Loading summary
Transcript94 lines
- [00:00]
Jim Caron
Indiana University strengthens tomorrow's workforce with practical, real world experience. IU grads make a difference in your community, serving as teachers, nurses and engineers who rise to tomorrow's challenges and meet them. Learn more at iu.edu impact
- [00:20]
Host 1
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News Jim Caron, Chief
- [00:26]
Host 2
Investment Officer of Portfolio Solutions at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. He's back with got a little bit of a special treat for this last hour of Bloomberg businessweek Daily. He's joining us for the rest of the show. Jim, it's good to see you. Welcome back.
- [00:40]
Jim Caron
Thank you. It's great to see both of you
- [00:42]
Host 2
and thanks for taking the time this afternoon. You know, we obviously weren't planning on starting with Alan Greenspan and his life and legacy. We're going to talk about the Fed. We'll talk about rates, risk, portfolio, positioning, the US versus the rest of the world. Matt Miller wants us to talk about motorcycles. Yes, I don't think I will be able to do that in an intelligent way that will.
- [01:01]
Host 1
I did once ride on it with two other people. That was dangerous when I was really young.
- [01:06]
Host 2
But we do want to start with Alan Greenspan and the legacy because early in your career, I mean he was the Fed chair. You, you knew he was it, he was a legend.
- [01:16]
Jim Caron
So I, you know, if we put this in perspective and I think it's very important to have context around this, he started his position as chair in 1987. He ended in 2006. That's a 19 year period. So for most people that's, that's a large chunk of their career. I started in the business in 91, 92. That's all I knew for 14 or 15 years of the starting point of my career. He was somebody that was not going to be challenged easily by other members of the Fed. It's whatever he said went and that was it. But he also did a bunch of different things. He changed things at the Fed in the sense that he made it a lot more transparent, if I could say those words. So what the way the Fed operated, and we take this for granted today, that you find out on Wednesday at 2:00 what the Fed's decision was and we all go to work. Prior to Greenspan, it was Volcker. And what happened at about 4:15, 4:10 on a Thursday afternoon, you got money supply data Based on what the money supply data was, that was the change in policy. You had to figure it out. Nobody told you if it was 25 or 50 basis points. You were guessing and you were trying to analyze and figure out what that was. So what Greenspan started to introduce through communications and things like that was what today we take for granted was absolutely monumental and groundbreaking. As far as saying, hey, by the way, we just hiked or cut 25 basis points. And that's. And that's all it is.
- [02:49]
Host 1
Is it too much, though? Like, would some say it's gone too, too far.
- [02:53]
Jim Caron
So there's been iterations, like there's. There's pre Greenspan and then there's post Greenspan. Right. So what happened in the 19 years subsequent, you know, from 2006 to 2000, you know, 2026, what, what we've had now is Bernanke, Yellen and Powell, they've all followed effectively the Greenspan mode, but they added onto it. Now, clearly Bernanke had a very special situation. The financial crisis. He had to do enhanced communications and things and things of that nature. I think that what is it too much today in terms of communication? I'm going to say that it is a bit, because what the Fed is trying to do is they're trying to telegraph and televise too much, such that they're actually directing and dictating how the markets should think about things as opposed to what War said, which is let the markets figure it out. I mean, so the way I think about. So we're being managed well, I mean, you know, the way I think about Kevin Warsh, if I'm going to put him in this, in this period of time from 1987 to 2026, I'm going to say that what Warsh is trying to do is bring us back to the period that was pre Ben Bernanke. So it was greenspan in the 1990s. So very similar economic setup too. Big Capex cycle, big productivity boom that we're going through. And I think what Warsh is trying to do is bring us back to that period where he lets the markets assess what monetary policy ought to be as opposed to what Greenspan did. Greenspan was the guy that really started to come in because Volcker and everybody else just looked at money supply M1 to. They were, you know, very, very much that that's what they did. Greenspan was the one who started saying, you know, we should think about GDP growth and the labor market and inflation and let's talk about inflation anchoring and, and all of these various things, things that we think of today is very common, was very uncommon at the time. So I'd say let's give Kevin Warsh an opportunity. This is his moment. In history. He wants to remake the Fed, but this isn't groundbreaking. What I think Warsh is trying to do, I think he's just getting back to a period that looks more like the.
