks like, whatever it ends up being, maybe negotiations,
(08:07):
et cetera, That the idea that no, these numbers that
were unveiled on that chart on April second, they can't
really be what the new trading relationship with the rest
of the world is going to look like.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
Okay, so let's talk about both groups, businesses and then
capital allocators investors. I think there's a hope, there has
been a hope by both that yes, this was more
about reciprocity and there was going to be a negotiation,
and so this isn't where we're going to end up.
I think one of the reasons why the market is
(08:40):
behaving in the way it is. I think businesses are
still hopeful that this will be a negotiation, but they're
not sure about that, and they're starting to make plans
on how they're going to adjust, and there's a series
of things they could do. They're already talking about pressuring
suppliers to cut prices. They're talking about the potentially taking
(09:01):
some of this out of margin. There we're hoping up
to now that maybe the dollar would strengthen, and then
the other thing they're talking about is pricing, but they're
in the middle of trying to figure that out. They
are not, as much as you would hope, actively talking
about expanding capacity here because they're concerned that something they
(09:21):
build here is globally competitive, and you don't want to
build a high cost facility that only is competitive because
of the tariff mode. So that's where they are. They're
treading water and trying to be receptive and figure this
out and giving their views to the administration. Capital allocators,
on the other hand, started the year wanting to be
(09:43):
long the dollar dollar denominated assets, and what's happened is
they have been moving on the margin away from the dollar,
and you're even seeing in the last week that some
dollar weakness ten year treasury backing up as opposed to rallying,
(10:05):
which you would normally expect to see, and you're seeing
a move I think, not between asset classes. You're seeing
a move away from dollar denominated assets that is extremely unusual,
and again they're doing it to hedge their bets depend
on what the administration is trying to accomplish.
Speaker 4 (10:25):
I wanted to ask you about exactly this you mentioned earlier.
Don't be a prognosticator, be a risk manager, and that
sounds like we should make like inspirational posters with like
little kittens hanging from trees with that text below. But
on this note, one of the reasons this market move
is particularly painful is not just because it's very, very big,
(10:47):
a big downward shift, but also we're seeing bond sell
off at the same time, and I think we've moved
from like just under four percent on the tenure to
something like almost four point three percent. Now, again, that's
happening while stocks are selling off, which is something you
wouldn't expect to see normally. I have seen all sorts
(11:08):
of explanations for why this might be happening. I've seen
people talk about, well, maybe investors are liquidating what they
can sell in the current environment, not necessarily what they want.
And then secondly, maybe it's the basis trade being unwound. Thirdly,
maybe it's investors shifting away from US assets altogether. Where
do you sort of lie on that spectrum of reasons,
(11:31):
like what is the mix for why exactly yields are
going up right now?
Speaker 5 (11:36):
So we're seeing all those potential explanations. I think the
truth is we're not sure. There's certainly been comments in
the market, and we've seen them flows about the unwind
of the basis trade you referred to. We're seen among
some asset allocators a desire to reallocate and rebalance their
(11:57):
dollar exposures to other mare markets. And I think the
most insightful thing I can say, certainly if I'm at
the FED and sitting here at Goldmen Sachs, the only
thing we can all agree on. It's something we are
watching very carefully because it's a concern for a country
that has a let's say, thirty six thirty seven trillion
(12:20):
dollars of treasury debt outstanding and growing by at least
two trillion a year. It's very critical that we are
able to market our debt. We've struggled over the last
few years to sell duration and that we've tried to
front endload it. But it's critical for a country with
(12:40):
debt to GDP one hundred percent plus. You want to
be able to market your debt. You want confidence in
what we're doing here, and I think it bears watching,
and certainly if I were at the FED, I'd be
watching that very carefully.
Speaker 4 (13:11):
You've had a very long career, and Joe his intro
for you included many titles, many hats over your history
as a financial market veteran.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Have you ever seen anything like this?
Speaker 5 (13:23):
I think that normally what you're accustomed to in a
week like this last week, you would normally see a
flight to quality, you would see Treasury's rally, and you
would eventually start to get a better grip on what's
going on. Obviously, COVID was a good example of an
enormous uncertainty that took a while to resolve. It's been
(13:46):
unusual in my career to see a government led action
as opposed to an external shock, a government led action
I e. Man made that has in turn created this
kind of uncertainty. The good thing about this kind of situation.
If it's man made that created the uncertainty, it can
(14:07):
also be susceptible to man made actions that will address
the uncertainty. And I think that's what people in the
market are hoping for.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
Do you worry that they? I mean this is this
has come up and it's certainly true, right because at
any given moment, Trump could say no, we're taking this back,
but this is his life mission, or we're doing some pause.
