Welcome to Red Mac Off Script. We're going to discuss markets, economics, policy, history, and life. It's the 14th of March, 2025. I'm Jifty Graf. I'm Neil Dada, and I'm Steve Pally. As a reminder, most of the charts that we reference are posted to our Twitter account. You can follow us on YouTube as well.
欢迎来到Red Mac Off Script。我们将讨论市场、经济、政策、历史以及生活。今天是2025年3月14日。我是Jifty Graf。我是Neil Dada,还有我是Steve Pally。提醒一下,我们提到的大多数图表都会发布到我们的推特账户上。您也可以在YouTube上关注我们。
We're going to get right into it and talk about the government shutdown averted. Probably averted. Neil, I'm sorry, Steve, where do we stand on that? Well, just the time, Steve, recording a little after 9 on Friday, the 14th, expecting the Senate to have a vote to pass the House bill. There may be some theatrics involved to get there. I think when you think of the respect of Democrats, they just don't have a lot of leverage given their minority and vote the House and the Senate.
There's been a lot of progressive pressure on Democrats to try to push back on a lot of the cuts proposed by Trump and the Doge. I think that's where you saw a lot of the momentum. Again, a lot of progressive side. The problem was that was just a non-starter for Republican lawmakers. Democrats wanted to test Speaker Johnson to see whether or not he could keep Republicans unified, something that he's struggling to do in the past.
He did that earlier this week, sent that bill over to the Senate, and I think that's where the minority leader rather, Chuck Schumer's options were sort of bad or worse. At the end of the day, I don't think Democrats wanted to shut down the government, because we always say, if you're explaining you're losing, that point you'd have to explain why you did it.
I think the other big fear there was, if you shut down the government over this, how are we going to reopen that? I think that also weighed on the decision there of Senator Schumer. Ultimately, expecting him to go ahead and provide the votes needed to avoid a government shutdown. I think that's more or less how it played out. I think if there was one thing in hindsight to maybe look back on, Schumer may not have wanted to raise some expectations.
I think that's sort of way we were supported in the press. Democrats were going to go to the match and shut down the government over this. I think that got progressives a little excited, they needed to walk that back. Maybe in hindsight, what was the request? You knew, I think, deep down that Republicans weren't going to go along with putting restrictions on President Trump and the doge here.
Had you maybe selected something else, maybe there would have been potential to secure a win. I think that's where things stand at the moment. How big of a concern was we shut it down that plays right into Doge's hands, I would think. Is that where they came out of this? We're just going to empower something that we already don't want to empower in our resisting?
Is this their way to fight that by acquiescing on the front end, but being able to fight it on the back end? Well, I think that's sort of what you see the messaging coming out from Schumer now and others, maybe to say face with the progressives that try to point out. We know that you wanted to have this fight deep down. We didn't really want to go there.
To think about the benefits of avoiding government shutdown, because had we done that, to your point, Joe, Musk and the doge could have gone in there with no checks and presumably run rush on for a very long time. So when you're looking at what Schumer's saying right now, I think he's speaking as much to progressives as he is to anyone else just to say, here's the benefit of avoiding government shutdown.
So let's hit on tariffs. And I want to pull this in because we had a question on this from an anonymous Canadian. We seem to be attracting Canadians to the pod, which is great. As a Michigander, I feel like I'm part of the province of Canada at least halfway.
But Canadians are wondering what 3D chess the US may be playing with Canada ahead of the presumed upcoming elections. Does Trump or even senior US administration officials have a nuanced view of the PCs versus liberals in Canada and how important this race is? And then how does hardball tariffs or how do hardball tariffs and the sequencing of these negotiations with a lame duck government factor into the thinking or ignorance of the administration?
What's yours? Just broadly, what's your sense of what's going on from a tariff perspective? I think everybody's kind of come to the agreement that this is a negotiating tool. But obviously the amplification and the news flow around this seems pretty uncomfortable, I guess, is the right word. Where do you come down?
Particularly as it applies to Canada, which is probably the most important trading partner within this whole mess. So I think what's maybe caught markets and other people by surprise is Trump being much more aggressive both in the timing earlier in this administration as well as the scale and scope of the tariffs, fewer exemptions this time applying to more products.
