Tim Leary

Tim Leary

I look forward to diving into the economic strategy and the fiscal policy and the implications of this outcome, expected by many and expected by few at the same time. Clay, thank you for being with us today. Welcome back. How's what's the tone in DC, like, post the change?

Clay Lowery

Well, first of all, Tim, thank you. And let me answer that in two ways. One, I thought you put it well, it's expected by many and expected by few. So I think that actually the expected by many was that if Donald Trump could win and he could, he was very much, you know, the 50/50 race and all that stuff, then he would win with I think I said this last time we talked, he would probably win with the sweep.

In other words, the Senate and the House would go his way. And so expected by many. I think that that was one of the base case scenarios. The other best case scenario was Kamala Harris win, but she would not sweep. The expected by a few was how how big he won. So it wasn't a landslide. There's some people claiming it's landslide.

It looks like he will probably fall below 50 percentage points of the populous, you know, win by probably two percentage points or something like that. But where the domination happens was in the swing states, which we talked about. It was seven swing states. He won all seven of them.

And, and then they got the sweep in terms of what the mood in Washington is. I would say right now it is what's happening down like, you know, get our binocular is out. And what's happening down at Mar-A-Lago, down in Florida and trying to figure out who is he going to appoint for these different positions. He's had.

Obviously, some people, some would say, you know, fairly normal conservative picks for different positions that go along with the policies that he has laid out in during the campaign. And then he's had a few more, shall we say, out of the box picks, of which one of them actually, withdrew today. To be the attorney General.

Tim Leary

Gaetz taking a knee and stepping in and removing himself from the process today.

Clay Lowery

Remove himself from the process. And so we'll see how that plays out. But, the probably the biggest one that we have not seen, and, well, now it'll be the attorney general as well, but is, we have not seen a selection for the, Treasury secretary, and I'm happy to talk about that, if that's helpful.

Tim Leary

No, let's stay with that. What what are your thoughts?

Clay Lowery

So I think what Treasury. It's again, when we talked before I said something which I'm sure a lot of people probably thought was weird, which is that I think Donald Trump has two brains. He has one brain on. I need somebody who believe in my agenda. Tariffs, a kind of a protectionist agenda. Not necessarily mercantilist, but protectionist.

At the same time, I don't want to spook markets. And so I need people who markets have confidence in that. They know what they're doing, that they understand the capital markets, that they're not going to do something radical. And so I think that that has been playing out sometimes it's been playing out in the press, which is probably a little unfortunate for the Trump team.

But, I think that that's why it's been a hard pick for him. And so he's been going through a number of candidates. We've seen at least five different names. My guess is as good as any names on who will be I don't know. But I think that that's what's happening is he wants somebody who's on board with his overall agenda.

But at the same time, he wants people who are not going to the markets aren't going to freak out because somebody is way out of the box. Thinker.

Tim Leary

Enter the Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge, the think tank, the UN appointed unapproved think tank. They I don't know if you saw the op ed in the journal that was released yesterday, but it feels like you're going to be inundated with resumes from people working for the government in DC looking for a new job.

Tim Leary

What's the is that what do you think actually happens there?

Clay Lowery

Look, I don't know, Vivek Ramaswamy much and Elon Musk is known much more from his public persona. They both seem like they've been extremely, successful entrepreneurs and businessmen, particularly Elon Musk and a disruptor. He went into Twitter. He disrupted the heck out of it. I God knows how many people he got rid of, including a lot of engineers who are probably exactly what you need to make that place run.

Some people said, oh, this will be the end of Twitter. It won't work anymore. And so we're I mean, it seems to work. It. It's lost all sorts of money. But, you know, maybe that's part of the disruption needed to jump to the other side and so forth. In government, it'll be there will be pushback. First of all, there are a number of unions within government.

So you don't really have that a Twitter. And you don't have that at a startup, which he has had other startups. So there could be pushback. There's civil service reform. You have a civil service, protections that people have to worry about. So there'll be some of that, I think in some respects. Look, my view is I think it's a good idea to have a nice let's take a real close look at our bureaucracy and think about what we do need to do to make it better and more efficient.