- [05:05]
Host 2
It's fair to say you see a hint or more of Alan Greenspan in Kevin Warsh today?
- [05:12]
Jim Caron
Yeah, I do now. Whenever you compare somebody to somebody who was a legend and somebody's just starting out, that's always a very difficult. We'll see how Warsh does. It's going to be a long journey and long road ahead. But I think on paper, conceptually, what Kevin Warsh is trying to do is, is get the Fed back to a much more narrow focus. Not as narrow as the Volcker Fed, which was just money supply, but something that's a little more growth, inflation outlook, jobs market. But let's ease up on the communications. I think he's really just going back to a 1990s Greenspan model right now. And that's my perspective. And a lot of people weren't even around in the 90s in this business practicing. Right. So they don't really have a good perspective on this. It wasn't chaos, it was fine. You know, you just have to get used to the new. There's a new sheriff in town.
- [06:04]
Host 1
What's the downside of kind of where we are and what we expect from today's Fed?
- [06:10]
Jim Caron
I think the downside is that there's a lot of mission creep with the Fed. Right. So now we have to, we have to put this in context as well. Prior to the financial crisis, we had this much more narrow remit. This is what Greenspan kind of created. I mean, he opened it up more transparency than Bernanke kicked the door wide open. He had to. We had a financial crisis, we had interest policy, we had qe, we had policy rates at zero. So he had to find a way to communic to the markets. I totally get it. But what happens is, is that once the Fed starts to have this mission creep and they start to be asked to do more and more, even from a regulatory standpoint or even, you know, the Fed was being asked, what's your policy on climate? You know, you know, things like that. This is not what the Fed's job is. The Fed and according to Kevin Warsh should color in a very, very narrow set of lines and so stick to what their job is. Under Volcker, it was money supply.
- [07:04]
Host 1
But what if the economy has gotten more complicated? Climate change is an issue. Companies have to think about it, you know, because it is ultimately Going to impact their bottom line.
- [07:14]
Host 2
Which does it affect a dual mandate? I guess some might say, well it
- [07:17]
Host 1
might because people can't work.
- [07:19]
Jim Caron
Yeah, you can extrapolate.
- [07:20]
Announcer
Right.
- [07:21]
Jim Caron
So what, what Warsh is basically saying is. Don't ask me that question. That is an elected officials job to do. My job is Kevin Warsh. Right. If you're Kevin Warsh, if you're the chair of the Fed is to is price stability and full employment and to really focus on the price stability component.
- [07:39]
Host 1
But don't you sometimes need. Okay, I'm going to get into trouble by needing a figure that's not political. But we understand that politics has certainly crept its way, Jim, into the US Central bank. But I think there are times we look at the Fed share, even if there is a political backdrop as being kind of a voice of reason on all of these major issues that will impact economic growth globally, will impact corporate bottom lines. Like is it not important to have that voice of reason?
- [08:09]
Jim Caron
It is absolutely important to have a voice of reason. But in a position like that, in the way that I believe that Warsh interprets it is that it's a very narrow remit. And one of the things that he said is that the Fed should have absolute independence on a narrow set of items. Everything else, this, this is not, this is what the Fed is, this is not what the Fed does. And I think keeping that very, very clear and setting these boundaries. Right. You know, we all have to set boundaries. Right. You know, this is a very important aspect of things is like look, don't ask me these questions. I mean these aren't questions that are for Kevin Warsh. Right. You know, so, so that's what he's basically saying. And what he's, what he says ultimately is that the Fed can do its job better if it's just doing the job that it was tasked to do, but is not being asked to solve all these other problems.
- [08:55]
Host 2
In the words of Jay Powell, we'll stick to our knitting is what he said over and over.