I think also some were sort of hoping that in terms of the, it would be directed that IRAD that it wouldn't be Mexico and Canada early on. I just think about the sequencing from Trump 1. Trump began last time on Mexico and Canada sort of when you think about the real goal here with a more aggressive pivot to China. And I think there was some desire here to do that. And that's why he's using IEPA, which hasn't been used before to impose tariffs, but he wanted to sort of accelerate these conversations and negotiations around USMCA, ahead of the July 1, 2026 date, really to try to, again, fortify the American block to have more negotiating leverage when he pivots to China.
People who disagree with that approach, I just think if I'm going to explain what the rationale is for that, I think that that's part of it in terms of why Canada and Mexico at the time. Now in terms of the political aspects, I mean, I think person's right to point out that when Trump has become more aggressive on the tariffs, but also the rhetoric saying he's going to annex Canada, you've seen the support for the Liberal Party, which Justin Bordeaux was the prime minister until today, I believe Mark Carney now becomes the prime minister moving forward. But I think you've seen the support for the Liberal Party, shot up, and you've seen a rally around the flag effect.
And so you're sort of wondering, you know, wait a minute, is this going against Trump's political interests when he'd rather have the conservative party to work with in the race moving forward? If there were some 3D chess element to this, I've heard it theorize that maybe Trump actually wants Mark Carney and Liberal Party in power to actually continue sort of this green push from Canada, maybe start restricting some of the fossil fuels there that that might make US fossil fuel producers a better position moving forward. I don't know if there's merit to that.
It's just something that's been going around. I also wouldn't put it past Trump, you know, with his disdain for Justin Trudeau. Let's just be honest, he does not like him. And just wanted to do every opportunity could just sort of dunk on him. And if there's some strategic aspect to that, it's Trudeau going to be asked by Carney others to sort of clean up the mess with respect to tariffs, make some concessions that would be more difficult for Carney or somebody else make moving forward because presumably Trump's team is still negotiating with Trudeau's team.
So, you know, that's my best attempt to try to explain. It hasn't taken over. They just had a, I mean, the Liberals basically not, I mean, Trudeau's basically done. He's gone. He's gone. I think his cabinet's still in place though, if I'm not mistaken. So I think that's who, but you raised the question, are the people you're negotiating with now in a position to, you know, go ahead? I feel like I feel like Mark, let's all remember for those that don't know, Mark Carney is the former governor of the Bank of England and the former governor of the Bank of Canada.
And that was after a long stint in Goldman Sachs. The guy isn't exactly someone that doesn't understand global international finance and trade. He understands it. So I think it would make sense. And negotiations. Yeah, he maybe he's more receptive to it. So why would anyone assume that he's going to allow Trudeau to keep his team in place now that he's the guy in charge of the government in Canada? I don't know that Carney's announced his part of it.
I think the Liberal parties have to get behind that. And I think that's one of the reasons you may see the snapback election, but that's a fair point. I mean, I think you're talking about ours not date, right? I mean, we're like right on the like, you know, I mean, I just think that's sort of a very weak argument if Trump is making this, I mean, this 3D chess argument that people make whenever they want to rationalize everything that Trump does, the conservative party of Canada, as I understand it, up until President Trump began sort of talking about we want to have them as the 51st state, the conservative party of Canada was en route to a landslide win.
I mean, we're talking like a complete wipeout for the Liberal Canada. Okay, he would have probably found a much better negotiating partner. Now, you even have the Liberals basically talking about we're going to build pipelines every which way, you know, we're going to give our energy to Europe, to the to Asia, to wherever. Like now even even the even the green nuts in in Canada are kind of on board with that. So I just feel like I mean, to me, those are called pistachios, by the way.
Right. Right. But what I would just say is that it's made it impossible, if I think for any Canadian politician to give an inch to Trump because of this 51st state business, like no Canadian politician, I mean, they will rather deal with a five year depression before they give Trump. I think I mean, I really do believe that. And I was in Toronto in January or early February, not, you know, as this started to get heat ratcheted up. Okay. And the sort of sense of national pride that you see in Canada is enormous. Okay. So you I mean, they basically I mean, I think it was it was an unforced error. And of course, like, like no one wants to say this out loud. I mean, politically, like the 51st state thing, that's never going to happen. But from the perspective of a supply chain, they kind of already are the 51st state. Right. And you know, I so I don't really know what what's going on.