And we saw these sort of incredible rally Monday on
a fake headline about the pause tells you something about
the environment. But what the president can't do is undring
(14:35):
the bell because he can't really credibly say he'll never
do this again. Right, Like, do you worry that, like
this is going to permanently change America's economic relationship with
every country in the world.
Speaker 5 (14:48):
Yeah, I just got back from Europe. Yeah there are certainly,
yes are strains around the world. Yeah, and yes those
bear watching. Having said that, I do believe that there's
a great opera coortunity to get this puzzle right and
make this work. But yes, there is some cost to
what's happened up to now. But I still think this
(15:09):
can get resolved. But it's going to require some action
on our part in order to do that. And I
think the markets in their up and down reaction today,
they're just not sure how imminent that is and whether
that's going to happen, And so you're seeing this uncertainty
prevail in the markets. The problem with uncertainty going on
(15:31):
for too long is it flows activity. If I'm a
consumer thinking about taking an action, I might pause it.
If I can tell you talking to companies, they're not
saying no, but they're saying not now. They have already
had other uncertainties they're dealing with in their business, how
to approach AI, which use cases for AI spending will work.
(15:56):
They have other issues that they're always wrestling with, and
I think all this does is cause them to be
more careful pause actions they might have otherwise taken. And
I don't think you want that to go on indefinitely.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Just going back to the FED for a second, what's
the pain threshold for the Central Bank in terms of
movements in the financial market? Like how bad does it
need to get before maybe they start rolling out some
tools to try to calm things down?
Speaker 5 (16:27):
All right, So the Fed back the headline, what I'm
worried about is full employment and price stability. Stock market
going down substantially does not by itself necessarily cause me
to do anything other than I'm aware of it. Credit
spreads beginning to gap out gets my attention more because
(16:50):
I'm concerned that that, in fact would be an amplifier
of a potential slowdown. I e. Businesses might not fire
people because there's is down, but they might start to
if they see their business slowing and credit spreads widening
and they're worried about financeability. So I'm watching that still
not acting normally. If you see a potential demand shock
(17:14):
and the soft data, which is what we're seeing, weaken,
but the hard data is still hanging in there, you
might start thinking. If you didn't have an inflation issue,
you might think about taking some action. But the FED
does have an inflation issue, and so I think you'll
see the Fed, as we said, be more reactive until
(17:35):
you're clearly seeing evidence that there is a slowing and
you're going to want to see at the FED to
act more than just an inching up in the unemployment rate.
You start seeing a much more dramatic move up, and
then you're going to realize that we could be entering
into a demand shock which would actually be disinflationary, which
(17:58):
might offset part of this supply shock. And that's where
you'd see the FED be more willing to act. But
it's going to be at least a period of time.
It's not the main meeting. I think they're going to
watch it very carefully, and I think the sooner you
might see that materialize would be into June and over
the summer. The only other thing I'll mention that I'd
(18:19):
be watching for very carefully at the FED is you
want to make sure there's orderly market function and particularly
orderly treasury market functions. And again, as long as that's
the case, I think the FED will watch all these
things I just said, but be patient, and they're going
to want to see real hard evidence of the slowing
before they took an action. And the reason is they
(18:42):
don't want to jump the teriff situation gets resolved and
at the aftermath we still have an inflation issue and
they regret that they've jumped into it and cut the rate.
I think they're going to need to be more reactive,
which does mean that by the time they move, you know,
normally say that are going to be on Maybe you
could be accused of being late that. I think they're
(19:03):
willing to take that risk.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Let's pivot a little bit. Tracy wrote about something last week,
or maybe it was two weeks ago. My brain is
getting fried, so I don't have any concept of time anymore.
The the Dallas Fed's energy survey, which I think comes
to a quarterly, unlike the manufacturing is service. It's just
unbelievable stuff up there. And this is from an industry
(19:27):
which we all know tends to be, you know, probably
pretty sympathetic to the current administration politically. They're talking about
uncertainty like they've never seen. They've talked about the increased
cost of all of their parts for drilling. I mean,
it was like kind of apocalyptic. And that was actually
before the last week and a half. One of the
things in Vestent's three three three plan was getting three
(19:50):
million more barrels of oil drilled and expanding energy dominance. Meanwhile,
WTI just falling to his lowest level in four years,
in part because opek is turning on the gusher, in
part because of these recession firms tell us what's going
on down there on the energy patch.