- [09:00]
Jim Caron
Exactly.
- [09:00]
Announcer
Right.
- [09:01]
Host 2
So it just reminds me of that sort of go to for him. We're speaking with Jim Carrey and the CIO of Portfolio Solutions at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. So, so what does all this mean for. For rates under a wash regime?
- [09:13]
Jim Caron
So this is pretty clear. Yeah.
- [09:15]
Host 2
Was in the market reacted in a very clear way.
- [09:18]
Jim Caron
Well, yeah, so I have a very out of consensus view on this. Okay. So I actually think Warsh was more dovish than what the markets thought. Okay. So I know what he said in a traditional interpretation so markets got it wrong? I think so. Okay, so effectively under a Bernanke, a Yellen and a Powell, if that's your mindset, and say, look, traditionally if I think about what war said and I use that framework, Bernanke, Yellen and Powell, then yes, he was absolutely very hawkish. Right. There's no question. But I think if you read between the lines and listen to what he's really saying, what he's saying is that like, is he's going to create these task forces in terms of like, so how do we think about the data? So if you were to ask me a week ago, two weeks ago, what is the Fed's most favored measure of inflation? I'd say core pce. That's the Fed's favorite measure of inflation today. I don't know what it is. I don't know what the task force is going to say that it is. Is it year over year pce, or is it month over month, or is it three month over? This is what the task force is going to figure out. So the market I think for the next six months until this task force gets us all done, is going to be very confused as to what the inputs are to the Fed's large scale policy model, which is their, what they call the Furbus model, Federal Reserve bank of the US Model. And what Warsh is doing is he's not saying I'm going to change the model. What he's saying is I want to look at different inputs, I want to look at labor data in a different way. I want to think about productivity differently. Kevin Warsh is a supply side economist. He's going to start to create a lot of supply side indicators to inform him as opposed to the more traditional demand side components of the economy and those indicators. This is in my career and I've been doing this since, you know, 91, 92, so about 34 years is the most monumental shift that I've seen take place. I inherited Greenspan when I started. Greenspan was there. That's all I knew. This is a major shift and I think that people are underestimating how monumental of a shift this is. And where they're going to get it wrong is by applying what they've learned over the last 25, 30 years under a Greenspan to then say, oh well, this is what it's, this is how I would interpret this. I think the rules are the ground is shifting, not the rules of change, but the ground is shifting so good
- [11:40]
Host 1
that it's shifting good that we kind of Take a look at a system that we've been kind of moving along for a long time.
- [11:46]
Jim Caron
Well, I mean, you know, changes happen, right? So Greenspan changed it right. When he came in because he felt, and you, and you mentioned yourself, the economy has changed. Right. So when we look at labor data and labor statistics, I think the data is, has been challenged for the last five years. The non farm payroll data for me used to be the sun rose and set on the non farm payroll data for me for most of my career. Last five years, not very informative. Weekly jobless claims were a bit better. So I think there's a lot of challenge to the data.
- [12:15]
Host 2
So what is the, what's the best, I mean there's no single best piece of data. But what's replaced the non farm payroll series?
- [12:21]
Jim Caron
So this is what Warsh is trying to figure out in terms of looking at the, is using this task force, right. So you've got this other series, this quarterly census of employment and wages, the QCEW series. This is the thing that constantly gets revised or revises down the monthly non farm payroll numbers and things like that. So what I think Warsh is going to try to do is use more real time estimates of the market and to try to understand whether it's inflation data, maybe even shorter term measures. I'm not saying that we're going to live and die by the weekly jobless claims number, but I'm just saying, you know, you've got jolts, you've got these other surveys, you have other industries that create surveys of data as well. Why not start to look at this a little bit more broadly?
- [13:06]
Host 1
Well, it's interesting that you say that because we get PC this week, right. And Bush is not so keen on, on this read in terms of inflation, is he?
- [13:14]
Jim Caron
Right.