I think that it would be helpful to them if they would try to make it a little less antagonistic, but maybe that's that's kind of their style, I guess, and a little more, you know, could you actually get some Democrats who believe in this? So you make it a little more bipartisan, but, that right now is not where they're going.

But at the same time, it's very early. I mean, they put out a message saying, who would like to work for us and work like crazy and get paid absolutely nothing. Well, I mean, I guess some people might, but, you know, most people want to be paid for work. And so, so we'll see how that, how that goes over time.

If they think that this is the way to solve the fiscal issues that the United States have, good luck, because it's a very small percentage of our budget, so.

Tim Leary

Right. And so in staying with fiscal, you know, the plans that Trump has in place for lower taxes or the concept of lower taxes, both personal and corporate, is it's going to lead to an increase in the deficit and public debt, or are they going to be able to offset that with tariffs? What how do you think about it that.

Clay Lowery

They're supposed to come due because of the way some of the budgeting, minutia works here in Washington. And the idea would be you would extend them. And my guess is that's going to happen. And so that will continue to open up a hole in the budget, because obviously you're not bringing in as much revenue. The theory, of course, being that you could grow the economy to more effectively and so forth, the corporate side, that is not actually tied to that provision.

It's a different tax. A corporate tax rate under the first Trump administration was lowered from 28 to 21%, which actually, was probably a, a boost from, for competitiveness for the United States. And actually, you did see an investment flow that came from that. You get usually a one off on that. Yeah, it doesn't last, but you get a one off.

Tim Leary

When you say when you say a one off meeting.

Clay Lowery

You get more investment for a shorter period of time. So it's not necessarily consistent investment. But you do get that investment. And or at least that's what the evidence.

Tim Leary

Well let's, let's dive into that for a second. Why do you think that is the case as opposed to, you know, that if you're in a situation where that lower corporate tax rate remains lower for a longer period of time, doesn't that lend itself to consistency that people can, the corporations abroad can or even into it domestically?

Tim Leary

You can think about how they're spending their CapEx and their growth budgets going forward.

Clay Lowery

I think that that should be the case. And I've been. But at least what you saw, and maybe it's maybe what really happens, as you see. So maybe actually maybe a better way of framing it is to say you get AA1 off tax boost, investment boost, excuse me. And then it comes back down a little. But overall over the longer term it's actually you're getting slightly more investment.

I think maybe the evidence right now is not suggesting that. But I think that actually you definitely did get a boost. Investment. And so what Trump has said is he'd like to lower it again, down to 15%, for 21%. And I think that that is very possible because he has control of both the Senate and the House.

The extension of the personal tax cuts also is very, very possible. He also talks about some other taxes about, like, you wouldn't have withholding on Social Security. You would not have tax on tips, things like that. There's much more like targeted tax issues. We'll see how those play out. But I think that overall

I guess that's I mean really it's extensions. And so yeah. Will that actually increase the deficit. Yes. Is the answer. I mean there's just no other way of putting that. And so and how do you then offset that. So part of the offset would be, you know maybe the dodged commission. But let's just say the numbers are pretty small.

That doesn't mean they're not. That wouldn't make it more efficient. So that could be a very good thing. Secondly is the tariff issues, which, probably doesn't it certainly doesn't make up for all of it. But, you know, it could make it up a little bit. There is it is a revenue source. And, and then I one more point than just the expense expenditure side.

We have not heard almost anything on what would be cut on expenditures. I mean, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it. We just haven't heard it. And so if you look at the studies that have been done thus far, the deficit would grow, the debt would grow, and it would be significant fiscal expansion. Sorry I cut you off.

Tim Leary

No, no, no, no, I appreciate you finish your thought. The I guess my question is what do you think the total if you had to put a number on what the tax revenue could be, you know, by the end of 20, 26 or 2 years into the administration, after a number of the tariffs have been put in place based on the percent of GDP, like, what's the range that people that they expect to be able to bring it.