Speaker 5 (20:05):
So we started the Dallas Fed Energy Survey when I
was running to Dallas Fed, and we did it particularly
for this reason. We wanted to get a grip on
what will break even levels, at what levels are you
profitable at, what prices are you more likely to drill,
and what we're seeing as the following four years ago,
(20:27):
when the industry heard drill, baby, drill, they would be
they were very excited about that. I think over the
last three or four years they have been drilling subject
to cash flow. They've been pressured by shareholders to return
more capital, and cost to drill have gone up, and
tariffs will increase cost to drill more. And so the
(20:50):
industry will drill at one level if the price is
eighty dollars, but it's going to drill at a lower level,
all things being equal, if prices get into fifties or sixties.
And so I think we may well find over this
next year that actually the level of drilling activity doesn't increase,
and I think people who are drilling are going to
be more careful, particularly as the price has come down.
(21:13):
You see OPEK. I think the US may have more
success pressuring OPEC and Saudi Arabia to produce more, and
we will in this country make it easier to permit
a refiner, will make it easier to build transmission. So
I think the price will come down. Is coming down
and may stay down, but it may not be because
(21:34):
of more US drilling, and maybe because of demand falling
off because of concern about tariffs, and also because OPEK
actually producing more, probably under some influence from the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
I'm looking at h chart of the Baker Hughes oil
and Gas re account right now, and it's kind of funny.
I guess we'll take what we can get nowadays. But
it went up in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty
two quite a lot under the Biden administration, and since
I guess for most of twenty twenty four, it's kind
of been flatlining. And in fact, Joe, the energy survey
(22:12):
that I wrote up, I think the headline on our
newsletter was instead of drill, baby drill, it was nil
baby nil, right, because there's no new oil and gas
rigs actually getting built and not much more production coming
on stream.
Speaker 5 (22:26):
That's right. And you've seen the reason for that trend
you just described is prices were higher in twenty one
and twenty two that led to more drilling as prices moderate,
and they're actually lowering now. I think you'll see more
tepet activity as you just described.
Speaker 4 (22:44):
And in terms of your experience at the Dallas FED,
I wanted to ask you because you were there, I
think it.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
Was fifteen through twenty one, thank you.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Thank you for doing my research for me. But that
included twenty eighteen when we saw the tariffs under the
first Trump present, did and see what was your experience
like then and what lessons or surprises did you encounter
at that time.
Speaker 5 (23:08):
So Texas is a very large exporting state, and we
did an enormous amount of work at the Dallas said
on the impact of tariffs, and I probably in those
years read every tariff paper that I could get my
hands on. And what we concluded, me and my team
concluded is tariffs could have some price impact, but the
(23:30):
biggest impact we saw if tariffs is of the potential
of they had to slow growth and so as a
result of it. You may remember back in eighteen and
nineteen I said, I think we should be more proactive
here lower rates, and that if you wait to see
the weakness in GDP and employment, you've waited too late.
(23:53):
And the thing is I had the luxury of being
able to argue that in those years because we did
not have an inflation all right.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
So clearly there is a lot going on, some of
it in many ways very unprecedented. What are you looking
out for next in terms of not just the impact
on the FED and how this might influence their immediate
monetary policy path, but also in terms of the sort
of big structural trends of the global macroeconomy, of geopolitics,
(24:23):
you name it.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
Yes, so they're including tarifster. Five big structural changes going
on right now. We've already hit on on. The Number
one is we are attempting to reduce fiscal spending with
the desire and obviously it's been somewhat risk of stating
the obviously been jarring, but with the desire to try
to reduce the current six and a half seven percent
(24:47):
of GDP deficit to something lower than that. We've gone
from twenty nineteen to today debt to GDP in the United
States net approximately in the mid seventies over one hundred percent.
And so first structural changes tried to have an economy
that is less fiscal spending lead and more private sector led.