- [13:15]
Host 1
And is there something to maybe rethin about this 2% target that we obsess about? That maybe that doesn't make sense because we can't seem to get there.
- [13:24]
Jim Caron
Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I mean this is, you know, same thing. In the 90s we didn't really get to 2% as a target either. We didn't even really have the target of 2% at that time, which is another thing. So maybe as I'm saying, as Kevin Warsh is kind of going back to the 90s, maybe we should think about the target. Is it more of a range or is it a specific point target? And the other thing that I think is going to be very different is that the way that the traditional way over the last 25 years or so that we thought about controlling inflation was to adjust the jobs market. Right. So if inflation's running too hot, this is the irrational exuberance. How do you, how do you control inflation? You kill the jobs market, you create a recession, you get the unemployment rate up, you get prices back down, and you tamp down inflation. What Warsh is saying is that if you're in this period of higher productivity, then lower, lower levels of unemployment. So an unemployment rate that, say, falls from 4.3 to 3.8 or something like that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be inflationary. If it's because you're getting higher productive growth. That's a very supply side view of the world and basically saying that if industry is creating more efficiencies, that doesn't necessarily create a higher inflation rate. So a lot is changing and you know, it's a lot of people should really just, you know, when they speak to say, look, I'm not really sure, but what I think is, as opposed to being so definitive, so I'm keeping a very open mind about all of this.
- [14:55]
Host 2
Does AI completely change everything that we're talking about?
- [14:58]
Jim Caron
Possibly, possibly. You know, I mean, I think the issues with AI that, that I have in economic forecasting is that it's kind of just going to look at the survey data. It's good. It's going to look at the available data sets that are out there. Unless you TR it to look at.
- [15:15]
Host 2
I just mean that from productivity. Oh, yeah, that's what I mean.
- [15:17]
Jim Caron
100%. Yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying.
- [15:19]
Host 2
Yeah, not on the data analysis, but just on productivity and what it does to this economy.
- [15:23]
Jim Caron
So in my view, it does. Right. So I think the productivity, I think you're going to get a lot. I think you can get higher levels of growth and lower levels of unemployment. But if it's more productive because AI is becoming more efficient is going to be a, it's going to be a positive. So when we think about AI, people think about it in terms of profit margins. Right. And today, the way they think about it, it is, it reduces costs. So more AI, less junior analysts, higher unemployment rate. And that's kind of the negative view of AI. Yeah, I don't think it's going to work that way. I think what we're going to see is you're going to have more AI, it's going to create more demand. It's the Javon's paradox, right. Whereas when something becomes cheaper, you demand more of it, which is, which is what I think AI is going to do. You'd have more people asking critical questions of this tool called AI and we're gonna be judging the results of these things. And ultimately, if you get better, more efficient decisions and higher productivity, these are the companies that, you know that actually use this. These are the winners. There's a lot of creative destruction here. There are gonna be winners and losers.
- [16:28]
Host 1
Yeah, I agree. Do you think that that means that some of the companies we talk about non stop could be a possible loser down the road?
- [16:36]
Jim Caron
Yeah, absolutely. Right. So it's all about adapting and it's looking at companies that can actually use this tool. Very eff. So right now there's a big productivity gap between the way that we evaluate this. Right. We're just in the infancy of all this stuff. Right. So if you ask any individual person, hey, do you use AI? Yes, I do. Are you more productive because you use it? Yes, I am. Okay, now go ask the CEO of that company if your employee is 30% more productive, are your profits 30% higher? And they're gonna say, I don't think so, not yet. Over time, that gap, that productivity gap is going to narrow relative to the individual being more productive and the company becoming more productive. Companies right now don't quite know how to use this tool efficiently or effectively.
- [17:25]
Host 2
But I think the concern that a lot of people have is that, well, maybe when an employee leaves, that employee doesn't need to be replaced by headcount. And it's the margins where you'll see. And fewer people producing the same amount of work. Great for shareholders, not so great for those folks with jobs.
