Bloomberg Surveillance- Victoria Fernandez, Chief Market Strategist at Crossmark Global Investments
- Angelo Zino, Vice President of Equity Research at CFRA
- French Hill, US Representative: Arkansas and Chairman of House Financial Services Committee
- Jim Bullard, Dean of the Purdue University Business School
Victoria Fernandez of Crossmark Global Investments discusses the outlook for equities amid looming US tariffs. Angelo Zino with CFRA talks about Nvidia-backed CoreWeave IPO. French Hill, Republican US Representative: Arkansas and Chairman of House Financial Services Committee, discusses the economic priorities of the House and how Federal policy could reshape the US economy. Jim Bullard, Dean of the Purdue University Business School and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, reacts to PCE data today.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. We begin this hour with stock steady ahead of fresh inflation data at eight thirty Eastern time. Victoria Fanadez a Crossmark, writing, we have witnessed a definite shift from the animal spirits driving markets to a new all time hire just a few weeks ago to now an increased probability of recession becoming the topic of conversation. Victoria joined us now for more. Victoria, welcome back. A week away from Liberation Day early next week. That's going to be the big focus for this market. It feels like you've changed you a few on things. What's changed?
Well, I think it's actually kind of what you guys were talking about it's that sentiment of the consumer.
When we look over the past year.
You know, we kept saying, there's so many red flags that tell us we should be in a pullback, we should be in a recession, but the consumer.
Was always there.
We talk about a FED put or a Trump put, but really it was the consumer put for the longest.
Period of time. That's what has changed.
Now we see the consumer and you guys have already talked about it this morning, all those companies coming out on their earnings on their conference calls talking about the concern that they're seeing.
Lulu Women being the late latest example.
I mean, I thought my kids alone would help support the numbers at Lulu Women with their purchases, but apparently it is not enough, and the consumers are starting to pull back, and you get in that negative feedback loop.
As the consumers start to.
Pull back, revenues come down, margins start to get affected. What happens nine months after margins get affected, companies start laying off. And we've seen that with the Challenger layoffs in the last month. And so I think it's that consumer element that has changed that's giving us more concern, especially with potentially more tariffs coming.
How much is this company's kitchen sinking it? Though you mentioned Lululemon and your kids would single handedly cause this shared to go up, But a lot of the kids are actually getting baggy stuff right now, and that was something they address that actually the styles are moving past that sort of trademark legging spandex Look, I'm just wondering how do you parse through how significant the hit is and how big of a slowdown you have to price into market expectations.
Yeah, I mean it's going to be different for every company, and the companies that have been out there talking about the slowdown have been along a wide range. It's not just apparel, right We saw Best Buy as one of those. Yes, there was Nike and Lululemon, but you see Walmart, which is a different cohort of a consumer. And I think part of the issue, Lisa, is that it's not just the low incoming middle income consumer anymore. We've talked for the last year year and a half on that high income consumer really supporting that economy and continuing to spend. Even if they shifted their spending habits they went maybe from a higher element kind of store now shopping at Walmart.
We saw Walmart gain a lot of.
Share, but now they're talking about even the high end income consumer pulling back. So I think you have to take that longer term approach and say, as we go through this year and consumer start to pull back as they're worried about their jobs, and we see that in the quits rate coming down, we see it with hiring rates slowing. That's the element you have to look at to determine what does growth look like if that consumer engine is not there driving it.
Peter Cheer earlier told Bloomberg TV that the US is trading kap trade flows for capital flows and the rest of the world is going to outperform.
Do you look to the rest of.
The world ahead of Liberation Day because you're really unsure about what is going to happen here in the United States.
Yeah, I think the rest of the world.
We've heard from plenty of leaders around the globe talking about the concerns and already trying to make steps beforehand. We've seen it come out of India, We've seen it come out of some of the European countries, where what can we do and before the idea of reciprocal tariffs come to lower that rate.
What can we do to help our consumers. We saw inflation this morning.
Out of Europe actually come in lower than expected and ECB rate cuts moving higher, So you have to, you know, look at it and see what are rates going to do between the two What does it look like on exchange rates? International has done much better because of the concept of growth continuing, especially in Europe with the steps that Germany has making in defense.
But has some of that already run out?
Is that already priced in to the European market? So I might wait for a little bit of a pullback on international before putting my toe on the water if I haven't already, and let that consolidate a little bit before going there.