(25:11):
That's number one. Fiscal spending reductions, though slow growth might
in fact be disinflationary, but that's the first one. Second
one is regulatory review in every industry with the ambition
of improving productivity growth. In an aging country that is
highly leveraged, the X factor that can help you deleverage
(25:33):
is productivity growth. The issue with regulatory review is they'll
take some time for that to translate into greater growth,
and that's the issue. It'll be a time like third
big change, which we've talked about, is I would say
a restruction of the energy ecosystem. Encouraging drillers here we
(25:54):
just talked about to drill, although they're going to be
more reluctant, but then encouraging Saudi Arabia and others to
produce more and addition will be easier to permit a refinery,
easier to create transmission and the idea is to help
low moderate income families here visibly who've lost twenty five
percent plus purchasing power to allow them to pay a
(26:17):
lower price at the pump and for power. The fourth
big one is two big drivers of US EXSGDP of
the last three or four years. One I would argue
was excess fiscal spending, and then the second was immigration
and labor force surge is due to some percentage of
undocumented immigrants entering the workforce that obviously has ended. Workforce
(26:41):
growth will decline this year from previous years. And there
are millions of undocumented immigrants in the country who are
uncertain of their status, and they make up half the
construction workforce in a state like Texas, they make up
a chunk of the agriculture workforce, and other workers in
(27:02):
the service sector. And what I'm hearing from employers is
some number of those workers are not showing up at
work because they're concerned about an ice rade and they're
concerned about their status. They're certainly not spending. And I
think there's going to be a question as we go here,
do we want to clarify, does the government want to
clarify how far they want to go here so those
(27:24):
people can get back to their lives. But the juries
out on that. And then the last one we just
talked about is tariffs, which has created all the impacts
of potentially stickier prices, which is a supply side shock,
but also is likely based on our work it's likely
to slow growth. So that's the package of things going on,
(27:49):
and so the question then with all that, it's one
thing that growth slips from what it might have been
two and a quarter two and a half percent. We
thought some number of weeks ago to say one and
a half for one and three quarters, but you now
have our own economists and other economists are now suggesting
that growth is going to slip well below that, approaching
(28:10):
zero or half of one percent. And if these tariffs
continue it those estimates may even get revised down. You've
got a risk of a meaningful slowdown in growth. Again,
it doesn't have to unfold this way, but a lot
of it is going to be a function of what
actions are taken here over the next days and weeks.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Robert Kaplan, you know, when we scheduled this episode several
weeks ago, I didn't think we realized it would be
quite such interesting times. But this was the perfect timing,
perfect guest. Thank you so much for coming back on.
Speaker 3 (28:42):
Odd lotch That was great.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Great to talk with.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
You, Tracy, that was great. I, like I said the end,
didn't quite realize how much there would be to talk about.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
You know what I think I shouldn't have said that.
Speaker 4 (29:04):
You should have just been like, yeah, we were thinking
about what's going on in markets, and we had Rob
Kaplan on speed dial and he was We knew he
was the perfect person.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Knew who you know what, Tracy? That tenure yield four
point twenty eight, it was at four on the fourth
so on Friday. Yeah, that's a crazy chart. That's an
ominous chart. It's an ominous chart.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
You know what worries me more? Yeah, I'm looking at
swapspreads right now.
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
It's never a good sign when you start seeing headlines
about swap spreads like these are supposed to be relatively boring,
and uh, they're not boring right now.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
So what's going on in swap spreads?
Speaker 4 (29:39):
So they're dropping quite a lot, and I guess the
speculation is whether or not that has to do with
hedge funds unwinding that basis trade that we mentioned.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
It's really funny, man, it's really funny also thinking that,
you know, I totally forgot basically until right during that
conversation that three three three bestent thing, which just seems
like such old news. The idea is like, Okay, we're
gonna modestly decrease the deficit over time.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
It doesn't come up that much anymore.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
We're gonna have three percent GDP Brothers like, man, they
really just took a They really did not go with
that approach. Did they to say the least?
Speaker 5 (30:15):
No?
Speaker 4 (30:15):
No, they did not show. Here's a question, do you
still want to be fed chairman?
Speaker 5 (30:20):
I would take it.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
If you become FED chairman? Will you come on on
my solo All Thoughts show and talk to me?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
It would be fun if you go. It's so great
to reunite with you, Tracy. I got a new job,
but it's always fun to come back and check out.
How Yes, I'll do that. I'll leave it. I would
even be a regional FED president. Can yeah, can listeners
tell that we're totally fried?
Speaker 4 (30:42):
I wonder like, yeah, our our banter y is not
great at the moment, but okay, shall we leave it
there on the note that we cannot banter any longer?
All right? This has been another episode of the au
Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at
Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
And I'm Jill Wassenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart.
Follow our producers Kerman Rodriguez at Kerman Arman, Dashel Bennett
at dashbot and kel Brooks at kel Brooks. From our
Oddlogs content, go to Bloomberg dot com slash od Lots.
We have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes,
and you can chat about all of these topics twenty
four to seven in our discord discord dot gg slash
(31:22):
od loots.
Speaker 4 (31:22):
And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you like it
when we tap former Fed presidents to talk about what
the Central Bank is going to do right now, then
please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform.
And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can
listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All
you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on
Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
Thanks for listening in
Hosts And Creators
Joe Weisenthal
Tracy Alloway
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.