I mean, we they send us stuff. We actually like the value ad happens on our side of the border. And then we send it back. Okay. So it's a win win. And you know, I mean, it's kind of interesting when we hear President Trump saying like, we don't need their oil. Well, I mean, talk to refiners in the mess Midwest, you kind of do want their oil. So is this an opportunity though, where he, you know, obviously, as Steve says, disdain for Trudeau, right? So now new leadership, regardless of what side of the aisle, right? Does this allow him, even if it was an unforced error on his part of, you know, just the bluster, does this allow him now the opportunity to kind of ease back on that? He got rid of, you know, essentially, the guy that he couldn't stand.
And he's with somebody else that maybe he can soften his tone. And that actually makes it a better outcome. I don't know if he's doing that with the tariffs, but my point being he gives him an opportunity. He's still been talking about 51st state, even after Carney won this thing. So, you know, look, I mean, I mean, frankly, I think he probably has more of a shrewd negotiator in Carney than he did with Trudeau, because Carney understands these issues on a probably on a much deeper level than the than his predecessors. And on top of this, I mean, the other thing, of course, is that, you know what, like it's interesting, this sort of trade war is going on. Guess what the Bank of Canada is doing? They're cutting rates to support the Canadian economy.
Is Powell going to do that? Wasn't that always one of Trump's critics or critiques of Powell last time? Was that, you know, all these other central bankers were supporting their country by doing these in a much weaker place than the US, right? Like, so there's actually more reason for the Canadians to do it. But I guess if Trump wants to go there, he can. But, you know, let's, let's be clear. I mean, I've, you know, I mean, tariffs are the price of admission, you know, believing in them. That's the price of admission if you're going to, you know, sort of be with Trump, right? But, you know, with the Canada ones, I mean, it's really, it's hard to know even with this with respect to Derry.
I mean, a lot of these things were, you know, Trump talks about Derry, but a lot of these sort of provisions were negotiated under USMCA and the tariffs don't kick in until a certain threshold of dairy product exports to Canada are met. And we don't actually meet them. So it's not like the tariffs are actually on. So anyway, I mean, we're kind of going off here. Let's talk about eggs. So egg prices came down. That's what I know that, you know, was it Hayek, who was the famous, watched the price of eggs after World War II? Do you know that story? Yeah, I thought it was Hayek. I don't think it was Milton Friedman. It was a famous classical economist, but when they were putting in free markets in Germany, and you had the inflation and it was post war, the famous retort was watch the price of eggs, obviously commodity and the free market, you know, kind of figuring it out with high production rates, etc.
So price of eggs are down. They are down. They're down sharply. I mean, it looks like about 30% in March. So don't expect that to be in the news anymore. You know, I wouldn't, but but Trump had this very interesting plan for dealing with the egg problem, which is just wait for the chickens to lay them. And now they are and prices are going down. And and you know, I think we should expect the usual suspects to not talk about it anymore. You know, 30% drop in egg prices is probably good for almost a 10th off of headline CPI inflation. So it's not true. Yeah, it's that big. Wow. Well, I think it's a rounds up to a 10th. I mean, it's maybe like 0.07 point zero eight something like that. But it'll take about a 10th off of monthly CPI inflation next month. So it's welcome news.
And remember that food at home prices in the last inflation report were flat despite a very large increase in egg prices. So, you know, the fact that egg prices are now declining, I think it is probably welcome news for food prices. And you're seeing it across the other, I mean, I think you can probably speak to this other agricultural commodities have been coming off the boil. I mean, corn is one. You know, that's obviously used as feed for cattle. So, you know, diesel prices have come off a little bit. So, you know, there's some good news in the inflation data.
There's some bad news as well. I mean, I don't want to think anyone to think that it's all sort of rosy. So we had CPI PPI. And what did I know we're focusing on eggs here because it was kind of a fulcrum for the media. But what was the broader CPI PPI data? More supportive, less supportive, and how should the Fed be thinking about it? Well, I don't think the Fed is really thinking about too much one way or the other at the moment because, you know, there are no mood to do anything at the moment.