Victoria. This is not only headwind for markets. In fact, that dominant headwind has been the pain trade, and the pain trade's been TechEd so far in twenty twenty five. Stayside, Let's think about the shots that's been fired at tech over the last week or so. Reports that Microsoft is pulling back on data cent to spending, Ali Bamba firing shots about over capacity and bubbles, and then overnight a heavily downsized IPO from core Weave. How constrained is the AI trade at the moment?
Yeah, I mean no one likes that word bubble, but there is a lot of questions now going into hearing all of the money the KAPEC spends that people that companies are going to do in regards to AI. Seeing some of that pull back you mentioned Microsoft is a perfect example of it, and what does that mean going forward?
I think, you know, look tech, as we went.
Into this correction, Tech had already pulled back. They haven't become leadership during this correction period that we're in, So I don't think we should look to tech to be the leaders coming out of this correction. I think they're going to continue to struggle because of some of the headlines that you've mentioned. Maybe you start to look at some of the secondary companies that will benefit from productivity enhancements from AI and not necessarily the tech names, the data warehouse components of it that people were really looking at. We've seen utility sector pull back a little bit as well because of the headlines that you're mentioning. So I think we continue to see some struggles in tech and you're probably going to have to look at places like healthcare, maybe certain types of materials, financials. These are the sectors I think that will lead us coming out of the correction that we're in.
That's where you should probably focus.
Can you walk us through how all of these prongs of sentiment hits have translated into your view shift over how you should allocate your assets? And I ask this at a time when gold is at recordize and people aren't sure whether to go into bonds or whether to go into healthcare.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, look, you know you're talking to the bond girl here, So I would always recommend having some bonds in your portfolio. People want to hedge what they're seeing, and when there's concerns around growth, gold is the hedge that people go into when that's not the concern. When growth is actually looking like it might pick up, then you see people go more into industrial metals or things like copper. Copper's actually down this morning after having a pretty good run, gold continues to move higher, so you see there's that concern around growth. We look at centiment and it's always important to break cinniment down and say what's driving that number? Is it the more volatile component of centiment that's the expectations part, or is it the present situation that's driving it. That's usually more focused on jobs and fundamentals. We saw both elements come down in the last sentiment numbers, so there is maybe a little bit of support to that stagflation argument that people are talking about as we have concerns around the growth component which supports gold, and still have concerns around inflation and how sticky that's going to be. Obviously we have pa later today, but I think you have to look at sentiment and say this feeds into the story of a pullback of the consumer, pulling back of growth concerns, of GDP concerns at least in the first half of this year.
Since you're a bond girl, could you really say that bonds are going to have the same kind of a buffering effect that they have traditionally at a time where inflation expectations are actually rising.
Yeah.
I don't think you're going to go into fixed income right now and say, oh wow, spreads are going to tighten.
I'm going to get, you know, a.
Lot of a price return coming out of that part of the market. I don't think that's what you're going into fixed income for right now, I think you're going into fixed income to lock in some steady cash flow components in your portfolio. Some people may like to do that with dividend payers in the equity market, but that's a little more volatile. If you can lock in some steady cash flow on the short end and the long end of the treasury curve, it gives you a little bit more buffer in your portfolio, as we think we're going to continue to see volatility at least for the next six months in the equity side.
Of the market.
Victoria, I appreciate your take on things going into the weekend. Victoria Fernandez a crossmark Nvidia backed coal Weave, raising one point five billion with a starting share price of forty The firm initially seeking to raise as much as two point seven billion ahead of its first day of trading. Later on today, Angela Zino CFI eight joined us Now for more. Angela, welcome to the program. What kind of signal do you take from this heavily discounted IPO.
Well, you know, well, first off, thanks for having me. But when we kind of look at this, I mean, we're not necessarily surprised by the discount here and I don't think most of the market are necessarily surprised kind of in light of recent events and what we've seen over the last couple of weeks from just overall sentiment on the tech side of things just you know, really kind of going sour overall. You've got these tariff macro issues out there and the implications that they're having on you know, tech. You've got these you know, obviously the Deep Seek concerns out there and the implicated creations on the tech side of things there. I think also as far as four Weave is concerned, specifically, when you kind of look at that business model and kind of, you know, how they handle the financing side of things, kind of being more of this kind of GPU infrastructure backed lending type of company, I think that's a business model that really doesn't kind of, you know, bode well with a lot of investors out there, especially amidst a period where kind of the a, we've got a risk off trade for AI right now.