Clay Lowery

Yeah. So I, I, don't have a number in front of me. I can say this is that we've seen a number of studies from probably five different organizations that have said, if you take right now our debt to GDP is supposed to is right now around 100% of GDP. That is almost an all time high for the United States within a couple of years, almost assuredly will hit that all time high.

And when I mean all time, I mean including our spending during World War two, which is when it was about if you if that expands which the tax cuts would end and not countered by expenditure cuts, then you would go higher than that. But then ten years from now, our debt to GDP is supposed to reach about 120% of GDP, which is significant under the plans from the Trump administration.

It could reach, closer to 145% of debt to GDP. So that's a pretty significant increase over a ten year period. Now, could that could there could you whittle that down? Sure. But what we have not heard is any which way that we're going to do that outside of a tremendous kick in economic growth, which even, you know, those that it's a hard thing to do for anybody making forecasts to see how that type of economic growth would happen.

There's no history of that. And so, yeah, so that's the best you can do on a projection basis. So we're right now we are running about a 6.4% of, deficit, GDP. You know, you should assume that that will increase.

Tim Leary

Right. And I think as long as that spending and we spoke about the last time we were together, neither the Harris administration or the Trump administration had any plans to cut fiscal spending whatsoever. Right. So, right.

Clay Lowery

The only thing we've heard about is the dose commission. And that thing is it's more than a think tank. I mean, you know, you get serious people who to have President Trump's ear. But,

Tim Leary

But in a sense is a, I mean, in the sense that it's a think tank and that they're not approved appointed Senate confirmed. What what authority do they really have for them saying, hey, Donald Trump and you're going to have to do what I ask you to do, or I'm going to go on Twitter and say mean things about you, right?

Like I'm trying to get my arms around, right?

And so to your point, unless they can garner some bipartisan support and actually put together some decent ideas that make sense or convince people, I think perhaps to return to work full time as opposed to working remotely and have some sort of self selection as they shrink the workforce, the government, I mean, it'll be interesting to see how that all plays out.

Clay Lowery

There may well happen. I mean, frankly, the if there if you have if you ask the mayor of Washington DC, who's a Democrat, she would probably say, I mean, she may not agree to five days a week, but she would agree, like return the people to work because it's been, you know, this is a government town, Washington is a government town.

Clay Lowery

And there's a lot of people within the government who are here three days a week, if that. And that's, you know, not good for business. And the District of Columbia. Sure.

Tim Leary

And then shifting gears to the regulatory environment, obviously, you know, from, from my perspective, I Lena Khan departure eventually, you know, is probably going to be the biggest corporate impact, I would think, in terms of M&A and things along those lines. Curious your thoughts there. But also, you know, the biggest question remains that we get is the whole concept of drill, baby drill.

And we're going to be able to create an environment. We're going to mandate companies to drill and so on and so forth. That hasn't been our worldview, personally, but I'm curious what your thoughts are on both topics.

Clay Lowery

All right. Let's start with the merger and acquisition area. So my normal under a most Republican administrations, I would think you're right, which is kind of a reversal on what Lena Khan and the DOJ have been doing over the last few years, which has gummed up the M&A world a bit. At.

Tim Leary

Least that would be an understatement.

Clay Lowery

Yeah. And, world, you'll know better than me. But the, so one would think that, if you follow that rule book and if you follow what the Trump administration did its first term, then you're right. Now it is interesting that at least the vice president, JD, elect, I should say, JD Vance has been very much on the record as saying that he's a big fan of what leaving comments doing.

Tim Leary

And so was that more specific to just the tech sector, though? Right. And big and big tech as it might be.

Clay Lowery

It might be.

Tim Leary

Supermarkets and broadcasters.

Clay Lowery

So remember, like what Lena kind of in many respects, her view on mergers and acquisitions was a reversal of basically the last, I don't know, 30 years of kind of how to think about this, which is that, you know, some of the pioneering work that was done by Robert Bork and others long time ago, about, you know, we should be thinking about what is best for consumers.

And I'm not saying she was against consumers. I'm thinking that she had a different view of how that should be done. And it kind of it was a fairly big reversal on how M&A, an antitrust work should work. Would the Trump administration follow that, or would they go back a little bit towards the playbook that has been followed for 30 years?

I actually think you're probably right that they would go back. I'm just saying there are those within the right, not just JD Vance, by the way, Josh Hawley and some others who have suggested, you know, she had a good point in some areas. And so maybe we should be more thinking about that and don't really like big business.

And so, I would say that M&A activity probably will become more regular allies, more open because they want to have a deregulatory agenda. That's kind of part of their big agenda for taking economic growth. But, there is there are possibilities of me being wrong on that or you being wrong on that. And then in terms of the energy agenda, yeah, that one I see, like how quickly can we do a 180?

So, if the Biden administration was pursuing both a pretty strong regulatory agenda on to try to protect the climate and sustainability and was providing essentially subsidies for clean energy, I see the Trump administration walking back the first one without a question, and then the second one, probably to a large degree, maybe not a full degree, which is like, let's say, if we're going to try to save some money, maybe this is an area we can save some money.

We don't need to subsidize some of this work. That being said, I like I got to I spoke to some folks out of Australia actually, and they were trying to figure out they are hoping to export critical minerals. China's obviously the biggest exporter, but Australia does some of this as well. So critical minerals are very important in clean energy and electric vehicles and so forth.

They said is that the end like should we be worried? And I said maybe to a certain extent, maybe public investment in those areas goes down. But I actually would not be shocked if private investment continues to go up, because I think that, you know, it, it's been profitable for a lot of firms. And so, and, you know, there's reputation and so forth that they want to protect, but but on the bottom line, it's actually been, fairly profitable thing.

So I think public investment side will go back.

Tim Leary

So let me ask you, let me ask you a totally crazy question. What if just what if the states did more of that sort of subsidy and provide a tax incentives at a state level to bring that type of business back to the state level and maybe took it out of the government, the federal government's hands, do you see a California, New York or Connecticut?

Some of these, coastal states spending vis-a-vis and tax incentives to, to attract that type of renewable business, sustainable business?

Clay Lowery

I'm going to start by giving you the honest answer, which is, I don't really know that I'm going to tell you my off the cuff answer, which is why not? And, if they have the budget to do it and they want to do it, but, you know, and then it'll be almost a reversal of what you've been seeing for the last few years, which is various states suing and going after financial institutions that said, hey, we're going to be helpful to, we're going to follow this kind of climate, change structure and so forth.

And so therefore and, you know, states basically saying, okay, well, then we're not going to allow you to win certain contracts because you're basically. And so that would be it. This is almost a reversal. Those would be the red states when you're talking about I theoretically would be the blue states. But you know, you also might be a better idea to do that and more of a state level, which is where you have real municipal finance.

Then at a federal level, anyway.

Tim Leary

And now so let's you mentioned financial institutions. Let's stay with that for a moment. What is the deregulation and what are the implications there for banks and financial institutions? Should we be worried? Is this something that has been like, well, you tell me.

Clay Lowery

Okay, so let's break it into a few, two buckets. The first bucket was kind of a sustainable finance agenda, which we kind of just discussed. And let's just say that regulatory agenda is going away. All right. The second is the one that, we talked about last time, to a certain extent, which is Basel three. Basel three.

It's basically a new capital accord that's supposed to be based on the international standard of which the fed, SEC and the FDIC took it further. And what's called gold plating, what they put stuff on top of what the standard. Now, the fed had proposed walking that back partially in I think it was September just yesterday. They basically testified that they're they're just going to hold everything steady until the new administration is in place.

Clay Lowery

Two is walking away from Basel three. Thank you. That was very nice. We're done with this crap. Three is restarting the process. Basically we're not going to walk away from Basel three, but we might want to renegotiate Basel three. And so we are going to jump into the international arena and beat up on a bunch of different countries and say, we need to basically renegotiate this whole thing.

And, and the reason why this is difficult is because right now Basel three is actually in implementation in countries such as Canada, Japan, Australia. And it's largely not fully implement that implement it in the European Union. And it's been agreed to within the United Kingdom. So most of the major international jurisdictions are already doing some of this. And the United States is kind of the outlier.

And so the question is, is does the United States stay the outlier or does it try to renegotiate? And that's kind of that last row.

Tim Leary

Here's a question.

Clay Lowery

Oh go ahead. Because I have one last lap.

Tim Leary

But what's sure sure we'll come right back to that. But what's the biggest sticking point for the Trump administration about Basel three. What's what has got them so bent out of shape.

Clay Lowery

So I think that the, the concern from major financial institutions is that it would actually create an unfair playing field for the United States. So that was what I talked about with the gold plating. Right. And so that it would raise up capital standards because of the different rules and so forth, particularly on markets like on, market regulatory matters.

And so you would actually instead of keeping an even playing field, that's the idea of when you have an international standard, just try to keep it as even playing field as possible around the world. You would actually make it unfair for U.S. institutions. And so the idea is like, we just need to dial that back and dial it back to maybe more.

The even playing field. That was kind of my first bucket or renegotiate. That's my third bucket. So I think that that's what there. And then of course, you know, I'm sure that there's some people who are like, yeah, international standard. Screw these people. We should just do what the United States wants to do. But I mean, like, I think for those that believe, like there's a reason for this, particularly for internationally active financial institutions, then it's like we just need to continue to walk back.

But we do need to come up with something rational. But that might mean renegotiating the underlying agreement. And that's that's the part it's unclear to me.

Tim Leary

Right. And I before I so rudely interrupted. What? No, no, no.

Clay Lowery

It was not rude. It was a good question. So the third, the third bucket really was the more of the digital asset side of things. And I think on that one, the so what are the problems right now in the United States is one of the few, jurisdictions that has not been able to put in place any type of a framework for how digital assets should be regulated.

And so that suggests to me that they are going to be forward leaning, like we need to have a framework because that actually is something that even people, one that will regulators can utilize, but also private sector actors could use. So I think that this could be an opportunity for them to come up with something that is creates sound regulation around an area that right now it's kind of it's not the wild, wild West right now.

The way we've been regulating it is through basically ports and and taking cases, as opposed to through enforcement mechanisms as opposed to regulating it through a framework that everybody sort of understands.

And, and so for the, for the everyday listener at home, what do you think the near-term impact for them is going to be.

Clay Lowery

For, for which I'm sorry for, for all.

Tim Leary

Relates to cyber. It's no, no, no, you know cryptocurrency cyber and the like.

Clay Lowery

Well it depends on how much you're involved in that stuff. I mean, so if you're an everyday listener who has nothing, you have nothing engaged in that outside of, you know, you might have some investments in companies that are working on these issues, then I'm not sure it means all that much to you. And I mean something. You know, it's possible that some people will be able to, invest in the right organizations that do.

Tim Leary

Well, if you're somebody who's starting to dabble in it or if you're actually majorly in it, I would think that it's a positive that sure, that doesn't mean it will always be positive and things will continuously go up. I mean, you know, things go down. So I would say that though, anybody who's kind of in this space, I would think is probably this is a fairly positive development.

Right. And so how much of that, how much of that do you think, or how concerned are folks in DC? I should say that the move higher in Bitcoin and crypto assets is a direct response to the concept that like in some way, shape or form, the Trump administration is going to take away authority from the fed or have the feds, you know, impact on financial markets, be lessened.

I think that, you know, question one, I actually think one of the coolest things that I've seen in a long, long time was when during Chair Powell, his last presser where he was asked if he would step down as the president asked him to, and he said no. Yeah. For anybody for for anybody who hasn't seen that, that's worth a YouTube and a Google.

But what are your thoughts? How much is there a relation between, you know, is there a is there a perception in DC that Chair Powell is role is going to be lessened under Trump administration.

Clay Lowery

So there's two parts to that. The first part more on the digital side. So I think on the digital side, it could be just as much of what does the SEC or the CFTC doing as opposed as as much as the Federal Reserve. And I think that the, do I think that Trump coming in and some of the at least policy discussions around the Trump campaign have made it more, have given it a positive kick?

Can I legally fire somebody. Like I'm not saying was the fire Powell like I think he said he doesn't. Can I legally fire. The answer is no. You just can't. Now could he legally remove Powell from being the chair or Michael Barr from being the vice chair, though they get to stay on the fed as a governor, I don't know.

And he can do other things in the meantime. And I think, you know, he is the agenda they're setting in terms of the regulatory side, not monitoring also, but the regulatory side I think is fairly clear. And I think Michael Barr, who has been in many Democratic administrations, I think is going to not be pushing back too much.

I think he would be like, he just wants to make sure I'm sure that it would be as sound and regulation as possible.

Tim Leary

Got it. And so sticking with the fed for a second here, you know, you can't you can't think about the fed and their effectiveness without thinking about the dual mandate inflation and employment. And you can't talk about employment right now without talking about immigration and the impact of the Trump administration's immigration policy. And what's that going to really mean for immigration?

And I've heard really, really intelligent people have some very, very different opinions on the outcomes and what's actually possible and what's actually happening now as it relates to migrant workers, how many immigrants are in the country, what this really means for unemployment. Tell me what you're thinking is and what the folks that you're what your, tell me what your circle are talking about.

Clay Lowery

First thing is on immigration. Look, if you pursued. I mean, so what has Trump said he wants to do? Largely, the biggest thing he has said is he wants to deport those that are. I guess they're called undocumented workers, illegal immigrants, whatever the right word is, I don't I'm not trying to offend anybody. I'm just saying what is being said now based estimates are there's an 11 to 13 million people in this country that are, fit under that category.

Nobody knows. I mean, I don't care if they're a bloody expert. They've been studying this for 50 years. They don't know. And and so then what do you do? I want to deport them. How do I go about doing that? The incoming administrator for, has said we're going to get rid of the criminals and those that are the bad actors.

I applaud. Now, how hard is that to do? I don't know, I'm assuming it's pretty hard. And the reason I assume that is because, first of all, they're they're undocumented. They're somehow in the United States, and somehow we're going to have to figure out which ones are the problems and which ones are the ones who are just working on a farm as agricultural workers who may be undocumented but haven't done anything wrong, I, except for they ran across the border when they didn't have any papers.

And so and you know that to be illegal and so theoretically they should be they could be thrown out a country. But is that where I prioritize? No. So they're going to have to think through their prioritization list because they're don't they won't have the money, resources and ability to get rid of all 13 million undocumented workers.

To your point about what that does, unemployment. So that's the main policy. I mean, there's there'll be some others, of course. Does this create fear and gum up the system in terms of legal immigration? And I got to believe the answer is yes. Obviously, it's hard to speculate. You're speculating here because it's you're not necessarily trying to get rid of legal immigration, but it I promise you, they don't come up the system.

The system was gummed up in the first Trump administration, and that can lead towards an employment issue. It also could potentially potentially might not lead towards an inflation issue, which is you're going to have you're going to have a labor supply problem. And so, so for the fed, I mean, I you know, look, the fed has to take all these things into accounting fluting.

Is there an employment problem. Is this along with tariffs and loose fiscal policy create potential inflationary concerns. And so that could have an impact on what we do with monetary policy. The answer is yeah. And you know, I think I said this last time at Apple's press conference when you did get asked a question, you said earlier he didn't I don't think he ever got asked.

So what are the fiscal I mean, what does fiscal policy affect what you guys do, or how does overall policy he just doesn't get asked that sometimes, which is fine. You do have to take that into account because it could affect both.

Tim Leary

He's also he also loves to remain data dependent and say he doesn't want to speculate on policy. That hasn't happened yet. Right. And so I, I think that's I applaud him for that because.

Clay Lowery

I do.

Tim Leary

People just get.

Clay Lowery

It's a hard world. And the problem is, is that if I'm a reporter I'd be asking that question.

Tim Leary

Absolutely. And you know, I would also there's there's so many inconsistencies. It feels like from one month to another in terms of revisions on data, that there's a lot of skepticism in terms of how it all works. And I think that when you layer in some of the unknowns around the workforce, it's just tricky to to manage. One of the questions I always had, and I'm not sure if you have any insights into it, is at what point do the actual corporations employing individuals like can you could the Doge Committee or some other, division, the DOJ within the government crack down on employers as the means to identify?

Let's put some of the onus back on them to incentivize identifying illegal labor. Or do they want to steer clear of that? Because to your point, those aren't the bad actors that are causing problems and getting a lot of clicks on Fox News because of, you know, they're taken over buildings and towns and things like that. Right?

Clay Lowery

And so so I think it's a good question. I don't I forget the Dodge Committee. I mean, I don't that well, their responsibility is to try to figure out what screwed up about the US government, which, I mean, there's lots of things screwed up government. And so I would think that that is actually looked at usually when people think of comprehensive immigration policy, that's usually part of it.

If that has become a problem, I would think there would be pressure now. But you make a good point, which is how much pressure do you put, especially on areas where the only people that seem to be working in those areas are the undocumented work. So that's this is where you get into the agricultural issues, but not just agriculture.

And so I would think, yes, the answer I think there will be pressure put on corporations, not by that committee, but by the authorities at the immigration services. And then they have, authorities to do that already. You know, whenever you go, whenever I got employed, I had to fill out all sorts of documents and show different papers and so forth to show that I was a U.S. citizen.

Obviously some corporations take that very seriously, and I assume that there are a few, but some that don't.

Tim Leary

Well, listen, I appreciate the time. I know we're coming up on time. And so I wanted to to to ask, was there anything that we haven't discussed that you'd like to, to get off your chest, anything that your listeners should be aware of that they're not currently?

Clay Lowery

No. Look, I think we have a ways to go on all this, you know, watch the space that you were talking about, which is the regulatory space. I actually think on the financial regulatory side, you're going to have a largely pro-market type of approach. It'll be interesting to see, I guess probably the one thing we didn't talk about very much was tariffs, and particularly the impact or effect that they could have on places like China, but also on Europe, and what could be retaliatory steps that were taken against U.S., businesses.

Clay Lowery

But I think those are for down the line.

Tim Leary

Well, it sounds like we've got a great reason to have you back on the show. And so I appreciate that. In the end, the backdrop will also likely accelerate the differentiation across structure, regional country, back country, industry, corporations, asset classes, volatility is going to pick up that, you know, as inflation goes up and down so will earnings.

And there's going to be lots to discuss and lots to debate over the course of the next few years. And it's great to have you back, Clay. And, look forward to having you again. Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to this week's episode of The Navigator. It sounds like it will certainly be another eventful year, so please make sure to look out for our next episode.

Thanks and have a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday.

Clay Lowery

Thank you again, Tim.

disclosure

This podcast is provided by RBC Global Asset Management, RBC, GAM for informational purposes and may not be reproduced, distributed or published without the written consent of RBC. GAM this podcast does not constitute an offer or solicitation to buy or to sell any security product or service in any jurisdiction, nor is it intended to provide investment, financial, legal, accounting, tax or other advice in such information should not be relied or acted upon for providing such advice.

disclosure

Past performance is not indicative of future results. This product is not available for distribution to investors in jurisdictions where such distribution would be prohibited. Investment and Economic Outlook information has been compiled by RBC GAM from various sources. Information obtained from third parties is believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty expressed or implied is made by RBC, GAM or its affiliates or any persons as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness.

RBC, GAM and its affiliates assume no responsibility for any errors or omissions.