- [17:47]
Jim Caron
Yeah, it could be. Right. So my take on it is that the real power of a powerful user of AI is somebody who can ask really good, creative, insightful questions. So the work that, whether it's software programmers, engineers that create a lot of the software, a lot of that work is going to get displaced, I think. But the people asking the questions, the more creative questions that come in that try to solve problems, I think that doesn't go away. And then you have to judge it, you have to interpret it, and then you have to apply it. And I think that's where the job growth is actually going to be.
- [18:27]
Host 1
So maybe that liberal arts education makes it 100%.
- [18:31]
Host 2
A Bowdoin guy here and a Colby guy here. So we're getting along right now.
- [18:36]
Jim Caron
But.
- [18:37]
Host 1
But no, but I think about that a lot, like learning how to, you know, ask the right question. And we, we keep talking about this Too. It's not these basic, simple questions. It's really complicated, smart, thoughtful questions.
- [18:50]
Host 2
And the critical thinking that you develop when you're writing those papers late at night that now AI is writing for you, unfortunately. So the kids aren't learning how to do that.
- [18:58]
Jim Caron
Well, think about it. I mean, like, you know, you may not be able to code, but you can ask a lot of really good questions, right? So there you go. And if you could ask really good questions, well, don't worry about it. The machine's going to code for you.
- [19:07]
Host 2
Exactly. If you have a vision for something because you have an analytical mind, you have an idea for creating something, you no longer need to find that person to code for you, you can get Claude code or Codex from OpenAI to do it for you.
- [19:18]
Jim Caron
So Albert Einstein said that the true measure of intelligence is imagination. It's not all these hard technical, as if you're very imaginative. That's actual intelligence. I'll go with Albert Einstein on this one.
- [19:30]
Announcer
Yeah.
- [19:31]
Host 1
It makes us think, you know, there are people who've been writing things about, you know, you have to give your mind, your brain kind of a moment to think. Right. Some space to think rather than kind of nonstop, either on a computer or on your phone and thinking things through. Having said that, we've got about four minutes. We're gonna take a break and come back and talk some more because I want to address some of the things that the President has been saying when it comes to the spend that we see nonstop. And we've been talking a lot about Space X now, tapping the debt market. I don't know, how do you work that into the investment narrative? Is it smart? Do we get nervous? We just had our credit analyst on and kind of all in on Elon and comfortable with it that we don't even know where this is all going. But if you're going to bet on someone, this guy seems to make sense.
- [20:19]
Jim Caron
Well, I mean, things are going to go in cycles. There's no question about this. So there is a large spend right now and everybody's going to ask the question, is the juice worth the squeeze? Right. We're spending a lot of money. Are we going to get the profits or is this going to. Is this going to happen? I think it will. It's going to happen over time. But it has to be an enterprise solution, meaning that companies, corporate America is who's going to build data centers in space, for example. Right. It's going to be the need from business that says, hey, I've got a whole team of people that I just hired, and they're using this AI engine, this AI tool, creating agents nonstop, and their productivity's off the charts. We need to do more of this. It's an enterprise solution that's going to actually create the profitability. And I don't think we're close to it yet, because right now you're asking CEOs like, oh, so is this profitable? Yeah, I think it is. I mean, they're not quite sure how to measure it.
- [21:14]
Host 2
Well, the flip side of that is some CFOs pulling back on those tokens because they're not necessarily seeing the roi. Uber, for example.
- [21:23]
Jim Caron
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's a cost. It's a cost component. But like anything else, you know, tokenization is going to get commoditized. It's going to become cheaper. Do you remember, like, oh, don't print in color. Right. You can't print in color because if ink was more. Nobody really says that anymore. Right. You know, so I think it's one of these things that it's like, you know, I think it's going to get cheaper.
- [21:44]
Host 2
What did I tell you, Carol? When I started working here six years ago, I was like, I like working here because they don't count how many pages you print in color, as opposed to where I used to work. And they're like, do not print in color.