It's a huge risk off trade and has been ever since the Deep Seeks revelations. Angelo, So let's build on that. It's not just that Ali Papa out this week. The chairman came out and said maybe there's some other capacity, perhaps even a bubble. Then we had a report from td count that suggested Microsoft was pulling back from projects in both the United States and in Europe too. It's a question we asked earlier Angelo, just how constrained is this trade at the moment?
Listen. I think when you kind of look at the sentiment out there, I mean, it's it's pretty it's pretty negative. I mean we kind of look at the hyperscalers out there, from the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, Metas out there declining anywhere from fifteen to twenty five percent. When you kind of look at the AI semi names out there, they've kind of declined more notably, kind of in the twenty five to fifty percent range out there. So a lot of kind of the uncertainty out there whether it's kind of what you alluded to as far as the Microsoft situation is concerned. And I think that'll be the most important event this earning season, is that earning's call from Microsoft. We really need to hear from them, find out exactly what their intent out there is. I Mean our view is it partly has to do with that open AI relationship as well, as the fact that hey, listen, maybe they're well and they will clearly articulately the fact that they are going to shift more towards their server side of things and less towards the infrastructure side of things, which we think makes a lot of sense. We do like the Microsoft's trade at this point time, given the pullback, but there's a lot of uncertainty as far as all that is concerned out there. We think a little bit kind of to an extreme, and we do think a lot of those valuations are kind of baking some of that stuff into it.
To build on that. I'm kind of whipsid here because it was just a couple months ago that we had people on here who are saying that truly these hyperscalers can't invest enough in infrastructure, and that frankly, the energy system and the infrastructure currently out there is nowhere near what's necessary for the AI build out as people imagine it. So which is it? How do you understand how much what we're hearing from China is fact versus fiction in terms of just how much technological advances transforms that story.
Yeah, No, I think that's a great question, And I don't know if there's an actual way to answer that, to be honest with you, But when we kind of look at it, right, I think deep Seak did change things more than people kind of want to acknowledge out there. I think you kind of take a look at China, look at the efficiencies that they've kind of accomplished on their end of things, and then you kind of look at what's happening in the US, and I think kind of that's the bigger issue out there, because if you kind of look at the pace that these kind of hyperscalers are investing at and now at a point in time right where we do have these tariff concerns out there, we do have those growth concerns out there at a point where we could potentially see some pressures on the top line, whether you know, come from some deceleration on the cloud side of things, whether it be you know, some challenges on the digital ads side of things that puts pressure kind of on these hyperscalers out there. Not to mention, these tariffs out there also increase the cost of kind of installing these servers out there, So these these hyperscalers are going to have to, you know, look to be a little bit more efficient in nature and in many cases, what we've seen here over the last couple of months is really going to force them to do that is core.
We have a litmus test for other potential companies that want to IPO this year in the tech space or is it idiosyncratic and I hate to use that word, but special because of its connection particularly to some of these areas that are part of the peak uncertainty.
Yeah, I mean we personally wouldn't be using them as a benchmark for other potential tech IPOs and other IPOs in the market out there. Again, this isn't the name that we would potentially or would like to see us kind of that first name being thrown out there in this tech IPO market kind of you know, since the Trump administration has taken over. But that said, this is what we've got out there. It is going to be somewhat of a test out there. We'll see what the sentiment looks like. But in our view, no, it shouldn't kind of be used as kind of this test longer term or over the next nine to twelve months in terms of, you know, what the sentiment looks like for tech longer term.
So Angela for you, right, now to pick what is it.
It's a great question. We've told investors over the last couple of months to continue to shift towards software over semiconductors. Now, you know, we'd acknowledge that neither side have really kind of worked that well, but we'd say the lesser of both evils. Right now, I was still on the software side of things. We remain believers kind of on the side of things where you are going to see more M and A on that side of things. We also believe that kind of the fundamentals are also going to hold better up better on the software side of things. And for us, a name like Microsoft that these levels is a name that I feel pretty confident recommending to investors. I think Salesforce is another name which has seen a notable pick pullback as well, which is a name you can kind of be looking at at these levels.