So I don't think the data actually is that important right now. You know, at the margin, I mean, I think January was somewhat better than people thought February was a little bit worse than people thought. You know, I think if you take everything together, it's sort of ongoing progress. Now, you know, the tariff issue introduces additional risk to the upside with respect to inflation, particularly for core consumer goods. It remains to be seen how much of that is passed but on the flip side, I mean, the good news is that the disinflation and rents is continuing.
And you know, housing rental inflation is not something that's tradable. I mean, you can't put tariffs on. We don't import, you know, multifamily buildings. I mean, a lot of that's already just done. And so, yeah, I mean, I think I think the rental disinflation probably continues. And I think we still have ongoing cooling in the labor market. So even if prices do go up, I mean, for some things, I mean, it'll just mean that people have to spend more on those things and cut back elsewhere.
I mean, ultimately, and that'll ultimately drive down the prices for those goods and services. So I don't think the nominal anchor is changing. And, you know, I mean, government spending is coming down, I think. So at least certainly that's what they're trying to do. So if that nominal anchor is not changing, it's, you know, the inflationary impact, I think, of tariff should be temporary. And, you know, I think the growth effects are dominant, more so than inflation effects.
And I think the markets largely bear that out. So obviously the probabilities of cuts is going up. I think the first one is penciled in for June from the markets perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. What do you think the probabilities are just you, Neil Dutta, personally, handicapping that between now and June, a cut before that? And what would that be dependent upon?
我认为市场在很大程度上支持这一点。因此,显然降息的可能性正在上升。我想市场预测第一次降息可能是在六月。如果我错了,请纠正我。 Neil Dutta,你个人怎么看在现在到六月之间降息的可能性?这将取决于哪些因素?
Yeah, I mean, so June is the first cut. The consensus right now is that two for the year, the market is around two and a half to three. So the markets kind of price for a little bit more, which is normal, I think, in terms of the weighted probabilities in the market, you know, I tend to think that we're going to see more rate cuts than not, because I think by waiting until June, the Fed's essentially saying that it's tolerating more weakness in the economy.
There's a lot of slowing in the pipeline. I mean, you know, labor markets continue to cool. You know, we started to see some, you know, obviously the work week is very low. Total income growth is moderating. A lot of the cyclical areas of the economy have been getting worse, particularly construction. A consumption. Yeah, consumption. I mean, look, I mean, last year, you had 3% real consumer spending, which was very strong. But that happened despite 1.5% growth in real incomes, excluding government transfers.
So in other words, we saw a big drop in the savings rate. You have to ask yourself, why would that continue? I mean, the stock market's off, crypto is off, home prices are off. So if you're a person, I mean, why would you be lowering your savings rate in that kind of an environment where your asset values are going down? I think it probably warrants an increase in the savings rate, which means, you know, and even if the savings rate doesn't go up, if it stays flat, it means that consumption will converge onto the growth in incomes, which means that consumer spending will be growing 1.5% from 3% last year.
That's not good. So I think we're growing below trend. We're growing below trend. I think that means upward pressure on the unemployment rate. And you know, the last thing I'd say is that, you know, we're going into the spring selling season. Builders are feeling more nervous about that. There's a risk that construction employment falls as a result, which had been relatively buoyant up until recently.
So to me, at some level, I just keep coming back to the economy is not going to really grow above trend until the Fed cuts, the Fed's not cutting. So it'll stay below trend and continue, you know, you continue to see this sort of bleeding out in the labor markets and housing and so forth. And the risk is, you know, you get some kind of nonlinear shock. You know, people just kind of throw their hands up in the air and, you know, you start to see a bit more of an increase in layoffs and so forth. And then you can get some pretty spooky jobs number. We're not there yet, but you know, that's that's clearly the risk. Right. So the risk is a weaker number between now and June. And that puts the Fed behind the curve, essentially.
Yeah, I mean, let's put it this way. I mean, the markets right now are priced two thirds, one third, right? Two third for May, that they look a one third chance that they cut. Okay. If the Fed's cutting in May, they'll probably be going 50. Oh, interesting. Yeah. Wow.
Okay. So let's talk about the news because you put this chart up on Twitter. I think it's an interesting one because it's going to tie in with something that happened this week from our side on the market strategy side. This is the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco News Economic sentiment. Talk us through this a little bit.
