Why The Bond Market Is Starting To Revolt — ft. Katie Martin

Kamala Harris. We talk about her thoughts on public service, how DC has shaped her, and we

find out if she's planning to run for President in 2028. Check out the latest episode of Why Are You Like This, wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Have you ever wondered why a band as big as Fleetwood Mac would break up? Well, I'm Will Anderson and this week on My Music History Podcast, the Monday Music Club. We dive into that question and all the drama surrounding Stevie Nix, Lindsey Buckingham, and the rest of Fleetwood Mac. Jump in and listen to this

“week's episode. All you have to do is search Monday Music Club right now wherever you get your podcast.”

I'm Mitch Perse and this week on Confessions of An Elite Athlete. I'm sitting down with Mr. ACL for

the world's greatest athletes. Dr. Riley Williams is the medical director for the Brooklyn Nets,

the New York Liberty, and a team physician for USA Basketball. He's also the surgeon who repaired my very own ACL. We talk about how he became one of the world's top surgeons. Why women sports are seeing more ACL tears, and what knee injuries you should be most afraid of. You can hear it all here by listening to Confessions of An Elite Athlete on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Today's number 70,000. That's how many parts of Guinness were stolen.

Your Liverpool last week. Again, I've taken inspiration from Trump's renaming of geographic bodies of water. It's no longer Lake Ontario but Lake America. I'm starting a

water park called Lake America where with admission you get chlamydia.

I went to a pub last night here in the UK. Did you? Yeah, it was a Monday night in a friend of mine called. I had cabin fever and so I went and met him and we could not find trouble for the life of us. There needs to be way more drinking and clubs and hot people. Where are the eastern European

“hot people and the douchebag tech guys that drive the nightlife scene of New York during the week?”

It's a good question. We're going to need to investigate that. Maybe we can do an episode on that. Where are the hot people? How's New York right now? I am so jealous. US Open is the city on fire right now? No, not on fire. The World Cup was a different level. The city really was on fire. But it's nice. The weather is good. US Open is great. Our team is going. It'll be a lot of fun. New York is not on fire but it's calm and it's pleasant. How I would characterize

things here. While we're on the topic of pubs by the way, just so I know what is your pub order. I don't think I know the answer to that. I typically just get a lot a logger or yeah, I don't sometimes I do. I like a bear called Rotterberger, which nobody ever has. What is that? I think it's a German bear. My father-in-law drinks it and I adopted it from him. This is going to freak you out. I started drinking Mikkelob Ultra. Interesting. It's lower

carbs and it actually tastes pretty good. Do you know what the fastest growing beard brand in the US is right now at? No. Bush light. Really? People you're age are drinking bush light. We it. Yeah, it's making a comeback. I don't, I'm not a Guinness fan. What is your, what do you saddle up and to with beer? Yeah, logger for me. I mean, every now and then a Guinness does actually really hit quite nicely. But it's very, very heavy. And for me, it's usually just sort of a standard

logger or pills. And usually like a stellar perony. I do like Stella. I've done this as a trick in an effort to reduce my alcohol consumption and reduce my blood pressure and stick around to keep this joy bagadona center price podcast going. I am starting to move from alcohol to beer because I find beer more filling. And I don't drink as much. I've got to have drinking a lot less

“whole alcohol. I'm not drinking spirits as much. When you do drink spirits, what do you drink?”

Usually in the groany. Jesus Christ. I forgot you're out of a vagina. Oh, sorry. The groany is not a weak drink. The groanies are strong. Actually, it's one of the strongest drinks. Do they make that drink for a man? Let's hear your cocktail order. I mean, do you know what in the groany is? I get a romance drink. I get a makers-mark and ginger ale. By the way, just a little bit of a podcast trick hack. Drink bourbon, because I make

sure voice deeper the next day and you're some more authoritative and then ziffer crude or want stabber ties. So I need you to start drinking bourbon or whiskey. It doesn't make sure, I might see how my voice is kind of feminine and add-like right now. No, no, no. It's because I'd beer last night.

Okay, I'll try it out. Market research. Maybe it'll sell more ads. I'll give it a try.

“Commit. Well, let's get into this interview. We have a very, very fascinating conversation”

with the one and only KT Martin. Stay with us. Stocks are up, but the bond market is starting to tell a very different story. Last week, yields on government bonds in Japan, the UK, Germany and France all hit multi-decade highs. And in the US, the 30th of a treasury yield recently reached its highest level since before the financial crisis. As we've discussed, treasury secretary Scott Bessent tried to bring down long-term borough and costs by buying back treasury bonds,

but the effort failed to move yields lower, and instead through criticism from investors across

Wall Street, including Stanley Drucken Miller, who was once his mentor. So while the stock market

has largely shrugged off Trump's policies, the bond market is actively speaking out against them. We wanted to understand why that is happening. So today, we are speaking with our friend KT Martin, Market's columnist and editorial board member at the Financial Times. KT, it's great to have you back on the show. I want to jump right into the bond market. So what we're seeing, the 10-year yield, topped 4.8% today, the highest since October 23, the 30th year is back above 5.25%.

This episode will come out later, so we'll see where it is by the time this is published. But the story remains that the bond market is not looking great, at least in the US. Bond investors are not very happy right now, and I'd like to start with why. Yeah, there's a lot going on. The bond market's globally are not looking very happy at all, and I guess it's a bit of a paint your own adventure, kind of picture, right? You can kind of

“stick on to this, whatever kind of narrative you want. But I think the most powerful one is that”

governments are just borrowing too much down money. You know, the US national debt has of course

crossed through $40 trillion for the first time. You've got a whole bunch of countries, including the

US that are now spending more money on keeping current with their debts than they are on defense. And that's just a bit of a kind of market that this has all got pretty out of hand. I feel like there's a lot of countries, including the UK, that just seemed to have forgotten how to talk to the electorates about trade-offs and taxes, and instead it's much easier to just keep going, cap in hand to the debt markets, keep borrowing more and more money to keep the likes on,

pay for your defense, fix your roads, build your schools, all the rest of it. And at a certain point, bond investors say, look, I'll buy these bonds, but it's going to cost you. I'm going to want to hire a return on them. And that's exactly what's happening here. And inflation plays a little bit of a role here. Bonds famously hate inflation, it eats into their returns. So again, investors ask for a higher return if they're going to be investing in bonds in a high inflation environment.

But they're the kind of main reasons why we have this horrible malaise in debt markets at the moment. As you say, the US has been most activist, shall we say, in trying to calm this situation down, but it still doesn't seem to be ready to have a proper conversation about properly cutting spending or raising taxes. So it's difficult to see how they can properly turn this around. We'll come back to inflation in a moment, but just on government borrowing. My understanding is that

governments have been borrowing like crazy for years. And yet it seems as though something happened in the past month or so, investors decided that something changed. What exactly are they reacting

“to what changed in terms of both the US and its relationship with debt, but also the world?”

It sounds silly, but it is nonetheless true that things don't matter in markets until they do. And once you get enough people who are worried about a particular point, whether that's private markets or AI or government borrowing levels, suddenly it becomes an issue that people are focusing on. And honestly, I think a lot of this is a kind of strife and effect kind of thing that's going on with the US. That moment at which, last time you and I spoke here,

it was around that time that the US was helping Japan to support the yen and Scott Beston and the Administration had various reasons that they were inviting us to believe why they were doing this. But the reason that the market settled on was Hang On. You just don't want Japan to sell down its US government bond holdings to support its currency.

people selling treasuries. And I'm worried about you're borrowing costs getting much higher. And so,

“I think there was a certain, you know, particularly when you build into this, the fact that the”

US has increased the size of its debt by backs. And it's done various other things in relation to its Japanese yen intervention. There just brings focus and attention to the fact that the US is uncomfortable with its borrowing costs. And that has sparked a little bit of soul searching across private investors around Hang On. Maybe we should all be a bit more worried about the US borrowing costs because they are pretty painful. Part of my theory, which I'd like to get your reaction

to, it seems as though in the past few weeks it has become abundantly clear to investors that, despite what our leaders might say about our need to get fiscal spending and control,

they don't ultimately at the end of the day, give a shit. They don't really care. And it seems

evident from Trump's actions and his words where he said he would balance the budget.

“That was kind of like part of his main platform and then he goes out. He increases our deficit”

to whatever it will be this year probably $2 trillion. He explodes the national debt to $40 trillion. He launches these wars and doesn't seem to care much about the inflation that will make all of this worse. And then you have Scott Bessant, who goes out and says my solution to the bond problem is I'm just going to use more money, government money, spend it and hopefully that'll fix the problem and bring yields down. Is that also what investors are reacting to that it's

clear that our leadership actually doesn't care? Yeah, there is a sort of fiscal incontinence thing going on. And look, the U.S. is not alone here. Look, I invite you to look at France, or the UK, or Japan, or any of these high debt countries. The other element here is that we've had a lot of mixed messaging recently from really senior kind of finance people in the U.S. recently

that is unhelpful. So you'll remember when Kevin Worsh first took the reins at the federal reserve,

he used his first couple of press conferences to say, look, in the time since I've been appointed, yields have risen, bonds of weekend, borrowing cost of risen. And that's fine. You know,

“I welcome that. I think there are various benefits that come from that. And then you fast forward”

to Scott Bessant. And he's saying, no, no, no, yields are too high. The market is wrong. I know something that the market doesn't know. And yield shouldn't be this high. And I'm going to try and massage them lower. And then you've got the kind of fiscal incontinence piece that comes on top of that. And you just think, guys, what what is going on here? Someone tell me what what to believe. The other optimistic way of looking at this is the kind of analysis that Stephen Moran has put

to work on this. Stephen Moran, if you'll remember, he was appointed to the Fed by the Trump administration. He was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors. He's like that guy, right? He's around he's advising the administration on economic matters. And he's saying he wrote in the FT, you know, you could pick a lot of holes into what he wrote. But one of the reasons why he was saying that yields a higher is that the market is moving to price in a higher growth environment in the US.

Sounds kind of wacky. And I would dispute the idea that this is what kicked this whole thing off. But it is reasonable to say that we've got pretty robust growth actually in the US. And that all things being equal does mean you have a higher inflation environment, the good kind of inflation that comes with lots more growth. Maybe we do need to level set differently and think that benchmark interest rates from the Federal Reserve really do need to be higher. Now, Trump won't like that.

He has been very active in calling for lower interest rates even after the blowout jobs report that came from the states the other day. But maybe that really is the environment that we're living in, in part due to the AI miracle and that whole build out. Maybe we do have a higher growth, higher inflation situation in the US that calls for higher interest rates. And that means higher borrowing costs and higher yields and the bond market. So again, this is why I say it's a paint

your own adventure. You can say this actually is great because it means that the US is growing really fast and people are really optimistic. You can say this is terrible because the US is borrowing too much money. You can say this is a result of these kind of horrible mixed messages that we get all the time. I guess on some level, does it matter? Fact is borrowing costs are really high and it costs the US a lot of money to stay current on this debt. And this is money that the US doesn't

really have to spare. I heard one analogy that the market or stocks are dating Donald Trump and bonds are married to them and when you're married, you notice things more. Why do you think there's

are literally different people in the bond markets and the equity markets. They are different tribes.

“And I think if you're outside finance or finance, people kind of look the same. They're not”

the same. People in different asset classes think very, very differently. People in bonds,

you're never going to double your money in bonds, right? Because you're only going to get back

what you put it in the first place. And you want to live it your downside? Exactly. So your mindset is why is this lying lie aligned to me and what can go wrong and how much money can I lose? In stocks you're thinking, what's the upside? So they do come from very different places, almost kind of philosophically. But the other thing is, you look at stocks and the earnings are just great and it's not just in AI. These companies in the US stock market are making bucket loads

of cash and you know that whatever the policy makers say, if the brown stuff hit the fan, you know full well that the Fed would cut rates and do something to stop the bleeding, if the stock market really took a hit in part because so many Americans own stocks. And it would be such a problem economically for wealthy households. So there's a bit of a moral hazard

“thing going on I think in that regard. But there is just this idea that it's very hard for stocks”

to lose at the moment because companies are just making so much damn money. I love where our friends at Rittholz Management, I was asked to say what could go right. And I see, I'm a hammer and everything I see as a nail. I see everything as an elegant transfer of wealth from lower mental households to the rich, specifically from the earners to the honors. Is there a scenario or let me put forward a thesis? Our politicians and they're just responding to the electorate.

We like to think that the voting public are saints and it's our leaders leaders respond to the electorate. The electorate said, "I know, let's go to war and cut taxes." I like that. And so the US public is voted for and embraced these deficits. And they like the idea of spending more money than they're paying in taxes, realizing that all they're doing is creating inflation and greater debt burden on ad in his colleagues or younger generation. Is there a scenario or what it seems to me? Is that the

biggest most trusted economist in the world have all adopted this propagate spending strategy, this debt field spending or G, which results in inflation? But if you already own assets, you already rich. You're somewhat protected, which again is nothing but a transfer of wealth. Inflation goes up. Our debt goes up. But the landowners, the gentry to people who are already rich, are protected. It's wage earners and people whose wages can't keep up with inflation.

They get hit hardest. This is just, we're just doing what we've always done or have done

“for the last, I would say, 30 or 40 years. And that's how can we keep populist with cheap calories”

and Netflix somewhat happy while continuing to transfer wealth from lower middle-income households to upper-income households. And I would also add to your point, everyone's doing this. We're not unique. Everyone in a Western economy. I can't. It's hard for me to point to an economy, a large economy that is fiscally disciplined right now. Anyways, isn't this just more of the same? Yeah, I think it isn't that kind of goes back to my earlier point, really, which is the things

don't matter until they do. And people have been saying this about debt, fueled fiscal spending for a really long time. And I think we've just reached the point where people think that the system is starting to creak. But you know, you can sense this around the UK. It is absolutely everywhere. The government under the previous Prime Minister tried to make some moves to cutting

wealth-first-bending. You can argue about whether that was the right thing to do or not. But it was

actually a reasonably, it would have helped UK public finances. And they just cannot get it past members of parliament. Who are we talking about? This was Kea Starmer. A starmer. Yeah, it's difficult to keep on top of who's Prime Minister in the UK sometimes. But it's currently Andy Burnham. It was Kea Starmer in the Starmer government tried to cut some wealth-first-bending. And again, you know, politicians in the constituencies where people are very reliant on wealth-first-bending,

simply will not let it pass. But at the same time, you know, we want good schools, we want good hospitals, we want good roads, we want all of that. And there is no real solution to how to pay for it. And you have, you know, left-wing parties that are talking about like poorly defined kind of wealth taxes, which I really don't think sustainably fill the gap. And so while we haven't

And the UK issued some government debt today, think I'm right in saying the borrowing costs on

“that with a higher since 1998. You know, we're having to really pay up for this stuff because when”

you go to investors and you say, yes, inflation is high, yes, there's a war in Iran that could still push inflation much higher again still. We're pretty close to $100 a barrel on oil again. And yes, I'm going to be borrowing an absolute shared load. After this, I'm going to come back to you again and again, again, asking for more money. It's no surprise that investors say absolutely sure, I'll lend you the money. But I just want, I want to better return for it. And that's where

you're high borrowing costs come in. Yeah, I just want to warn you from this point forward, I'm going to use a term shed load. If you take away anything from this podcast, go ahead. Yeah, I just want to linger on the fact that this isn't just an American story and then maybe we'll come back to what is going on in America. But we're seeing the same reaction in Germany and France

“in Japan and the UK, as you mentioned, they're all seeing their own bond yields touching”

multi-decade highs. Could you talk a little bit more about what is going on in Europe? It sounds like it's just kind of a mirror image of the US. But by all accounts, it seems like things are going quite wrong over there. Americans like to catastrophize about Europe and it's not normally as bad as it looks. It is still quite bad, however. So look, German borrowing costs are very, very low for a big developed economy, but they are much higher than they used to be because Germany has

has just recently caught onto this idea of debt fuel spending. It's been absolutely allergic to it for decades. It's getting back on that train now and that has pushed German borrowing costs higher, but like I say, they are still pretty low. France has an extremely polarised political system. You have candidates for the presidential election next year from the far right on the far left and not very much in between. And it's very, you know, France just cannot pass a budget.

It can't reach agreement on really anything to do with financial matters or anything else because you've got nothing in the middle. You've got this hollowed out middle and you've just got voices on the far left and the far right. So there's a serious risk that when we have the presidential election next year that this could this could lead to a real loss of investor confidence in France. Now the difference for France is that it's got the European Central Bank behind it with

the brits. We don't have this, but France has got the full backing of the European Central Bank. And last time we saw a serious debt crisis in Europe, which was sort of back in sort of 2010, 1112. The European Central Bank unleashed this torrent of rescue packages and rescue measures and things

that were sort of, you know, they were basically rescue packages, but sort of wearing a sort of

disguise, parallel glasses, and disguise, and stash so that people wouldn't think they were rescue packages, but they really are. And those, all of those programs, all of those support programs for national bond markets within the euro area that get into trouble, enjoy enormous levels of credibility and confidence from the market. So there is a low appetite for testing the European

“Central Bank's nerve on that. So personally, I think there is no way that the European Central”

Bank would let France fail on its debts. It would come up with something, doesn't matter how unguainly it is. It would come up with something to stop that happening. Nonetheless, you have got an awkward situation now where, for example, Italian borrowing costs are a little bit lower than

France's Italy is always sort of put out there as the kind of problem child of Europe. And actually,

it's done pretty good job with fiscal consolidation, market likes, what Italy's been up to. France is your problem right now. So yes, it is possible to construct a scenario in your head whereby Europe is heading for a really awful reckoning with the debt markets, but I do find it hard to believe that the European Central Bank really would let that happen. The UK similarly, you know, you get lots of voices on the right saying that the UK is in a horrible debt crisis and we have to go to the

IMF for a bailout, which is just bullshit. And you have lots of people on the left who say why we being bossed around by the bottom market, we should tell them what the yields are not the other way around, which is also bullshit. You've got a government that's trying to pick away a path in between those two things and the new chancellor, so our new finance minister is making all the right noises about there is nothing progressive about high borrowing costs. There is nothing progressive about

spending more money on servicing your debts than you spend on nurses, you know. So they're trying to

moment for our bond markets. So everyone at the FT is just waiting for that to land.

“We'll be right back off to the break and if you're enjoying the show so far, send it to a friend”

and please follow us on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from Vanta. When you run security for a company that's scaling fast, the stakes just keep climbing. More compliance frameworks, more vendors, more risk, and of bored that wants to see it all in one place. But your compliance data can be all over the place, controls in one tool, vendor risk, and another customer commitments varied and

contracts. Your team has to spend more time stitching it all together in less time running the program.

And every quarter, you're basing decisions on last quarter's data. Vanta connects it all.

It's market-leading, agentic trust platform is built for enterprise scale with 400 plus integrations and continuous monitoring. Vanta automates evidence collection surfaces the risk

“in matter and organizes your audit around your auditors requirements and that Vanta agent works”

around the clock from full program contacts, so nothing slips through the cracks. The numbers back this up, Vanta delivers a 526% return on investment over three years in pace for itself in three months. Vanta is trusted by more than 16,000 companies, including Snowflake at Lassian and Rantt. Learn more at vanta.com/markets. That's spelled VANTA.com/markets. Support for the show comes from BCX, the public ticker for private tech. For generations,

American companies have moved the world forward through their ingenuity and determination. And for generations, everyday Americans could be a part of that journey through perhaps the greatest innovation of all, the US stock market. It didn't matter whether you were factory worker and Detroit or a farmer in Omaha, anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But now, that's changed. Today, our most innovative companies are saying private rather than going public.

The result is that every day Americans are excluded from investing and getting left further behind while they select few reap all the benefits. Until now, introducing VCS, the public ticker for private tech. Now available wherever you buy stocks. VCS by FunRise gives everyone the opportunity to invest in the next generation of innovation, including the companies leading the AI revolution, space exploration, defense tech, and more. Visit get vcx.com for more info. That's get vcx.com. Carefully

consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risk, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the funds prospectus at getvcx.com. This is a paid sponsorship. Have you ever wondered who invented rock and roll or why Fleetwood Mac fell apart or what it was like at Motown in the early years? Well, do I have a podcast for you? My name is Will Anderson. I'm a songwriter, a musician, and a huge music history book. I'm so excited to announce

my new podcast the Monday Music Club. I teamed up to make this podcast for the Vox Media podcast

never because ever since I was a kid, I loved hearing and reading stories about classic artists,

recording sessions, and music history. And I wanted to have a place to be able to take what I've learned and share some of those favorites with you. Every Monday, I'll be releasing a new episode and deep diving into a new story with experts and special guests, and it's going to be a blast. So if you're a music history geek like me, or even just a casual music fan, jump in, because I promise my name is a club is going to be the podcast for you.

We're back with property markets. Something we covered earlier this week was the regional election in Germany, where the AFD, the Germany's far-right party won by a much larger margin than anyone had expected than the polls had predicted, and a lot of people in Germany, especially the establishment politicians are very, very worried about this. How significant was that election in your mind and how much to what extent does it say something about Germany's economic position

and potentially Europe's economic position? My hunch is that it's more significant politically than it is financially. I don't think there's any possibility, you know, to the extent that the AFD has a clearly articulated French or, you know, government borrowing platform, for example, I don't, it hasn't been enough to really spook the market. It's the politics that that really matter on that front. And it is significant, you know, there are some, it's a small region,

it's a part of East Germany that has lots of kind of, you know, very old hangovers from the time

“when the country was divided, I think it's possible to over extrapolate what you see from,”

from Saxony and Helt, but I think also, you know, this is a demonstration upon anything else

like Kyrstama was in the UK and you have a local election and the far-right does very well, just

“like we did it in the UK and then it is deemed that the current national leadership hasn't had a”

strong enough voice in pushing back against the rise of the far-right and then they end up having to go. So yeah, Chancellor Mertz does appear to be in trouble here, but I can't see that being a big problem for European bond markets. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it's, it's not cited to me by investors as a big risk right now. Just going back to the question of what changed in the bond markets this year, there was perhaps the idea that there was sort of a change in settlement

about how politicians and our leaders actually think about fiscal responsibility, but the other

more obvious thing to me is the war and the fact that the price of oil, as we record this,

Brent Crude is nearing $100 a barrel, it's been going up and up and up, went down for a bit, but then it went back up, which is almost even worse. And for my understanding, it doesn't affect just the US, in fact it affects the US a little bit less than everyone else. It affects the entire world and the costs of living for everyone. So to what extent do you draw a relationship between the Iran war and the crisis that we're seeing the bond markets right now? There's definitely a link

between the two bots. The levels of energy dependency and sensitivity in major economies today is not what it was in the 1970s and 80s. We do have alternatives. The US is self-sufficient in this stuff. So it is a slightly different picture. Also, one of the things that bond investors have been saying to me that just doesn't make sense about what's been happening in debt markets recently is that actually inflation expectations have been pretty well contained. So it's not inflation that's

been doing the heavy lifting and weakening bonds over the past few weeks. It's more of this, the fiscal side, the what the hell is going on with the fared kind of side, the mix messages, all of these signals from bestant that this really is a problem. If you package all of that together, I think that's much more of a factor weirdly than the oil price in and of itself.

What do you make of Kevin Worsh and his first couple of months as chair of the Federal Reserve?

What is some of your takeaways? What do you think? It's a hard job. And it's very easy to kind of, you know, throw shade from the peanut gallery and say, you know, well, I would be doing this much better if I were in charge and then all of a sudden you are in charge and oh, holy crap,

“this is actually really difficult. Well, we'll never be in charge. So that's why we can do it.”

And I think there is a recognition that it hasn't gone terribly smoothly and that Worsh's efforts to say to the market, hey, you're on your own, you price the bonds as you see fit and I'm not going to stand in your way. I'm not going to give you forward guidance. So I'm not going to tell you where rates are going. I'm not going to spoon feed the market. I think it became clear pretty quickly that what the market would take from that is a signal that it's fine, you know, with

the administration and with the Fed, if government bond yields are much higher and so I'm going to push them higher. So it kind of backfired what I'm expecting to see and what we've already seen signs of actually is somewhat of a more conciliatory relationship really with markets. A recognition that it's all well and good to talk about not wanting to spoon feed the market, but you do need some sort of dialogue because if things get really problematic and if bonds really get whacked,

you want that kind of trust and connection with the market to be able to guide them on what you

“think you should do next to calm that down. So we have seen somewhat more of a conciliatory”

stance. We have seen strong signals from Kevin Worsh that inflation is higher than we want it to be and that interest rates are the way to deal with inflation, right? Pretty kind of conventional stuff. But then it does get interesting in the sense that you have that blowout job support, the other day from the states, what did you add? 166 something thousand jobs? Yeah, 162 I think, yeah. Yeah, way in excess of the market have been expecting decent revision higher on the previous

months number, which have been negative and positive. So all of a sudden the market has gone from pricing in a one in three chance of higher of a rate increase later this month to a two in three chance of a rate increase later this month and then you have Donald Trump saying the Fed needs to get smart and if they don't cut rates then I'm going to impose some sort of new trade tariffs

demonstrate that he's his own man and that he has an orthodox position towards the role of

“much policy in taming inflation. He's going to have to raise rates this month about six weeks ahead”

of your midterm elections. Good luck with that Kevin Worsh. Hope that works out nicely for you. So you have had a big reset in market expectations around what he's going to do. There's a lot of people now saying that the Fed's like to do three 25 basis point rate hikes. So three quarters point rate hikes. So one in September, one in December, maybe one in March. For me, the kind of the interesting bit in the drama is what does Donald Trump say and do about that

and does he turn on Kevin Worsh in the same way as he turned on Jay Powell who's let's not forget

was his appointment. His urge trumps urge for lower rates. This is not like a new position for him.

He's been calling, you know, he's been a low rate guy since he was a real estate guy in the 80s. He believes in low interest rates and high trade tariffs. So I do think there is a bit

“of a potential clash coming. Again, just ahead of these midterms and I think it's possible that”

for example, the Fed gets a lot of blame for stuff that's actually not its fault. If Trump is trying to deflect attention away from, you know, problems in the U.S. economy that are pretty squarely down to his war in Iran. When I think about the markets that we kind of get what we deserve in terms of leadership when we reference this earlier, and that is until the markets respond, until a leader stands up and says, we're racing taxes and cutting spending and we have an eight-year

plan to get the deficit, the growth in the deficit below economic growth. And the market responds really positively. Until that happens, I just think we're going to have more of the same. It doesn't seem to me that the markets really want to have this conversation yet, and until the markets reward some sort of fiscally responsible rhetoric or narrative out of one of our potential leaders. I mean, we have a ton of Democrats and people is jacking for, you know, to be number one

on our talashy for the Democratic nomination or to be present in 2022. I haven't seen one of them talk about fiscal discipline. I just don't see that as a talking point yet. Isn't it going to be, can you point to any economy where a leader has said, look, we got to get the debts, deficit under control, and it's going to be hard choices. I don't see it anywhere. Do you see it anywhere? No. And it is a very difficult conversation to have with an electorate that is not necessarily

particularly financially literate and, you know, I get that. I guess, you know, the only mini example that immediately springs to mind is after the disastrous mini budget in 2022 in the UK when Liz Tross was Prime Minister, which blew up the UK government bond markets and then tripped over a trip wire and it blew up still further. And, you know, pretty much one of the very

first things that happened when she went was that a new chancellor, so a new finance minister,

was installed who just unwound pretty much everything that had been in that mini budget and said, right, all of that, just forget it ever happened. We're going to kind of get, get back on track. So a pretty humiliating moment really for Liz Tross and for quasi-quarting, who was her, her finance minister at the time. But generally speaking, no, I mean, it's just not a vote winner to kind of stand up on a podium somewhere and say, guys, I've got this great idea. How about you

all pay more taxes? But I just, we have forgotten as developed economies, how to, how to do that, how to say to people, you know, if you want all these lovely things, you want lovely, you know, schools and hospitals and roads and near the other, then that costs money. There's just this idea that you can lean on the bond markets to do it and, and particularly since COVID, that is just

“what we've done. So that's, I think that's why we're in the situation we're in today, you know,”

you, as, as you've been asking, you know, why is the market freaking out about this now? I think we did just the amount of borrowing stepped up so high around the time of COVID and dang of me wrong. There was the right thing to do with there was a pandemic going on and, and governments had to step into where the private sector was before. But the, the right thing to do after that period would have been to say, okay, look, that was all emergency borrowing. We're now getting back to normal.

And instead governments were like, this is awesome. We've found this magic money tree. Let's just keep blocking money off it. And, you know, now here we are in 26 and the money tree

There's a great line in the show billions where someone says to Bobby Axe, you know,

this, this thing's going to cost $10 million. And he's like, well, it's like I'm a rich man.

And I feel as if the US gets not a hall pass, but it can kind of say, well, it's like I'm a rich man. The growth, the economic growth and the economy in the US, as much as I'd like to

“shipposted because I'm hoping for a change in the administration. I think they economy on any”

and honest analysis, there's, there's, there's red flags or there's blinking yellow lights. But I would, I would challenge anyone to point to an economy that's stronger than the US is. The US has a couple of advantages. Yeah, it does have, you know, great growth. envy of the world. And that's the other way that the US can get out of this problem is just to grow

really, really fast. You're stealing my thunder. I'm going to rub too because someone asked a question

area. Growth solves almost all problems. Yeah. I want to talk, go back to the UK. We are growing. The US still isn't growing fast enough to, to, in my opinion, maintain this ridiculous spending. But we're less screwed than everyone else. The UK is not growing. For all the noise around Canada being such good people and I'm on the side of Canada, the Canadian economy is a shit show. It hasn't grown in 10 years. The UK economy is a shit show. It hasn't grown in 10 years as far

as I can tell. Other than, okay, so there's the AI. But what are some of the fundamental pillars of non-growth in the UK and play in Canada? Because we talk so much about managing our house. But you can order champagne and catamine if you're killing it at work and you're making a shit ton of money or a shedload of money. And the UK and Canada aren't. If you were advising

“the UK or the British government around how to inspire growth, what would your recommendations be?”

Well, the kind of original sin with the UK was Brexit. It's 10 years now since we voted to leave the European Union world's biggest trade block right across the water from much you can practically see it from the south coast. And we left and then that meant that we spent a lot of time and effort as a government, as a civil service in trying to sort of figure out how to

fix that and how to reconfigure that relationship and that just was a huge effort sink that we never

got back. And it just through sand and the gears of every single trade transaction or export or import from Europe that we're really still seeing the effects of that and it's not just the trade, it's the UK's investment destination and we kind of blew up quite a lot of credibility and down down. So you do see politicians in the UK talk about the need to rekindle a more friendly relationship with Europe, but it's just politically a nightmare because the vote for Brexit

cut across traditional party lines. So you have lots of traditional labour voters who voted for it. And so and you have lots of traditional you know Tory party voters who voted against it and so neither party is really able to have a proper conversation about what the effects of it have been. We're only now 10 years after this bloody vote having a proper honest conversation about what the impact of this whole thing has been and it has been horrible. So that's you know that's kind of

that's the core of a lot of problems certainly in the UK. I'm not an expert in the Canadian economy, but there is just a kind of comparison kind of effect going on here where the U.S. has just been such a success story. It has owned AI. Now what kind of vote has the U.S. really got around that? What does China have up its sleeve? Could there be even another deep seek moment? Is there a possibility that all of these companies which by the way are borrowing unbelievable amounts

of money to build these data centers? Is there a possibility that they're building data centers for a technology that people simply will not pay for or politically will not tolerate? Yeah absolutely there's a bunch of things that could go wrong with AI. But you know for now to kind of use that hack-need phrase and markets, the music still playing so people are still dancing

“and that's just you know it is not correct to say that AI is the only thing that is making”

the U.S. economy grow, but it is a large part of what's behind it, what is behind making the U.S. economy grow. And for reasons that you know maybe the rest of the world should regret

We'll be right back and for even more markets content sign up for a newsletter at ProftyMarkets.com

“Support for the show comes from Gusto. Be honest there's probably one task on your list you”

constantly push the next week because it's just so tedious. For a lot of business owners that task is payroll, Gusto is here to take that entirely off your plate so it becomes the easy part of your job instead of the dreaded one. Gusto is an online payroll and benefits software built for small business. It's all in one remote friendly and incredibly easy to use so you can pay higher onboard and support your team from anywhere. Automatic payroll tax filing, simple direct deposits,

health benefits, commuter benefits, workers come for a one-k you name it. Gusto makes it simple and his options for nearly every budget. Unlimited payroll runs for one monthly price. That means no hidden fees and no surprises. You can save time with built-in automated tools, offer letters, onboarding docs, direct deposit, and more. It's quick and simple to switch to Gusto,

“just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus you don't have to pay a”

cent until you run your first payroll. Try Gusto today at Gusto.com/markets and get three months

free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll at Gusto.com/markets. Again, that's Gusto.com/markets. Today's show is brought to you by Vanguard. To all the financial advisors listening, let's talk bonds for a minute. Capturing value and fixed income is not easy. Bond markets are massive, murky, and let's be real lots of firms through a couple flashy funds your way and call it a day. But not Vanguard. Vanguard bonds are institutional quality.

This isn't just a tagline, it's a commitment to your clients. It means top-grade products across the board. Vanguard's been in the game a long time and their scale gives them a serious edge. The lineup includes over 80 bond funds, they're actively managed by a 200-person global squad

“of sector specialists, analysts, and traders. Some managers out there promise big returns,”

but those usually come with big risks, and that can mean a roller coaster ride for investors. Vanguard takes a steady approach. They don't go all-in-one risky bets instead. They focus on

reliability and consistency. It's not always flashy, but it sets a standard for what dependable

investing should look like. So, if you're looking to give your clients consistent results here in and you're out, go see the record for yourself at vanguard.com/audio. That's vanguard.com/audio. All investing is subject to risk Vanguard market incorporation distributor. What's up everybody? It's KMA Ward Steelers Captain host of notches football. We just sat down with Aaron Rogers. Four-time MVP Super Bowl Champion, Future Hall of Famer for one of the most

open and honest conversations we've ever had on the show. There were so much to get into. We had to split in the two parts. Part one is out right now. And trust me, you don't want to miss. Aaron gives us this real story behind coming back for one final season. We also talk about how he was radar retired once by T step down and how reuniting with McCarthy changed everything. We get into playing with Mike T for one more year. This year

squad, the old teen narrative, boosted out this summer and what it's like to be in the quarterback. Aaron also opens up about what he still has left to accomplish this season and what it looks like when he hangs it up with it. And that's only part one. Part two drops this Thursday. That's when we go beyond football. The media, the conspiracy theories. What people still get wrong about Aaron Rogers. His legacy, Super Bowl ring, the goat, the bay, and the overrated and underrated

where things really get off the list. Part one is out right now. Part two drops this Thursday, September 10. Whilst not just football with Camhoy, we're on YouTube or listening to Spotify, Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. We're back with property markets. I really appreciate how you are showing the sort of chain of events that are worth caring about if you care about

economic, if you care about the state of the United States and also just the world. And it seems that what we have here is a situation where we're borrowing unprecedented amounts of money in our governments. And the answer to why that is okay, that we hear from many of our leaders and that we hear from Scott Besson, that we heard from everyone who is in the White House in America today, is that we will grow our way out of that. And maybe we should have a conversation

in a moment about how legitimate that argument is. But that is the argument we can grow our way out of it. We can just create more and more prosperity. And that will solve the problem. But the growth has become so highly dependent on this one thing, which is AI. And if we look at AI,

again on a handful of companies and their ability to spend specifically the big tech companies

right now who are now borrowing huge amounts of money. But also open AI and anthropic that is the majority of the revenue that is coming in for these big tech and the big tech AI efforts. So the whole thing is extremely concentrated. And we talk a lot about this problem of concentration risk. It's a very well-known thing in economics in finance. And it seems like the entire structure of our system has become heavily dependent on this thing that when I look at it and when I look

at the economics of these companies and also what we don't know about these companies, which is a lot. To me, I'm think this is incredibly unstable. I'd be curious to hear if you agree. Another little thread that you can kind of tease out of that as well is that a couple of years ago there was this huge AI capex spend coming from the big hyperscalers, the kind of metters and Microsoft's and Amazon's of the world. And 18 months ago they were paying for all this out of

you know, out of their free cash flow. And then they ran out of that free cash flow. So they started paying for it out of money that they are borrowing from the bond markets. And again, I don't want to

go all kind of always sunny and Philadelphia or on kind of, you know, get my kind of pinboard

and all the rest of it. But everything is connected in the sense that these companies are now borrowing so much money that that is sucking some demand out of the government bond markets. So if you're an investor and you've got a huge debt issue over here from the US government, but you've also got another debt issue over here that you could buy into on the same day that's

“from Metta. And you think, you know, actually when I think about it, who is the safer credit here?”

Is it the US government or is it Metta, which of these bonds should I buy? And then you think, well, the Metta one is actually a little bit more generous because this is a corporate bond. And it's got pretty much the same duration. It's, you know, I'm pretty comfortable with Metta as a credit risk. So I'm going to buy the Metta bond instead. And all over the world, this is leaching demand out of government bond markets at precisely this time that people are worrying

about the fiscal incontinence and about the sheer levels of borrowing the governments have got to do. You know, in Europe, you know, an investor was telling me the other day, there was some government bond issues that had been planned by smaller European governments. They've had to move the timing of these issues so that they can negotiate their way around these massive hyperscaler bonds that are hitting the market on the same day so that they can try

and ensure that the demand is there to buy these government bonds. It's messing with the whole

“ecosystem. You know, I think this is one of the big kind of”

underappreciated stories and global finance at the moment of written about it a couple of times. But is that the corporate bond markets are, you know, getting new wings attached to them and a new engine while they're flying along through the air and nobody is noticing what a big impact that has both on the corporate bond market in and of itself. But also

this second round effect on government bond markets. And yeah, so again, you know, where does that

leave us if the AI trade does fall over? Not in a great place. I would argue though, it would free up more demand maybe for the government bonds. But, you know, when people talk about the AI trade is really dominant in stock markets, that is not even half the story. It's also super dominant in private markets, private equity, private credit and public corporate bond markets. It's bending everything out of work. Which to me is a very good reason to think very

critically about the probability that the AI trade could fall over. And it does seem as there whenever we have this conversation. We have the conversation on this podcast a lot because,

“as you can tell, I think it's really important. But it seems like when we do have the conversation”

what I hear from the AI bulls is, you know, you're missing out on the greatest thing of all time. Like they think that it means that I'm shorting something. They think that it means that I'm just like this perm over there, which is not the case. But to me, it's just like it's something that we have to care about. And we have to get to the bottom of, you mentioned what we're seeing in the corporate bond market. Also, it's inclusive reporting from the FT, which just came out today,

which is that anthropic and open AI are now having conversations with credit agencies about getting an investment grade, credit rating. And it sounds like their strategy is just to ask them nicely to give them a low rate, which to me is another red flag. I mean, it feels like this is extremely, extremely big deal. And I almost wish, I'm surprised that people don't care enough about it. I know people care, but I feel like they should care more. I think it's not unusual for

companies to talk to credit rating agencies in an effort to get those credit rating agencies to understand what they do. And I hope they will give you a low rating. I, you know, I hear your point

you're not a tech investor, you're a tech investor. If you've got any money in any market anywhere,

“whether that's through a pension or through allocations that you make to ETFs or whatever it is,”

you think of just how much of the S&P 500 is tech. You think of how much of emerging markets stock indices are or in tech and AI. You know, it's the entire Korean stock market. It's a large part of the Taiwanese stock market. It's a huge part of the Japanese stock market. Even if you think you're just buying an index because you want exposure to a certain country, you're buying an active tech fund. And so yes, it's in everyone's interest to think carefully about what can go wrong here.

I don't have the answer. You know, I'm not a tech pointy head. I don't know whether this technology

makes sense. I don't know whether it is, you know, remunerative over time, whether people really

will pay for this technology. But I do know, this is like to a large extent, the only game in town. And I was talking to a large asset management firm earlier that was saying that clients are coming

“to them and saying, I don't want to think about the world in countries anymore. I want to think”

about, okay, I've got my tech allocation over here and maybe that's kind of pretty plain vanilla, US national stock index. And I want exposure to things in the rest of the world that are not tech. So I want you to take the tech and AI out of that part of my portfolio. And guess what, you know, the UK and Europe look pretty good from that regard as diversifies. So they're actually doing, you know, surprisingly well in this environment. But yeah, you know, tech is just shot through

absolutely everything at the moment. And if it were to go wrong, there if I have no crystal ball, I don't know. But there's a lot of things that will go wrong at the same time. Looking at the bond market of the credit market right now, do you feel like any one credit market is underpriced or overpriced? I just think there are some credit markets that have been traditionally really, really tiny,

that are suddenly actually operating at scale. So the bad thing about the fact that the hyperscalers are kind of coming in and borrowing huge amounts of money in loads and loads of different currencies is that the hyperscalers are bossing around the rest of the borrowing markets for other companies, you know, that are domiciled in those smaller currencies. The good news is that the hyperscalers are demonstrating that you can borrow in size, in little currencies like, you know,

little in corporate bonds, like yen, sterling, Canadian dollar, Swiss Frank. So actually what they're doing is kind of offering this proof point that it can be done and that this is an area where there is a potential to borrow much more. In terms of which bits are overpriced, you know, again, it all comes back to the same, the same question, which is does it make sense to have such a large allocation to the AI story and you know, credit investors generally operate under stricter rules

than stocks investors in terms of the concentration they're allowed to have in one sector or another or one company or another. So it does throw a full source of kind of technical and and complicated problems for credit investors. But yeah, we're all just sort of circling around that same question, which is does this stuff make sense and it is quite sort of gratifying to me actually that in corporate bond markets, you do get somewhat of a sort of stricter treatment from investors than

you do in stocks. Stocks investors are like, "Sure, I'm sure this thing will go up, I'm going to buy it, whereas credit investors ask some pretty awkward questions about, okay, where's the money coming from, and how can this go wrong for me?" Just going to tariffs, just what I've said about the tariffs thus for, to me, the tariffs are like America's Brexit. It's like our way of throwing sand into the gears, as you said, for no real reason, other than a sense of patriotism, nationalism, we don't

like those other countries, we prefer America, or Aurora, and ultimately, in the case of Brexit,

it led to basically economic stagnation, it basically ruined an entire country.

“Do you see tariffs the same way? Do you think it could have those levels of effects?”

For the US, the beauty of the US is that it is a massive and very closed economy. You can get along just fine without really anybody else. So it is somewhat different in that the UK, don't tell Brits, but it's a small island and we need like stuff from abroad, whereas the US is in a much better situation not least because of its shale oil to get by on its own.

of mine who are much bigger specialists on trade than I am like Alan B.T. and Smear Cains,

that we've passed peak tariff. We've gone past the point where Trump is threatening and executing tariffs on anyone for any reason whatsoever. But yet this odd line that he's taken since the payrolls report that happened to have written down in front of me, lower the interest rate, or I'll stop trading with countries with which we have a deficit. I'm really struggling to get my head around this one, not sure how it makes sense for the US to shoot itself in the foot because he doesn't like

interest rates, really struggling with this one. He still fixated on it on some level, and it's interesting as well that one of the reasons why Scott Bessent has been arguing that government bond yields are much higher is because the US isn't getting the revenue in from the

trade tariffs anymore. Again, that's my first point, paint your own adventure if you really want to

argue that that's an input into high yields, not sure I get it, but be my guest. So yeah, it's not

“helpful geopolitically, but I think I just don't think the world takes Trump terribly seriously”

on threats of tariffs anymore. You mentioned the midterm elections and the fact that we're in a position where a rate high is on the table in the months leading up to the midterm elections and the politics and the drama around that, it does seem to be a very good example of how politics really does matter in economics and in markets. I feel like sometimes we get criticism. Why are you talking about politics? I thought there was a market share. It's like because the two are connected,

they relate. In terms of the midterms, to what extent do you think that the midterm elections might have an impact on markets, might have an impact on the US economy? Is it an important event in that regard and what are you focusing on in the build-up? I think investors are from the notes that I read in the conversations that I have, they're just trying to start getting their head around what it would mean if there was a big tilt in power in Congress and I don't think anybody really knows

just yet a lot hinges on, you're going to do these elections right and it is all going to kind of be normal and you are going to respect results and and and and there's some pretty kind of meaningful questions, but there is also an idea that the more that Trump has perceived as a as a, you know, he should technically be, you know, a lame duck president, he should be getting towards the end of his position in the White House. Does that embolden aggressive regimes

around the world to think, well, I'm going to get done all of the terrible stuff that I want to get done while this guy is still in the White House and I've only got like a year to do it. So does this ramp up the pressure on Taiwan is obviously the big one? Does this ramp up pressure still

“further on poor old Ukraine from the Russians? So I think there's a possibility of, you know,”

depending on how cornered Trump feels after the midterms and you would have much better insight into that than than I would, it is possible that we get this kind of flurry of worrying geopolitical news that comes after it while people perceive that he really doesn't have long left in the job.

Just going into the second half of 2026, in your mind, what are the biggest, most important

things to look at and to examine in terms of their effect on global markets? I mean, just to list off a few things as the war in Iran, the Fed Federal Reserve and the decision on interest rates, there's the IPOs, the incoming IPOs of anthropic, which is supposedly going to happen at the end of the year, potentially open the eye, though they've started to push it out. I mean, what do you think is most critical? Because I'm like a sad macro person, I'm going to say that like a lot comes

down to the credibility of the Federal Reserve and a lot comes down to the extent to which wars really is willing to demonstrate that he's an orthodox policymaker, even despite the howls and whales from what might be a somewhat kind of cornered US president. I think that is

“incredibly important. I think if warships this wrong, then that will be another unhelpful factor”

for the bond markets. And you know, heaven knows it is a bit of a mystery why equity markets have

all have something to worry about. So I think keep a close eye on what warships says and much more

importantly does in the months ahead. I was shocked to see the calcium has the likelihood of a rate increase at 74% by the end of the year because I thought it's like biting or performing

“surgery on the hand that writes your check. And then as I think about it, it's a 12-year appointment”

from a president who can't remove him, at least legally. And quite frankly, at some point, wars probably goes hunting badger don't give a shit. This is my opportunity for a profile and courage. And this is a guy who can't remove me. And then it's all of a sudden a rate hike started making sense to me, whereas I thought of it as unthinkable just a week ago. What do you think do you think

are we zero rate hike before the end of the year? I do. Yeah, whether it's, you know, next week,

you know, whether it comes in September, I don't know, but I think there will be something before the end of the year. If you carry on with inflation being sticky, we've got a big CPI report coming up from the states in a few days. If inflation stays sticky and payrolls keep doing what they're doing, I don't see how warships has a choice. You know, he has to stick to the script because we've seen how unhelpful it is when, when he doesn't. You mentioned earlier, Katie, that

warships needs to get this rate or he can't get it wrong. What would getting it wrong

“look like? I think it would look like another white explicit acceptance from warsh”

that it's fine if bond yields keep pushing higher. You know, that, that I think was a bit of a misstep. And you know, if he keeps signaling that, you know, actually I'm very happy for the market to do my job for me and I, and I want yields to be much higher, then they'll push higher because, you know, warsh like, you know, he uses analogy that, you know, I don't want to be a player on the picture. I want to be a referee tough. You're a player. So play properly. Do you see the merit

because part of me almost likes where he's coming from, which is like, I'm, I'm not, I don't, I want to intervene as little as possible. I want the markets to do their thing. And I don't want people to be, I don't want to game anything. And I, I see your point, but do you see those merits? Like, what, where do you find it problematic? There's absolutely merits in that and I'm not suggesting that the Fed has been a perfect institution over the past sort of decade or so. What I am saying is

that again, you need that dialogue and trust and predictability in situations where something bad happens. Whether that's a recession reshawk or an inflation reshawk, you investors need to know

“where the Fed is. And if they really don't know where the Fed is, then the only thing they can”

price is not knowing. And that means just not buying so many treasuries. You know, buying something else instead. Because, you know, then you don't have the US currency risk, you don't have the US institutional risk. So I think one thing that is, be helpful to US policy makers is a more kind of explicit acceptance that investors don't have to buy these bonds. You know, up, up to now, there's been no efforts to put a gun to their head and make them buy them that we don't have any

kind of particular kind of efforts at financial repression right now. So set for when the president threatened military intervention in the bond markets. That was good. I did enjoy that. That was great. You know, we will fight them at the discount window. There is a choice. Investors have a choice about where they put their money. And this is something that governments in the UK, France, and Japan, and everywhere else, of course, take much more seriously. Katie Martin is a market's

columnist. And member of the Financial Times editorial board. She writes the weekly long view column on market trends and appears weekly on the unhaged podcast previously. She spent four years as the FD's markets editor and also several years on the FD's live news service prior to joining

the FT in 2015. She spent 11 years at the Dow Jones Wall Street Journal group, Katie, always love

having you. pleasure. Thanks, Katie. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Jorge Carty. Our research team is Dancialon, Chris Nodon, Hugh and Mia Sauvario. Jake McPherson is our social producer. Drew Burroughs is our technical director and Catherine Dylan is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Proxy Markets from Proxy Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us

for a fresh take on markets on Monday.