- [21:54]
Host 1
Do not print it off.
- [21:55]
Host 2
Yeah, exactly.
- [21:56]
Host 1
Just read off of it. Yeah. You know, it's funny when we talk, and I feel like, I mean, we don't know what the timeframe is here, do we? Nope, we really don't. We're taking it day by day, week by week, month by month, in terms of just kind of watching how this, you know, evolves. But what I do find interesting, and you mentioned roi, like, our conversations have evolved a lot more to talk about that. When we're talking about artificial intelligence, we weren't doing that necessarily a year and a half ago.
- [22:24]
Jim Caron
Yeah. So. So I think if you look at any business cycle, right, You've got the early adopters, you've got the late adopters. Right. It's never a straight line. It's never like you're early, then all of a sudden, you kind of get there. It's like, it's always exponential. So you start off, there are going to be some early adopters. The way that the market's going to identify that is these are the companies who are going to get rewarded. So, Jim, just early adopters, early adopters.
- [22:47]
Host 2
Well, I think it's fair to say Some of those are getting rewarded right now.
- [22:51]
Jim Caron
Exactly.
- [22:52]
Host 2
But apart from those companies, the developers of the frontier models, the hyperscalers, just in the last 45 seconds, we have with you, before we take a break and come back, who else could be winners? Where else could you find winners?
- [23:06]
Jim Caron
I think you're going to find it all across the spectrum. It's not a question of specific industries. It's really a question of which companies in which sectors are adopting these tools and unlocking operating leverage. That's going to happen in healthcare, that's going to happen in industry, that's going to happen in software and technology. It's going to happen all financial sector. Financial sector financials are pretty efficient, but I would say, but even still financials, these are all managed care networks which are very cost intensive, very heavy, workforce intensive. And the companies that do this right, they're going to unlock a lot of operating leverage. And those are cash flows I want to buy. So I don't think there's any one sector, one company is the president.
- [23:49]
Host 1
Right. Though, if that war had continued, would there be an economic catastrophe for the United States?
- [23:55]
Jim Caron
Yeah, I think there would have been a significant slowdown. I mean, ultimately the inventories and the oil supply shortages would have caught up and everybody's pretty well versed on the numbers.
- [24:07]
Host 2
But is the challenge, now that he said that out loud, Iran knows they have that leverage?
- [24:13]
Jim Caron
I don't think it's news to them. I mean, I think they're following the same flow of information that the rest of us are and calculating the amount of barrels of oil that the world needs and things like that. And it was creating some real shortages and some pressures. And I also think, though, that what Iran also knew is that the world and China is a big consumer of oil, for example, would have some patience up to a certain point, and then Iran would start to feel a lot of different pressure from their partners because then it would really become a much bigger issue. But look, I mean, ultimately, I do think though, we're at a stage where the point of this conflict, as far as it matters to the markets with oil prices, I think is largely behind us. I mean, where oil is today or in the mid-70s, whether you're looking at WTI or Brent, which is around 77 at the moment, this is way below what I thought it was going to be. I would have said mid-80s. I wouldn't have guessed in the 70s. So I think there's a lot to this.
- [25:16]
Host 2
I think one challenge that people have right now when they, they, they look at where the US and Iran are in negotiations is that there is this sort of 60 days to get to some sort of solution with the enrichment of uranium for any purpose. Yeah. I think it's fair to say if you look at the historical corollary with like the jcpoa, you know, that took over a year to negotiate.
- [25:38]
Jim Caron
Yeah, it's going to take time.
- [25:39]
Host 2
But does that mean. But the difference is we have all these US assets and service members in the region and they're kind of just, just there as the threat of a cudgel. Right.