Yeah. So basically, this is a, you know, I think they use Lexus Nexus. I mean, for those of us that remember that from our college years, basically scraping economic, you know, news and telling us, basically creating a sentiment index around that. And as the chart shows, you know, generally speaking, the news index kind of lines up reasonably well with more widely followed measures of consumer sentiment, right? Like, so it makes sense, right? So what people hear, I mean, that's kind of how they feel.
And obviously, the news has been getting worse because, you know, first from an, from a, you know, like, let's say someone that's really dialed in to like economics and markets, like maybe you. Yeah. Well, I mean, most people signed up for they knew what they were getting, they thought they knew what they were getting, right? I mean, they assume that with President Trump, they were getting tax cuts deregulation and tariffs. I think the problem was is that they thought they were getting it in that order. And clearly, they're not, right? So that's probably weighing on consumer sentiment, to some extent, or the news, obviously.
And even before that, I mean, this, this new sentiment index, it peaked back in the middle of November, right? Like, so the economic data has also been kind of deteriorating, even before Trump came in. And on top of that, you've had this sort of headline risk with the tariff tape bombs and so forth. So, you know, and the risk, of course, is that to the extent that weighs on consumer confidence, is that going to weigh on consumer spending. I mean, that would be, that would be the risk. I mean, the early data for February that we see, I mean, we'll get retail sales as I mentioned next week, they don't look good.
So you'd had, you already had a week January, now you're going to have a week February potentially on top of that. You know, I mean, that's, that's not good news, obviously, for GDP tracking estimates. But you can under your point on the economy who's weakening before, I'm not trying to politicize us either way, it's a true statement. If we look at it from a market perspective, right, the percentage of issues above the 65-day moving average, which is a sign of breath peaked in the early fall, right? And it's been declining ever since.
So you are seeing, right? Well, I mean, I think, look, it's sort of, like I said, I mean, I've mentioned this, we used just the, I mean, there were, we used the same playbook that we used from 2022, right? We made the no-lagging call in late 2022. It was about real incomes, housing, government, and where the, how the consensus was positioned. You'd look at those four things. Real incomes, as I mentioned, they were slowing. They're up one and a half percent, that's half the pace of consumption. It's getting worse, not better because the labor markets are cooling off.
Housing, despite fed cuts, housing is getting worse. Back then, it was despite fed hikes, home building stocks were rallying. Very weird for recession. State and local government spending is contracting. That was going to happen regardless, because a lot of, I mean, they had a lot of pandemic relief money, and now they've exhausted it, so they're cutting back. And the consensus, consensus was expecting recession, you know, really through the middle of 2023.
Now, we went into this year with everyone expecting two and a half percent growth, and no one thinking there was going to be a recession. We had the highest percentage change in S&P targets by strategists in December that we'd ever seen. They took, they were forced to take their forecast up, and it was complete capitulation. And as we've said, that was a mistake because the Congress was so evenly divided that any legislation was going to be a huge lift.
Now, people talk a lot about uncertainty, and I agree that uncertainty hurts growth. I also think that, to some extent, that's a red herring. I mean, you were going to get uncertainty regardless. I mean, I think that you could make the case that if it wasn't short, the sort of front, I mean, you're seeing the front loading of the uncertainty, right? But if it was, let's say Trump had lost and Kamala had won, you would have gotten a lot of backloaded uncertainty, right? Because there would be a lot of risk around what would happen with corporate taxes and so forth.
So, you know, I mean, it's kind of, it was going to happen one way or the other, I think. I mean, certainly what Trump is doing is not helping at the moment. But, you know, to Steve's point, we have to, we don't, we do not yet know how the markets will react, you know, if other countries begin to reduce their trade barriers, right? I mean, you know, Scott Besset has long talked about using tariffs as a way to escalate and then deescalate, right? Like so, we pressure pressure and then both of us dial down the knobs at the same time.
We don't know how that's going to work just yet because it hasn't happened. So, you know, that's something to keep an eye out, which is why that April deadline might be, you know, more important for markets than maybe people think at the moment. Well, and on that, and this plays a little bit on that new sentiment, right? We got today, this week, I should say, the Investors Intelligence. So, Investors Intelligence, for those who don't know, is a survey. It's a service that was really created in 1963.
So, predating anybody on this call, and most people in the business still. And it was really designed to just figure out from newsletter writers, if people are bullish, bearish, or if they're really overly bullish or overly bearish, and if there's a contrarian opportunity there, the data that we've got up on the screen here just shows back to 2010. But you'll see that bears now outnumber bulls. That doesn't happen very often.
It happens about 6% of the time over the entirety of the data set here. So, it's a relatively infrequent occurrence, but it tends to be bullish. About three weeks you spend in this inversion where there are more bears than bulls. But the idea here is that, you know, you've taken the news and people have digested that news and they've probably acted on that news in the equity markets. Obviously, we've got this decline of 10% in stocks.
It's greater than we thought we'd have a correction in the first quarter. We do not define a correction, by the way, as 10%. It really has to do more with volatility. This is a correction, for sure. We were in more than the 5% to 7% camp, so this is extending that. But the good news is that it is seeped its way into the equity markets. And historically, if you look at this with the exception of these big, bad bear markets, which I don't see, and I'll tell you why, this usually ends up being a pretty good opportunity to take the other side.
So, if anything, one of the things that we're encouraging clients to at least think about is think more optimistically here. Don't think more pessimistically. That's already baked in or a lot of it's baked in. What's not baked in is the other side of the argument. And that's what you're hitting on is maybe we get this de-escalation. And if that's the case, a lot of good things could certainly happen.
So, I like the sentiments. One of the things that's been lacking, obviously, we talked about, we started the year in a pretty bullish state with how people were set up. But now they've absolutely taken a 180. You can see it in polls. You can see it in everything. So, I think that has an opportunity to surprise on the upside. One of the reasons why we don't think this is a big, bad bear is that when we look and we publish this on Twitter, when we look at the difference between the performance of credit and the performance of equities.
And there's some fancy math that we do to go into that. But there's essentially a relationship over time. And so, you measure that relationship over time. And we look at it today is what does that relationship look like? In other words, if I have a 5% decline in equities, I should expect an X% decline in credit. And when we look at that, that 10% decline in equities that we're getting today is far, far less than what we'd otherwise expect in credit.
So, it says to us that this is more sentiment driven than it is policy driven. A lot of people say, well, it's just a matter of time before credit is going to catch up. That's not really how it works. Usually, credit at worst is coincidental. And hopefully, it tends to lead because if you think about the silo within Wall Street, credit market guys and gals only care about getting paid back. They don't care about anything else. Equity investors are blue sky. They look at for earnings. They look for new ideas. They're the optimist of the group. The credit players tend to be the pessimist of the group, the commudgens. They get it right.
As we said on my days at Lehman Brothers, the third floor, we called them the third floor. So, anyway, so that's where we are. I think the sentiment is setting up well. The credit markets are not confirming the weakness that we're seeing in equities. And I would also say, financials aren't confirming the weakness that we're seeing in equities. They're weak, but they're not as weak as what you would expect given the overall decline.
Steve, wake up, Steve. Patrick, wake up. All right. I know we've we've left you out in the cold. I'm sorry, buddy. What's going on next week? What should we expect this weekend? Is there anything we should be expecting? Or is this a faded complete? Are we done? Is is is policy in a the debt ceiling? All that stuff? Is it done? Are we we don't mean to worry about? Or is there going to be some last minute shenanigans? That's going to do a grenade in this thing as I'm trying to watch basketball.
Well, I was going to say, do we forget the mailbag? Oh, for God's sakes, we did. Thank you very much. You know, let's bring in our own Harry Chen to give us this week's question from the mailbag. Harry. Yes, sir. Good morning, sir. And the question today we have come from Mark on greeter. And his question is greatest momentum is generated early in the ball market, making press sort one of the best ways to confirm a new cyclical events. What are some of the best ways to confirm a new cyclical decline? Thank you. Great question, Mark.
So the greatest momentum is generated early in a bull market. That is true. That's why Brett for us. In other words, how many stocks were advancing versus declining is a great way to confirm a new cycle advance. That's what we've seen in Hong Kong, by the way, it's what we've seen in China. So if you're looking for a kind of contemporaneous example, look no further than our friends, our friend of these, maybe in the east. And the question is, what are some of the best ways to confirm a new cycle decline? Just broadly speaking, I would say one of the biggest mistakes in this business is if an indicator works at a bottom or at a top, people automatically default to believe it's going to work in the other situation.
So if something works at the bottom, they think the exact opposite situation will work at a top and vice versa. And that's actually not true. And our statistics bear that out that a lot of indicators are asymmetrical. They'll work well at a bottom. They won't tell you the same thing at a top, at least not in the same fashion or the opposite fashion at the other extreme. So for us, Mark, that it's really a sequencing of events. And in fact, I would say overbought conditions in a market do not represent a cyclical or a new cyclical decline.
What you're really looking for is kind of that deterioration, that lack of momentum. And as an aviator, I kind of think about it as you know, your plane is going up and your angle of attack, how quickly you're sending at some point gravity overpowers the power of the plane, almost regardless of the airplane. And it's that point where the as you're throwing that ball in the air, it starts to lose that momentum. And at some point, it's standing still.
And what we're really trying to recognize are the points at which that is standing still. And we do it through a lot of different mechanisms. One, as a subscriber to our work, you'll see our market cyclo clock, which helps us to juxtapose inflation and growth. Then we'll look at some of these other things like breadth, not from an overbought standpoint, but really from a diverging standpoint, how, how weak are those indications of breadth are there very few names driving us higher? Are there a lot of names driving us higher? That's a good differentiator.
And then it's really just the tone, what's happening to the factors, what's happening to beta, what's happening to profitability or quality, what's happening to credit. So it's really a sequencing. It's not as easy as a bottom bottoms are actually fairly easy in this business. But when we look at tops, it's a lot more about sequencing and that sequencing of events to help kind of check the boxes as we go.
And as I mentioned, I mean, there were some of those in place, certainly not to the extent that we would identify this as a dangerous and large bear market. We've been wrong before, but we're pretty comfortable with that, that outlook here. Steve, now to you. Thank you for mentioning that and awakening from your slumber. What do you have next week? Well, hopefully not too much. We'll see. I mean, I suspect that stopgap will be addressed today. Worst case scenario be addressed at some point this weekend because we really have the effects until Monday. And right now the house is already in recess through next week, it's said it's supposed to join them. So you're not going to have to worry about Congress.
I do think now that the funding piece has been addressed. You'll see congressional Republicans focus more on the contents of this reconciliation package have been reported after President Trump met with Senate Republicans. One, Senate Republicans now appear more open to the idea of addressing the debt limit. That was not included in the government funding package through reconciliation. That's important because we don't have to watch timing of that because at some point, if Republicans haven't moved this reconciliation package by the summer, that's when you start rubbing up against that x-state.
The other thing that was notable is apparently President Trump pitched the idea of removing taxes for people making under $150,000. That was a new piece of news that came out over the course of his meeting yesterday and today. So the receptivity to that will be important. And then any news on the tariff front, you know, I don't anticipate any more tariff announcements. I think that's going to depend on whether other countries respond to the civil aluminum tariffs. We saw European Union and Canada respond from threatening to their retaliation. So far, a lot of others held their powder drive, maybe waiting, as Neil said, for that April 1st report to come out with respect to reciprocal tariffs.
And then watch Friday. That is something that I think people may be looking past. That is when one of Trump's many day one executive orders called for one to address the global minimum tax from the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development, 15% that was being pursued by the Biden administration to prevent other countries from following through with their digital services taxes. There is supposed to be a deadline to provide a report on that. Again, that's sort of, I think, big picture later that April 1st deadline, but you could see some announcements on that this Friday.
How did you miss St. Patrick's Day? Well, I mean, as for me, I have a three-year-old and 19-month-old, so I don't really do much of anything. All right, fair enough. Let me ask this. Is there any conversation about a flat tax or is that off the board? That's off the board. I mean, I think one of the things Neil mentioned is to reiterate this really important on the sequencing is last time you had the tax cuts, and they were cuts. You reduced the corporate rate from 20% to 21%. You also reduced the rate on the top earners. This time, you're really just talking about, as opposed to a tailwind, like last time, preventing a headwind this time.
You're really focusing on maintaining the status quo, so I don't really anticipate much on the tax cut front. I just think that's really important when you talk about getting that wiggle room to deal with tariffs and sequencing this time compared to last time. I mean, if you remember, it's going to break the. The permanent is a useful thing. I mean, that's how you actually affect behavior, right? I mean, right. And I think that's sort of the argument that you're making. There's just a chance of behavior around it. If it's a permanent tax cut, then they will. So there is something to be said for that.
I mean, it's just such a. I mean, it's this time of year, right? It is such a pain in the neck, and I've got to write a check to figure out what type of check I'm going to write at the end of the year. It would be much easier to be able to say, hey, here's 20% of my income done. I can plan for that. No problem. I get it. I mean. Never happened. I know, but it just doesn't. It drives me bananas. There are too many loopholes in the code. I understand. I mean, that's true. Have look's father is part of the tax system. So I get it, but man, oh man, I should have it. So it'd be a lot easier.
All right, Neil, what do you have next week? Well, we obviously have the Fed meeting next week, so that's going to be important. You know, look, my sense is that the Fed does not want to be in the news right now, right? Like, so if they make a big hawkish pivot of some kind, right? Like if they ratchet up their inflation forecast, if they remove the dot, if they do any of these things, it probably will unnerve the markets a little bit. And then they are the ones that kind of start owning some of the sell off, right? So I don't know that. We'll see, but my sense is that they'll reiterate two cuts for this year.
I don't think the forecast will change all that much. I think they'll be revising down their growth forecast. That's where I have the most conviction. And to the extent they're worried about inflation, I think the vessel for that is going to be less in the forecasts or the economic projections and more in just the risk assessment. I mean, right now you have 16 saying that they think the risks to inflation are skewed to the upside. Maybe that goes up to all of them. I mean, you know, that that's something to consider.
In terms of the data, look, I mean, I think the data is actually going to be sluggish for February. Retail sales, what we see, so far suggests a very weak bounce after January, which was also weak. And makes sense, right? I mean, we're in the middle of a sell off. People are probably not drawing down their savings and they're seeing their income slow down. So it's hard to see why consumer spending would be strong in any meaningful way. And the high frequency data we get from the Chicago Fed as an example, Bloomberg, all kind of is pointing to something a little bit softer.
And then we get industrial production. Factory work week wasn't particularly, total hours worked wasn't particularly strong in February. So I wouldn't really expect much there. I mean, the big news in manufacturing is that it hasn't really been doing much of anything for a long time now. And that's really where the rubber meets the road with tariffs, right? I mean, if tariffs are working, you should see production in the tariff area start to go up. And obviously it's too early to see any of this happen, but that's where you should expect to see it.
That would be a sign of success of the tariff policy, in my opinion. And that's it. Well, from a market perspective, there's a couple things happening. Obviously, we talked about sentiment, we talked about credit and equities or credit versus equities. Also keeping an eye out, gold's making a new high, but we're also seeing it improve silver. And then a little less rambunctious, but certainly still more bullish than not is copper. And that's not being translated through the equity prices, free port, etc.
But we are seeing a pickup in some of the material names on a relative basis in China. So I do think that that's interesting, just as that is kind of playing itself out. And I would also just note that from a flow perspective, what we're seeing are some excessive outflows in the material space. So there's an interesting confluence. I mean, obviously we are more technical than that. That's our final arbiter, if you will, judge, jury and executioner.
So we wait for trends to develop. But there are some interesting things brewing under the surface there. Also, just keep in mind that that's probably good news for global growth. There might be some tariff related things happening there. But I would also expect that that is probably more bullish than not for the overall outlook. And then we'll look for short-term signs in sentiment, mostly through option data. And we're going to be looking for signs of stress.
There's a great quote, Walt Deemer remind me of that this week. There is no more ruthless seller on Wall Street than the margin clerk. And so we look for signs, not particularly through the margin data, but we look through signs of that kind of foreselling where you're a price taker, not a price seeker. And we believe it or not have yet to see that in this decline. So that would certainly be a feather in the cap for the bulls if we saw that.
Well, I'm going to take the afternoon off and watch my Spartans pursue another big 10. Well, they already got the big 10 title, but we're going to see if we can win the big 10 tournament. I'm sorry, Steve PSU is not in it this year, but you had a big win in hockey. So I don't know if that's something that you care about, but your win over you of him was pretty impressive. We'll see if you guys can keep going. We'll see. We'll see.
All right, George again next week will be one week older, one week wiser. We won't make it this long, I hope. And we'll have some more unscripted insights then until then I'm Jeff DeGraft. I'm Neil Gotta and I'm Steve Pathic. We'll see you.