Angela, I appreciate the input as always, Thank you, sir. I have a good weekend, Angela. Zina There of CFL Rating Center. Republicans working on changes to the House GOP tax plan looking to require few accounts in Medicaid benefits for the poor and disabled. The move aiming to appease members of the party worried about public backlash, and please decide the good friend of this program, a good friend of ours. The Congressman from Arkansas French Hill, joins us now for more. Congressman, good to see you, Sir.
Jonathan with you and Lisa and Anne Marie always going to be back in New York?
Is it tennangasp be as much fun as you thought it would be? Don in Washington every day is a joy eight pril Second, how much of a joy is that? Can it be?
I'm just glad it's not April first, because that would even increase even more.
Actually, what are your constituents telling you about what's hanniganaw counsaw on the ground.
Yeah, look on the relations to tariffs. About thirty percent of our output in Arkansas goes to Mexico or Canada, and that's food and manufactured goods and back and forth. And then you have the North American Free Trade Agreement now under USMCA that was crafted to make North America the destination for manufacturing. So for thirty years it's been knitted together. And so I think the first thing that I'm hearing is certainty and just lay out the plan on how you want to use tariffs to open up more markets for Americans, have reciprocity on fairness and certain markets that are highly disportionate disportionate treatment like for example. But when it comes to North America, let's renegotiate USMCA. If you want to limit certain inputs from China into Canada, Mexico or the United States, you can do that in the agreement. Those countries can do that on an input basis. If you want to have the American manufactured content higher, you could negotiate to do that, as President Trump successfully did last time he was president on the North American auto content. He got more American content. So I think it's best to tackle this Canadian and Mexican issue inside a new and revised USMCA.
But USMCA was done under Trump. It replaced NAFTA, So you want USMCA. Part two is do you think that's what he's getting at Donald Trump? Here, the president he's getting at the start bringing those twenty twenty six talks up into the mid twenty twenty five.
Yeah, potentially, And I think that's not wrong thinking on his part. If you're concerned about Chinese dumping through transshipment of steel, for example, or Mexico. Let's deal with that inside the agreement. Let's have Mexico deal with that in their own trade policy on inputs coming into the country. Because at the same that's how I think you have a more robust, competitive international system where manufacturing is at the heart of America. I think President Trump strategically in trade diplomacy, I'd like to see more things made in America that takes time to do. It's not overnight. We had steal an aluminum terraffs, you know, for the past five or six years, and they haven't you been overnight changes across the board.
Walmart is headquartered in your state. They went to China and said, look, we're dealing with tariffs. You're going to have to eat some of this costs. And the Chinese are saying, no, are you concerned about the cost being passed on to consumers?
I am when I don't know what the strategy is. This is the whole point. You have trade diplomacy on using trade as a sanctioned potential, like you saw the President do on Columbia on repatriation of immigrants. You had trade used for prosty to bring down actual barriers benefit actually both countries potentially over time, and we did that successfully for forty years. We did it targeted when I was in the White House working during the Bush administration. We use Section three oh one to target bad activities by the principally then Japan to open those markets doing this kind of terriff activity and limitation on imports to the US. So you can do that in a classic trade diplomacy situation. But when you have across the board and not clear on what the timeframe is for the increased production of the US, I think that's the challenging part.
But is it your sense when you speak to the White House that April second is the start of negotiations, that at the end of the day, the President is a deal maker and wants to get deals done.
Well, I hear from my colleagues on the House they want clarity, like the American business once. So you tell us what components and what timeframes you want to do trade diplomacy. You want to use reciprocity, you want to protect certain industries in the US where you want to have achievable gains in production here. But when it comes to autos, which is the most important topic of the day. I think I think that's best done through advancing changes to the USMCA that President Trump led successfully with the Mexicans and the Canadians in his first term.
The Market's also looking for clarity on all of Trump's proposals, especially tax cuts. The Senate, the Republicans Eric Wawson are reporter Washington, DC, is talking about how they want fewer cuts to medicate health benefits for the poor, disabled, which would be different what the House is talking about. Do you think House Republicans Senate Republicans can come to an agreement on how much can be cut?
I do. I think we'll come to an agreement. I think we can come to an agreement rather quickly on a joint House and Senate resolution for reconciliation so the committees can get to work. And I just referred to the Wall Street Journal story today talking about duplicate payments and medicaid across the states and how large that number is. House Republicans are looking ways to improve medicaid, focus medicaid on the most vulnerable, the young, the poor, the disabled, and tried to ring costs out of the systems Democrats. I think in a political charge are, Well, you're going to cut benefits for Medicaid. That's an assumption by Democrats politically, well, because.
The math doesn't work when you're talking about eight hundred and eighty and also that's.
The charge for the whole committee, right.
But most of that money goes to medicare.
Well, but look at the numbers, and I think that's what the House and Senate want to do. Let's get to a Senate resolution and let's let these committees work to mark those bills up to find the savings that we can produce.
Besides the extension of TCJ, what other tax cuts do you think are actually feasible. The President has talked about no tax on Social Security, no tax on tips. Just this week, no tax on auto loans apparently is being thrown out there, and he's flirting with what actually can get pasted.
Well, this is the beauty of the reconciliation process because the President puts his plan out there, his best idea is what he wants to try to accomplish, and then the House and Senate have to come to get there and figure out what we can do in the context of that budget resolution. Can we find the cuts? Can we find the offset. Do we agree in the in the House and Senate on the economic forecasts? And so I won't pre judge what the possibilities are. I just know how hard the work is going to be. I want to put an emphasis on things that grow the economy. So if we have to narrow the focus on of what amount of tax cuts we're going to have, what's focus on ones that preserve that produce production, more jobs, faster economic growth.
Do tariffs increase revenues and turbo charge growth?
Again, this depends on the strategy, Lisa. You know you can have an across the board modest tariff that might raise revenue and not impact growth economically, But what is your goal? Is it reciprocity, is it market opening in new countries, is it level of the playing field? Or is it increasing production in the US? Those things are sometimes in conflict.
What number are you penciling in for the tariff revenue to offset some of their cuts?
So in Congress we're actually not penciling in tariff revenue because it's not accounted by this Congressional Budget Office as an offset, which doesn't mean we can't count it. Like if there was a strategy and it laid out. The two budget committees could agree we will accept some revenue from projected tariffs in the revenue estimates and the reconciliation package, but we're not as of now counting that where that's a hypothetical that we're actually not counting on.
Right as willmomp in touch, I imagine they must have reached out to you and other representatives of anconsas how upset are they about this?
Well, they want I think so many businesses and they report on your broadcast on a regular basis. They can live with certain things that they know what the plan is. And so Walmart's concerned about the number one thing they think about every single day, which is the American family they serve, and they want to make sure that that can be in an affordable way. That's their goal in life. So this could interfere with that, but that's we need to wait and see what the ultimate goal is.
Do you think the White House appreciates that because we hear this every single day and we've said on this program confidence coming into twenty five with sky high, we wanted to see that sky high confidence translate into hiring, into investment, and the lack of currency the lack of certainty is really how things back, and you see that in the sentiment surveys. Now just the White House, in your opinion, sort of understand that the lack of certainty, the lack of clarency, is holding this economy back.
That's worry. I think Treasure secretary percent in a National Economic Council leader has to know that they're very experienced in economic policy making. And my view is you've got a I think clarity about right sizing regulatory costs and the economy. You've got clarity about trying to reduce the bureaucracy in the government. You've got clarity on where we want to go on tax policy. We need an equal amount of clarity on the strategy in and around tearos and increasing manufacturing. Here, President Trump's a big picture point is a good one, but you've got to develop a workable strategy to do that. And I think that's what the role of the treasure Secretary, of the Commerce Secretary and the National Economic Advisor, that's their principal mission.
Congress'man at Leastahonic is going to be staying put in Washington, d C. Not coming to New York to work at the UN And do you think that's an admission by the White House that they're nervous about getting this tax bill done through Congress they have the votes.
Well, it surprised me. I'll be candidate. I think Elise as an outstanding member of our leadership team. We welcome her back to the Congress. But I also thought she was going to be an exceptionally well trained and qualified ambassador for the President at the United Nations. It could signal that. I think President Trump's own quote says, we need to make sure we have the votes in the House. So if you consider that an admission we welcome her back. I think it says that maybe replacing her with a Republican they think might be tough in New York as a political strategy, which is that's been a red district, but you know that may be indicate that and we need every vote we have. We have the most narrow margin, Mike Johnson has the most narrow margin since World War One, and so we don't want to have a gap there. And when we pass tax cuts and jobs back in President Trump's first term, I think some twenty Republicans voted no, so we don't have the luxury of that this time.
Congressman, we always appreciate your time. It's going to see it. Thank you, sir. Congressman French Show and also the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. To build on this conversation, I'm pleased to say that joining us now is the former Sen. Lewis FED President Jim Pullott. Jim, welcome back to the program, sir. It's been a while. We haven't spoken to you, I believe since Chairman Pal spoke in the news conference. So we've got to watch you. We need your reaction. The T word making a comeback the Federal serve. What did you make of that?
It's now making it come back with me. I'm now using that word.
So I think that the I do think that the Committee has, you know, a good reason to stick with the policy rate where it is. Inflation expectations for the next two years and the tips market they've been rising.
They're about three and a quarter today.
That's a CPI based measure, but if you put that over to PCE based measure, it be you know, around three percent pc inflation over the next two years.
That's what the market is thinking. That's too high for the committee.
The Committee's trying to get you know, especially core PC inflation, which came.
In a little bit hot here.
You're trying to get core PC inflation down to two percent, so they're going to have to be higher for longer, and if it goes too much farther, they're going to have to raise the policy rate.
Wait, hold on a second, because Jim, this is exactly what people thought that Fetcher Powell did last week when he said transitory the word that you will not go so far as to say is that you would be willing on some level to look past here related it boosts to inflation in the short term, especially of growth was sagging, and that the said would have to or be open to responding to slow in growth. Are you saying that inflation should it be above expectations because.
Of care for somewhere else?
It's going to be interesting that committee should be hitting their inflation target two years from them, and what the market is saying is no, you're not going to hit it.
You're going to hit three percent.
That was my story here, So that doesn't sound very good to the committee.
Now maybe the market's wrong.
They often have you know, and I'm talking about two year tips here, and they can move around, yes, but.
It's a good reason for the Committee to stay where it is. I have argued that the Committe is in good shape here.
They didn't go as far as was previu that previously expected on cutting the policy rate, so they stayed a little bit higher.
I think that's turned out to be wise.
The tariffs, I mean when I say tariffs don't cause inflation, what I mean is that inflation's of product monetary policy over the medium term, and it's not up.
To the trade representative to control inflation.
It's up to the policy makers to control inflation, and they have to adjust policy appropriately given everything else.
That's going on in the economune so and over a.
Two year horizon, that's something you should be able to influence. But right now markets are saying that the Committee doesn't look tight enough to get down to two percent at the end of two years.
Jim, do you think that the Fed should open the possibility of hiking rates again?
Well, it's not my base case, but I think the probability on that is rising slightly here.
And this wasn't that radical of a.
Data release here, but I do think that possibility is rising. We really haven't made any progress on getting core PC inflation down, let's say over the last year.
You know, I think the man on the street.
Would look at those numbers and say, now has basically been flat for the last year.
Jim.
One thing we've heard repeatedly from some economists, and this labor market is just not as tight as it was. And because it's not, that dampens down the potential for second round effects from the inflationary kick up that you get from tariffs. What would you say back to that, How fertile do you think this environment is for second round effects?
I don't know.
Come on, unemployment insurance claims ridiculously low, and that's your best week to week indicator. Unemployment rates, if anything, is probably below the natural rate for the US economy, but certainly low by historical standards.
I just don't see it right now. Now there's fear of the future and what might happen. And we know that the last era of war.
In twenty eighteen twenty nineteen did cause to slow down in the economy, and if that did react to that by lowering the policy rate.
So we'll see if history repeats itself here. So it's the expectation that people might be thinking about. But as far as where.
The labor market is right now and whether that's disinflationary pressure coming from there.
I don't think so.
Jim.
Can we have a best guest from you? Next move cuttle Hike, what would your best guest be?
Right now?
I still think the committee can stick to its baseline that there will be further cuts, but they're being pushed farther and farther out into the future.
And now with a hotter core PCE, you're over year number, you might start pushing those out into twenty twenty six instead of the twenty twenty five.
We'll suit the market does in the days I had.
Jim before you go. Boiler Makers played tonight on nine Sweet sixteen.
Yes, and a little bit about.
That victory for the Boilers. Here we're playing in Indianapolis. They don't lose at home very often, so I think they've got a good.
Shot Boiler up.
I'll do that, BOI.
You know the manager who does my reviews, Purdue appreciate it. Thank you, sir, Former Sen Lewis Ben President Jim for Jim, thank you.
That's why I picked Perdue as well.
Right, this is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.