- [25:48]
Jim Caron
Yeah. And I think that there's going to be some withdrawal of that, like over. I think that's part of the 60 day agreement that there has to be some withdrawal of troops from the region. I think what's different this time is that there are consequences for Iran, whereas like the JCPOA and everything else was like, listen, we want you to have this agreement, we've come to this agreement, it's taken us a year. This is what we want you to do. And if you don't do it, we'll just keep asking nicely this time. I think, you know, what Trump has introduced in this is, is that there's, there's the carrot and then there's the stick. Right. There are consequences to this. And that I think is, is a differentiating factor, at least for me, in terms of, well, volatility in markets. I mean, we are going to go through periods where oh, well, this happened, this, somebody fired on this person and this one, you know, and is the straits going to be closed and oh, I'm counting the ships, I counted five lessons and you're going to get these headlines. This isn't going away, this is going to create volatility in the markets. But overall, on average, where the flow is, I think that the flow is going to be a lot better. And it's really about denuclearizing Iran. I think this was his ultimate goal, and demilitarizing them to the point where they can't exert that kind of influence that they had in the past. Is it regime change? No, it's probably a regime evolution, but we'll see, you know, how that all plays out. But it's not over yet.
- [27:09]
Host 1
Right. And Jim, to that point, President Trump said just after market close, if Iran doesn't behave, I will do what I need to do. So.
- [27:17]
Announcer
Right.
- [27:17]
Host 1
We're going to just have to kind of live with this. What do you think is the most important market conversation we should be having right now?
- [27:25]
Jim Caron
So I think it's inflation. I mean if we just look at what happened last week, right, we had some Fed governors go from, from zero rate hikes to two plus rate hikes, right. So it makes me wonder are they seeing something that we're not seeing? I'm a little concerned about that now. Maybe they're overreacting, who knows. But you know, if, if they're right and if we do have very sticky stubborn inflation above 3% for a period of time, that's not going to be good for the financial markets at all. So the, the, I think what the belief is is that what we're seeing today is it's not so much at the core, it's primarily at the headline. It's going to be, it's not going to be long lasting. It's going to, it's going to filter through. But if that turns out not to be the case, then you're going to get higher interest rates and that's going to slow the markets down and the markets are not really anticipating that.
- [28:21]
Host 2
Maybe a good segue to talk portfolio positioning because you and the team over at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, you like the U.S. yeah. You like Japan?
- [28:30]
Jim Caron
You like.
- [28:30]
Announcer
Yep.
- [28:30]
Host 2
You're underweight. Europe.
- [28:32]
Jim Caron
Yeah. I think that Europe is just going to have more headwinds in terms of trying number one to figure out what their re industrialization plans are. I mean Germany's been struggling for the last several years in terms of growth, their manufacturing, their autos, they're trying to figure out how to handle China with exports and imports. Energy prices are just, you know, are just going to be stickier in Europe they don't have the energy security or the of sort source of energy that the US has. So I think the costs and also higher inflation in Europe, like the US can handle 3% inflation. It did it in the 90s. And you know, and you know, the US economy is geared to do that. Europe is much more of a rigid economy that's based on more fixed incomes and fixed costs. When you get an exogenous shock of higher inflation, it really cuts into profits. So their ability to grow and also from a political standpoint, what that does to people and how they vote and everything else can really start to blow back on industry. So it's not that we're abandoning Europe, we like Europe. It's just that if I had to choose, I would choose the US and Japan over Europe. So in a portfolio, it's a zero sum game. If I'm overweight something, I've got to be underweight. Something else. So I choose to be underweight.
- [29:47]
Host 1
Europe can't go. I still have more questions.
- [29:50]
Host 2
You gotta get Jim back.
- [29:52]
Host 1
This was amazing.
- [29:53]
Jim Caron
Thank you. It's great to be here with you both.
- [29:55]
Host 1
Thank you. Really timely and great to get your view on, on Alan Greenspan and then just kind of broaden it out. Thank you so much.
- [30:01]
Jim Caron
Thank you.
- [30:02]
Host 1
Really appreciate it. Jim Carrey, he's chief investment officer of portfolio solutions at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, joining us right here in studio.
- [30:09]
Announcer
When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering and claims experience. Learn more@the Hartford.com riskmitigation policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut.