The Big Picture

Tesla Backlash

 

This is UnitedHealthcare.

This is what happens when the Democratic leadership is somnambulant, people take matters into their own hands.

I don’t know if this news has made it into the right wing blogosphere. But in the mainstream press this week there have been all these stories about Tesla sales tanking. Significantly.

And now people are attacking Tesla cars and dealerships and…

We can’t say exactly how many people are responsible, but one thing is for sure, they’re tapping into an anger that permeates the left, if not some of the right too.

We could make this about Musk. Prognosticators believe it’s only a matter of time before he’s excised, that’s Trump’s style, but really this is about frustration with the direction of the country under Trump’s rule. The Democrats keep telling constituents to believe in the system. Meanwhile, Mike Johnson tells his minions to stop holding town halls.

In other words, the government may be losing control of the public, and that’s never a good sign. Trump’s approval ratings are dismal. And when people feel powerless…some take action. And just like with UnitedHealthcare, their behavior is endorsed by the general public and chaos rules.

You can’t paint someone else’s car. You can’t shoot bullets into a car dealership. But that’s what people are doing.

Now you could say that people have a right to express themselves… Which is what they said to Elon himself, who uttered some nonsense about private property and I’m not saying he’s wrong, but it’s no longer about the law, but about emotions.

Let’s take it further. You can’t take anybody’s job in America today. You can’t fire them. Talk to anybody in control at a corporation. Everywhere from the assembly line to concert promotion. In order to fire someone…you need a litany of documented misbehavior, and you still may have to pay them to go, to avoid a lawsuit. Forget what’s right, this is the situation.

AND ELON MUSK IS TAKING TONS OF PEOPLE’S JOBS!

Now what. Most people don’t have deep pockets like Elon. We keep reading how close everyone is to being broke, with only a few weeks’ money in the bank. You fire these people and they’re just going to shrug their shoulders and get on the bread line?

NO, THEY’RE GOING TO GET ANGRY!

This is what happens when you’re rich, both Trump and Elon, you’re out of touch with the public. Yes, yes, yes, Trump channeled the dissatisfaction of the blue collar workers and underclass, but don’t think he really knows anything about their lives. Do you know anybody rich? Especially those who grew up rich? Their experiences, their perspective is different. They don’t know what they don’t know.

As for Elon… He was squeezed out of PayPal for being an a**hole. His Teslas are responsible for more accidents per vehicle than any other brand because the self-driving software doesn’t work and sure, he blasted off a few rockets, but a bunch blew up too. And Canada just canceled its Starlink order. I mean why in the hell is this guy a hero? Not to mention he fires people willy-nilly.

And I’d be stunned if this anti-Tesla fervor is tolerated on X. It’s free speech for him, but not for the rest of us. Just like it’s socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Musk is the beneficiary of government money for SpaceX, but he’s gonna fire the asses of the hoi polloi?

Oh, he might rehire some people. But once bitten, twice shy. It’s not like these workers are going to breathe a sigh of relief when they get their jobs back, they’re going to keep looking over their shoulders, they’re going to clam up and protect their jobs first and foremost. And you’ve got Trump saying air traffic controllers should be MIT graduates. AT THAT PAY?? Like I said, he’s out of touch, he doesn’t know how Americans live, never mind not knowing how America works.

Consider this a news bulletin. Don’t blow back with right wing crap. If someone sets a Tesla on fire, that’s a fact, that’s happened. There are no alternative fact patterns here.

This is the Arab Spring moment I’ve been speaking of. When the government loses touch with the public, who knows what will happen, everything is up for grabs.

And that fruit vendor who started it all fifteen years ago… He was frustrated over his JOB, or lack thereof. He was a college graduate, and now he’s selling FRUIT?

I’m not saying that America does not have problems. I’m not saying that there’s no government waste. But you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. And there’s no comprehension of the effects on people’s lives. Screw the country, most people only have one life and if you want to mess with their job, their health care, their quality of life, you’re going to hear about it.

It all comes down to income inequality. That’s what ails America. You can only keep the people down for so long. Many on the right want the government drowned in the bathtub because they want more money in their wallet. They can barely make ends meet.

And the great mass of the public has to be exposed to the lifestyles and shenanigans of the rich and famous and now you’re going to take things away from them?

Once again, if you want to see someone get angry, just take away their job. Now the entire nation is going to go postal!

Once again, don’t argue concepts with me, I’m just reporting the facts, which may have eluded you.

The “New York Times” just published this article:

Rage Against Elon Musk Turns Tesla Into a TargetThe backlash against the electric vehicle company has turned violent at times, as its billionaire chief executive parlays his support for President Trump into consequential influence over the federal government

And the conservatives and progressives both hate the “Times,” because of opinions expressed on the editorial pages, but the reason the “Times” triumphs is because of its reporting. You’re getting opinion on talk radio, blogs and podcasts…when was the last time Joe Rogan ever did any reporting? But if you want to know what is going on… Just read the “Times.”

And it’s not only the “Times,” the “Washington Post” published this article today:

Anger at Elon Musk turns violent with molotov cocktails and gunfire at Tesla lots” The string of violence against Tesla storefronts, charging stations and vehicles exacerbates the company’s woes, analysts said.”

And if you want to track Tesla’s waning fortunes, just read the “Wall Street Journal”:

Tesla’s Fortunes Fall as Musk Rises in Trump World” CEO’s politics erode brand’s appeal among some core buyers of electric vehicles; ‘I used to idolize the guy’

We’ve skipped right past the nonviolent protests of the sixties to the activities of the Weathermen.

And things are much worse overall than they were in the sixties.

And if we can’t stop school shootings, how in the hell are we going to stop random acts of violence against Teslas…and who knows what else next.

People are sick and tired of their leaders. They’ve disappointed them again and again over decades. Do you think Democrats are going to trust and follow the mealy-mouthed politicians in D.C? Only those in the game take Kamala Harris’s run for California governor seriously. We’ve had enough of her, her inauthenticity, refusing to go on record and offend anybody, her word salad disappointing those who believe in progressive principles.

Ooh, the truth!

Losing your job has no political ideology. And it’s happening to those on both sides of the political spectrum.

Musk, et al, have lost control of the country. You want me to believe some inexperienced twentysomething knows more about my work than I do?

This is just the beginning…

~~~

Visit the archive:   http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

@Lefsetz  http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz

If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter

~~~

Originally published by Bob Lefsetz in the March 8, 2025 at the Leftsetz Letter

 

The post Tesla Backlash appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Sunday Reads

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

U.S. Economy Shows Signs of Strain From Trump’s Tariffs and Spending Cuts: Consumer and business sentiment is wobbling as fiscal support fades and fears rise that tariffs will lead to higher prices. (New York Times)

How the British Broke Their Own Economy: With the best intentions, the United Kingdom engineered a housing and energy shortage. (The Atlantic) see also How to lose the 21st century, in three easy steps: Trump is throwing away what could have been the next great American century. (Washington Post)

Scams, Damn Scams, and Investors: There are also those scams that are less well-known. These are what I’m going to be discussing today. Because it’s very easy to deceive in the world of financial services and I’ve seen just about every trick in the book. (Of Dollars and Data)

His Hedge Fund Imploded in Spectacular Fashion. His New One Has $12 Billion. Nicholas Maounis, of the failed Amaranth, has regained investor trust at Verition. (Wall Street Journal)

Cliff Asness: The New ‘Crypto Fort Knox’ Is as Dumb as It Sounds: To create a sovereign wealth fund dedicated to something five times or more as volatile as straight-up stocks is an awful idea. (The Free Press) see also President on brink of bailout for bitcoin: Trump tries to breathe life back into the crypto markets’ “Trump pump” while federal regulatory agencies wash their hands of any crypto industry oversight. (Citation Needed) see also A sovereign crypto fund is a new way to pay out regime cronies: Once again, we find that crypto’s true innovation is enabling gray-market payments.

Is Anything Really on Sale When Everything Is on Sale? It feels like many of us are essentially in a toxic situationship with discount culture. (Slate)

Sex Traffickers in Colombia Are Using Facebook, Tinder and Airbnb to Exploit Minors: Better internet service, the proliferation of US apps and an influx of tourists have converged to facilitate the exploitation of minors in Colombia.  (Bloomberg)

One Word Describes Trump: Patrimonialism: A century ago, a German sociologist explained precisely how the president thinks about the world. (The Atlantic) see also The Authoritarian Regime Survival Guide: They will come to power with a campaign based on fear, scaremongering and distorting the truth. Nevertheless, their victory will be achieved through a democratic electoral process. But beware, as this will be their argument every time you question the legitimacy of their actions. They will claim a mandate from the People to change the system. (Verfassungsblog)

• The fact that humans can only survive on Earth doesn’t bother Trump – and I know why: He is surrounded by people who have grandiose plans and dreams beyond our planet. Vengeful nihilism is a big part of the Maga project. (The Guardian) see also Neither Elon Musk Nor Anybody Else Will Ever Colonize Mars: Mars does not have a magnetosphere. Any discussion of humans ever settling the red planet can stop right there, but of course it never does. Do you have a low-cost plan for, uh, creating a gigantic active dynamo at Mars’s dead core? No? Well. It’s fine. I’m sure you have some other workable, sustainable plan for shielding live Mars inhabitants from deadly solar and cosmic radiation, forever. No? Huh. Well then let’s discuss something else equally realistic, like your plan to build a condo complex in Middle Earth. (Defector)

Longevity over Quality: A New Look at the History of ‘S.N.L.’: Photos, scripts, hate mail and other artifacts donated by Lorne Michaels trace the show’s path from idea to institution. (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Philipp Carlsson, Global Chief Economist for Boston Consulting Group (BCG ). He is the co-author of “Shocks, Crises, and False Alarms: How to Assess True Macroeconomic Risk,” which was named one of the Financial Times Best Books of 2024.

 

Here’s How Government Spending Has Grown—and Where the Money Is Going

Source: Wall Street Journal

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Weekend Reads

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

Can Trump Deliver on His Promises? These 12 Metrics Will Tell Us: How the 47th president leads the US on inflation, immigration and other areas will help define his legacy. These data points show where the country stands — and where he could take it. (Bloomberg Free)

The Gilded Age Is Back — And That Should Worry Conservatives: Corporate dominance over politics brought power, wealth — and backlash. (Politico)

What Game Is Jeff Bezos Playing? The tech billionaire has acquired a new look and a new lifestyle in recent years. Now an editorial shift at the Washington Post has many wondering if he’s changed his politics too. (Wall Street Journal)

California Keeps Making the US Great — Again: The White House needs reminding that the Golden State is where most of the country’s prosperity is derived. (Bloomberg)

Tesla’s Fortunes Fall as Musk Rises in Trump World: CEO’s politics erode brand’s appeal among some core buyers of electric vehicles; ‘I used to idolize the guy’ (WSJ)

How China came to dominate the world in renewable energy: China now eclipses every other country in the world — including the United States — in the green technologies of the future. Here’s how it achieved this lead. (Washington Post)

Tyler Cowen, the man who wants to know everything: He is Silicon Valley’s favourite economist. Does his lust for knowledge have a place in the age of AI? (Economist)

A Radical New Proposal For How Mind Emerges From Matter: If we could stop bickering about which creatures do or don’t deserve to be called smart, an emerging movement of scientists and philosophers argue that we might discover fundamental elements of intelligence that are common to all life. (NOEMA)

A Thousand Snipers in the Sky: The New War in Ukraine Drones have changed the war in Ukraine, with soldiers adapting off-the-shelf models and swarming the front lines. The war in Ukraine has changed — and it’s deadlier than ever. After Russia invaded, artillery, missiles, tanks and trench warfare dominated the fight, often echoing the World Wars. Today, drones do most of the killing, commanders say. They now cause about 70 percent of deaths and injuries, commanders say. The drastic shift is changing the way wars may be fought in the future. (New York Times)

Putin Played a Long Game. It’s Starting to Pay Off. Advisers to the Russian leader have been surprised by the sudden change in tone from the White House in recent weeks. (Wall Street Journal)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Philipp Carlsson, Global Chief Economist for Boston Consulting Group (BCG ). He is the co-author of “Shocks, Crises, and False Alarms: How to Assess True Macroeconomic Risk,” which was named one of the Financial Times Best Books of 2024.

 

The States Most Impacted by Tariffs on Canada and Mexico

Source: Apollo

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Weekend Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

MiB: Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, Global Chief Economist for BCG



 

 

This week, I speak with Philipp Carlsson, Global Chief Economist for Boston Consulting Group. Prior to this role at BCG, Philipp advised financial institutions and governments at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as well as McKinsey & Company. He was also Chief Economist at Stanford C. Bernstein. He is a frequent contributor to Harvard Business Review and World Economic Forum. Philipp also leads the Center for Macroeconomics at the BCG Henderson Institute.

He discuss structural changes to the global economy, doomsaying, and his book “Shocks, Crises, and False Alarms: How to Assess True Macroeconomic Risk,”

A list of his favorite books is here; A transcript of our conversation is available here Tuesday.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, SpotifyYouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Stephanie Kelton, professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University and a Senior Fellow at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. Previously, she was Chief Economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and was named by Politico as one of the 50 people most influencing the policy debate in America, and one of Barron’s top 100 Women in Finance. Her book “The Deficit Myth” became an instant New York Times bestseller.

 

 

 

 

Published Book

Favorite Books

 

 

The post MiB: Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, Global Chief Economist for BCG appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Friday AM Reads

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

What We’ve Learned From 150 Years of Stock Market Crashes: Though they varied in length and severity, the market always recovered and went on to new highs. (Morningstar)

The Mysterious Billionaire Behind the World’s Most Popular Vapes: Geekvape, Lost Mary, Elf Bar and other top disposable brands all trace back to one man in Shenzhen.  (Businessweek)

Inside UBS’s Quiet Battle With the DOL to Manage Retirement Money: Trillions were at stake as the Department of Labor, which plays a role in protecting U.S. private pension assets, sifted through the bank’s checkered history before giving UBS the green light. (Institutional Investor)

Why government spending counts in GDP: GDP aims to capture the value of all economic output produced in a given time period within U.S. borders. The formula for that tally, which you may recall from introductory economics, is that GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + net exports. So why is government spending included in that formula? Because otherwise GDP would not fully capture the value of goods and services produced. (Axios)

The Strategic Crypto Swindle: A bitcoin reserve would be a government-backed grift. (The Atlantic)

It’s Xi Jinping’s World, and Trump Is Just Living in It: As Donald Trump blows up the rules-based order, China is pulling ahead in the global battle for ideas. (Bloomberg)

Where Jeff Bezos Went Wrong With The Washington Post: The billionaire handled his ownership admirably for more than a decade. But his courage failed him when he needed it most. (The Atlantic)

Finally, something is puncturing conspiracy theories: Researchers found an AI bot is pretty good at helping people rethink false beliefs. (Washington Post)

• Trump Has Glossed Over High Prices. Republicans Worry It Will Cost Them. President talks more often about federal workers, diversity programs and foreign policy than price of eggs. (Wall Street Journal) see also Trump doesn’t seem to know why he launched a giant trade war: The president’s reasons for imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico keep changing (and none make sense). (Vox)

The Wizard of Vinyl Is in Kansas: Chad Kassem is on a mission — saving listeners “from bad sound” — at the rural factory where he pores over LPs from some of music’s most important artists. (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Philipp Carlsson, Global Chief Economist for Boston Consulting Group (BCG ). He is the co-author of “Shocks, Crises, and False Alarms: How to Assess True Macroeconomic Risk,” named one of the Financial Times Best Books of 2024.

 

The U.S. Economy Depends More Than Ever on Rich People

Source: Wall Street Journal

 

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

At the Money: Austan Goolsbee, Chicago Fed President on Tariffs, Inflation and Monetary Policy



 

 

At the Money: Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee on Tariffs, Supply Chains and Inflation (March 5, 2025)

What is the potential inflation impact of tariffs? Can the Fed ignore supply-chain disruptions that drive up prices? How should investors view the relationship between trade policy and inflation in the current economic environment?

This week, we speak with Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Previously, he was Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Chief economist for the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and a member of President Barack Obama’s cabinet.

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

For more info, see:

BIO: Chicago Federal Reserve Bank President

Chicacgo Booth School of Business, Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics

Masters in Business (coming soon)

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple PodcastsYouTubeSpotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

Inflation tariffs, egg prices, commodities, geopolitics, inflation, is very much on investors’ minds. I’m Barry Ritholtz  and we’re gonna discuss how investors should think about.  Inflation as a driver of returns. To help us unpack all of this and what it means for your portfolio, let’s bring in Austin Goolsbee.

He’s president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Previously he was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors and member of Barack Obama’s. Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board following the great financial crisis. So let’s just start out with a simple question. You’ve talked about the golden path between inflation and recession.

What lesson should the Federal Reserve take from our recent and  rather successful bout with, uh, disinflation?  Yeah, Barry, thanks for having me on. Look, I called the Golden Path. You’ll remember as I came into the Fed, I started the very beginning of, of 2023 in December of 2022. It was the Bloomberg economist who said there was a 100% chance of recession in 2023 because.

The historical record suggested that to get rid of inflation, you had to have a big, nasty recession. That’s what had happened at all times, and what I called the golden path was in 23, we had as almost as large a drop. In inflation that we have ever had in a single year. And not only was there not a recession, the unemployment rate never even got above 4%.

A level that a lot of folks thought is below full employment. Um, that, so that was a Golden Path year. And I think one of the principle lessons, there were a couple of principle lessons that explain how it was possible. One was. The supply side was healing on the supply chain, and there was a big surge of labor force participation from a number of groups.

I think a, a lot of it tied to the workforce flexibility,  but if you saw, if you looked at self-described disabled workers, highest labor force participation ever, if you looked at, uh, child age. Women, again, highest labor force participation ever. So you got a number of positive supply shocks that are exactly what allowed for the immaculate disinflation, which the people who thought that was impossible use that phrase mockingly.

But that is exactly what happened. And now, fast forward to today. Um, so in a way transitory became, as Steve Leeman’s phrase, transitory, but it, it was all because the supply side, when you get negative supply shocks, they do heal. But one of the lessons of COVI was, that might take longer than you thought ahead of time because the supply chain.

Is complicated, the modern supply chain, and you, you know, that the, the Chicago Fed is the seventh district and we’re like the Saudi Arabia of, of auto production. Uh, in the seventh district. We got Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, soon.  If you go talk to the auto suppliers, that’s sounds like the mother of all supply chains.

Okay? So a single car has up to 30,000 different parts and components in it, and every single one of ’em has its own supply chain. And you’ve probably seen some of these people that will track one individual part. Through the US supply chain and the way that it cut, you know, a transistor came from Asia, then they sent it to Mexico, they put it into a capacitor.

They put the capacitor in a seat, gets sent to the seat manufacturer in Michigan, it goes to Canada, comes back to the us, finally gets put in a car and you go buy it on the lot and drive it out. In an environment like that, the spillovers take can take a long time. That’s what we saw in Covid that. You couldn’t get computer chips, so you couldn’t make the electronic seat so they couldn’t make the car.

So the price of cars went up. Then that meant the rental car companies couldn’t get new cars, so the price of rental cars went up. Then the, the whatever, the used cars salesman who used the rental car, and so that thing played out over years, not weeks.  My fear now is that if you’re going to do something negative on the supply side, and make no doubt about it, tariffs on intermediate goods like steel, like parts and components, like the things that are getting sent from auto factories, from suppliers in Canada that are getting sent over the border to be fa  fabricated in into the car in Michigan.

That’s a negative supply shock. And I hope that it’s small enough or short-lived enough that it doesn’t reteach us the lessons of covid. But, but it might, the, the, the lesson of Covid was that can have, if it’s big enough, that can have a longer lasting impact than, than you might have thought at the beginning.

So let me ask you a question, um, about. That recession that never showed up, forget a hundred percent chance of recession. 22, 23, 24. Half of the Wall Street economists were forecasting recessions and no less August. And, and well regarded economists, uh, than Lawrence Summers was saying, Hey, you’ll need 10% unemployment to bring this inflation down.

What was it about? The historical models that seem to have gotten gotten, that seems to have gotten this economic cycle so wrong?  Well, that, that’s the critical question. And summers said it either had to go to 10%, or  if it went to 6%, it would take five years of unemployment above 6%. I think the thing that it got wrong, I

That worldview got wrong is that it was rooted in almost all previous business cycles were regular demand-driven business cycles. And that’s, that’s the logic in a demand-driven business cycle. You overstimulate, e  inflation goes up, inflation expectations go up, and you have a hell of a time getting it out of there.

As, as you know, I was a old dear friend.  With Paul Volcker, and he was a mentor of mine and, and a, and a personal hero, really. Um, and one of the lessons of the Volcker episode, which was a time when inflation expectations went way up, is that it’s extremely painful if the Fed or the central bank does not have credibility.

 

It’s extremely painful to get rid of inflation.  In an environment where the Fed is credible, so that even as headline CPI, inflation was approaching double digits,  the Fed was announcing we will get inflation back to 2%. And if you go look at the market estimation  from tips or from others,  people believed it.

 

If you looked at the, what do you think inflation will be in five years, they were saying it will be back to 2%. That is a sign of credibility of the central bank. So A, you must have credibility, and B, you must have the good fortune. That’s positive supply shocks in our case, one, a big increase in labor force, uh, participation.

That that was enabled, I think, by some of the more flexible work arrangements.  Two, that we had had such a horrible supply chain experience coming through covid with shortages, et cetera, that could heal.  And then three, a pretty substantial uptick in the rate of productivity growth. That combination was a lovely combination that allowed inflation to come down without a recession.

And I think that the, the chat GPT AI version of a central bank. Would’ve got it wrong because it would’ve been based on a training sample that was a whole bunch of demand shocks. And this really wasn’t a demand shock induced, uh, business cycle. And you don’t look, it doesn’t take somebody with the market acumen that you have Mary, and it certainly doesn’t take a PhD to look out and recognize that the covid business cycle was driven by.

Industries that are not normally cyclical. Normally cyclicals like consumer durables. Or business investment are the thing that drives the recession. And here the demand for consumer durables went up because people could not spend money on services.  This is the only recession we ever had that came from people not being able to go to the dentist.

And the thing about that is like the, the, the dentist is normally recession proof. And so that’s why we, everybody should have been more humble in pronouncing. What the future would be coming out of such a weirdo business cycle. Um, and, and we’re still kinda living with that, so, so let’s talk about humility.

You have specifically mentioned that the Fed needs to be, quote, more careful and more prudent about rate cuts due to the risk of inflation kicking back up again. So what specific inflation indicators are you watching closely in 2025?  Okay. I’ve, I’m, I’m thankful, Barry, I thought you were gonna be like, let’s talk about humility.

You once said, and I thought, you’re gonna be like, you’re not, you’re not a humble person. Look, my, I, I have actually been. B before we got to this dust in the air period where everybody’s talking about major,  either geopolitical changes to conditions or changes to policy conditions that might affect inflation.

I’ve been  more confident. I, I, I’ve had comfort. We’re still on the path to get inflation to 2% and we could cut rates  now.  I’m open to, to being proven wrong, and if I adjust the, the, uh, I’m in the data dog caucus, if, if the data come in and the, the outlook is changing, for sure, I would change my view.  But the,  I, I think it’s critical to answer your question specifically of, well, what should we look at in inflation?

I think number one. You want to look at the through line on inflation, not get overly indexed on monthly gyrations. It’s a very noisy series. Mm-hmm. Okay. So  looking over a longer period and what matters is the new months coming in  the the inflation that’s a 12 month backward looking average, which is usually what we’re reporting it,  11 of the 12 months.

That are included in that are not new information. We already knew that. We knew, for example, that the  blip up in inflation last January, more than a year ago was gonna fall out the back, and so that it would be very likely that the 12 month average would start dropping here in the first quarter, but that would not be a sign that the inflation is falling right now.

The inflation already fell. This is just like how, how we do the average. So  number one, I put a lot of weight on the new months coming in and trying to get the through line of that, not just react to, to one month. And.  Uh, second thing that that helps me that I, that I find helpful is looking at the components of core inflation.

 

Now, I know it can drive people nuts, like it drive my mom nuts that we put our focus on core inflation and not food and energy inflation because my mom’s like, what do you mean you’re not paying attention to food and energy inflation? That’s very public, uh, top of mind for her.  It is because those are so variable.

 

They’re up, they’re down. The, we think the better observation is to look at core, and then within core there’s goods, there’s services, there’s housing.  Our problem has been.  Goods inflation had returned to deflation and was looking good. Housing inflation’s been the biggest puzzle. Mm-hmm. And services inflation.

Pretty persistent.  The thing that have given me, the things that have given me a little more confidence lately is that even as we had a bit of a blip up in the inflation. Here, the components still look pretty good. The housing inflation has finally started falling on a pretty persistent basis as we’ve been wanting it to services getting closer, much closer to what it was pre covid housing back close to what it was pre covid.

And the thing that has been firmed up here in the last couple of months has actually been goods. And the thing about goods inflation is.  As you know, uh, and, and as some of my, uh, research showed before I ever got to the fed goods, inflation over long periods is actually deflation. The, the, the, the 2% inflation that we were at before Covid  was housing three and a half to four.

Per year services two and a half per year and goods minus a half to minus one per year. And so I think it’s overwhelmingly likely that goods will go back to that very longstanding trend and as it does, so that’s the, those are the kinds of things that give me confidence. So you mentioned housing. We seem to have two ongoing issues with housing.

The first is it appears that since the financial crisis. We’ve significantly underbuilt single family homes as underbuilt. Yeah, I agree with that. As the population can and, and multifamily. So, so you have the population growing, you still have fairly, uh, decent immigration numbers. Too much demand, not enough supply.

The first question,  what can we do to generate more supply and housing, do higher rates? Operate as a headwind against builders, contractors, developers, putting up more housing.  Look, this, this is a t tangled, uh, this is a tangled web, uh, that is critically important to, to the economy.  You’ve seen the relative price of housing  go way up  post covid.

But the one thing that I wanna highlight is.  Yes, it’s very noticeable, but it’s not new. If you look like, like I said, for the whole decade plus pre covid, you had house prices going up three and a half percent a year. Goods prices going down 1% a year. If you just compare housing relative price versus going to Costco, relative price.

A thing that compounds 5% a year for 15 or 20 years. Yeah, that’s gonna be a really big difference at the end of that time. And so I think one component  that people are seeing, and they’re not wrong, you see the frustration of young people. They say, you know, when my, when my dad was, was 25 years old, he on one job could, could afford a decent house and I can’t buy a condo.

They’re not wrong. The relative price of housing has gone way up. I think some component of that is,  uh, regulatory in nature and business permits, and I’ve been convinced by a, by a bunch of the evidence that land use regulation have made it very difficult for us to build housing of any form, single family home, multi-family homes.

I have a. I did some research that was about the construction industry. And the another thing going on is that overall productivity in the construction industry is not only been stagnant, it’s actually over long periods of time been negative. Mm-hmm. That we’ve, we’ve gotten worse at building the same things that, that we did 20, 30 years ago.

Um, so I think that’s, that’s part of it. And I think you’re highlighting that. Uh, rates do have a twin. They, they, they do have a twin,  twin effect. One is they affect demand, but the other is they do affect construction. Um, and so I, I think in a higher rate environment, if you’re trying to cool the economy, this is always true.

But the shift of more and more of our mortgages to being 30 year fixed. Than they were say in  2007, um, have meant that changing rates can have more of a lock-in effect than.  And, and, and it kind of dull the immediate impact of, of monetary policy than, than it does in, in a, in a more immediate mortgage impact environment.

Let, let’s wonk out a little bit about housing. Yeah. Um, yeah. Owners’ equivalent rent have been this bugaboo for a long time that some people following the financial crisis said had understated housing inflation. Now there’s some people, uh, saying something similar. How do we, and I know the Fed has looked at this, there’ve been a number of white papers that have come out of the Fed.

How should we think about the equivalent of renting versus ownership in terms of the impact on inflation?  Uh, the, IM, uh,  the, you raised several key critical points. Um, if we’re gonna walk out on housing and inflation.  Point one,  it’s not single family home sales prices.  It’s owner equivalent rent.  Plus rents.

And the reason it’s that is because part of buying a house is a financial asset. So if you’re buying a house and the value’s going up and you’re selling it for more, and if there’s speculation, that’s not really housing what you’re trying to get. That’s, that’s not really inflation. What you’re trying to get for housing inflation is something like the CPI, how much more does it cost for the same housing services?

Um, and that’s why they try to compute owner equivalent rent and, and, and similar  0.2,  that’s, there’s a heavy lag in the way they do it. So  in a way, the critics were correct that it was understating inflation. On the way up and the, the other critics are right that now it’s overstating inflation on the way down.

For the same reason that it’s kind of like if you were measuring average rent  and people were raising the, it was a time when the market was raising the rent. It’s gonna take time before that shows up in average rents because.  The, the contracts last for a year. Andre, 12, 20 months, they’re over. So you get this automatic lag in there.

I think that has been a major component of measured housing inflation  because if you go look at market-based measures, like from Zillow or others,  they were showing  rapid drops in the inflation rate back to, or in some cases even below. What inflation was before Covid started and so that’s been the puzzle.

That’s is been our impatience. Why hasn’t it shown up yet?  That’s been true for quite a while. And the lag theory, it’s should start showing up. Well, finally it has, and that’s why I have a little more confidence that the housing inflation improvement. Will be lasting is, it was, it took a long time to run up and now it’s finally started coming down.

So I think it’s, it’s probably got legs of coming down. Um,  so I, I think those are two key components on, on the housing inflation side. We could get, we could even go into a third layer of wonky, but it’s more subtle, which is.  The component if, if you think about rents and say market rents in Zillow or who are renters versus who are new home buyers, there’s sort of different markets.

 

And so it doesn’t have to be that the inflation rate of the Zillow market rents matches the owner equivalent rents. Th that they’re measuring at at the BLS because they might be different new renters and, and existing tenants might be a little bit two separate markets. Makes a lot of sense. You mentioned the 2% inflation target in the 2010s, an era dominated by monetary policy.

 

The Fed had a 2% inflation target. Now, in the 2020s, we have a primarily fiscally driven economy, or at least post pandemic. Yeah, that’s what it feels like. You’ve said you’ve turned 180 degrees on the inflation target questions since your initial thoughts in 2012.  Tell us about that. Explain that.  Okay, so in 2012 th there had been vague targets.

 

In 2012, I believe, is when the Fed officially said, where you have a 2.0% inflation target and you go back and look, I wasn’t at the Fed. I was critical. I was publicly critical on the grounds that that conveyed a way, false sense of precision to me. That, that if, if I asked you just take the, take the standard deviation of.

 

Of the inflation series and ask yourself, how many observations would you need to get to be able to distinguish between a 2.0% inflation rate and a 2.1% inflation rate? And the answer was like decades. You’d need decades of monthly observation before you could tell no, no, this is 2.1, not 2.0. So that was my critique.

 

Fast forward to. The inflation, now  it goes way up. And the, the, the, the, the one wonky thing that you gotta know, which you already know Barry, but the, the average person might not know is I. The 2.0% inflation target is for personal consumption, expenditure inflation. PCE inflation. That’s not CPI. It’s a little different.

 

They have different weightings of, of what goes into it. We believe the PCE measure. Which instead of the CPI measures a basket. Mm-hmm. And the PCE measures everything consumers spend money on. So it’s the better measure. But just as a technical  CPI of 2.3 is about the equivalent of a PCE of 2.0. Okay. We go through covid, the inflation post covid  soar to almost double digits.

 

In long run inflation expectations measured in the market never go up. They remain exactly and they’re off of CPI. Importantly, they remain exactly 2.3%,  and so I said either that’s the biggest coincidence in the history of price indices. Or else the inflation target of 2.0 is serving as exactly the anchor that its advocates said it would be.

 

And at that point, I changed 180 degrees and I, not only am I not opposed to the inflation target, I. I think it’s critical. It’s vital and it is serving as exactly the anchor that we needed, so So it’s a magnet, not necessarily magnet. A landing spot magnet. Exactly. Really interesting’s a you, you mentioned, but it will be the landing spot.

 

It will be you, you, we’ll get the 2%. You mentioned inflation expectations when, when we look at some of the survey DA data in 2020 and 21, right before inflation really exploded higher. They were really low. And then go fast forward to June, 2022, just as inflation was peaking, they were really high. How close attention does the Fed pay to inflation expectation?

 

It seems that it’s very much a lagging, not leading indicator.  Uh, now fascinating. Uh, in a way  a, I should have said at the beginning. Uh, you know the rules. I’m not allowed to speak for the FOMC Sure. Or the Fed only for myself. Yes. That gives them great relief. That gives my colleagues great relief. Um, in the world of food safety,  the thing that characterizes almost every, uh,  worker in the food supply chain is frustration.

 

Why do we have to wash our hands all the time? There’s no, nobody’s ever getting sick from the food.  And it’s only because they’re washing their hands all the time that nobody’s getting sick from the food. I feel that way. A little bit about inflation expectations. They are lagging indicators. If the Fed has credibility and is doing it right,  as soon as that’s not true, they become very instructive, forward-looking indicators.

 

The,  the only thing that I want to emphasize as well is. N Now we’ve actually started to get a couple of observations where not short run expectations, but longer run expectations actually bumped up in the University of Michigan survey,  and since I had said this about how important inflation expectations were as a measure,  a couple of folks asked me, well, does that make you nervous?

 

And  yes, but. A, I’ve always said I value the market-based measures more than survey-based measures,  and one month is no months. But make no doubt about it, if what we started to see was persistent, a persistent increase in long run expectations of inflation in surveys and markets.  And for example, if you started to see long rates rising, one for one with long run inflation expectations, then that fundamentally to me means the Fed’s job is not done and we’ve got to go address that.

 

Because if you, that’s the, that’s one of the main lessons of the Volker experience.  And central banks around the world, if the expectations start rising, it is really hard to slay. You don’t have to just slay the inflation dragon. You have to go convince people that it’s going to stick, and it kind of the only way we know.

 

The only way we know central banks have been able to convey that is to have awful recessions where they grind down wages. Mm-hmm. To convince people look that we will keep the job market, um, as suppressed as we need to. As proof that we’re serious. So we don’t ever want to get back into that situation if we can help it.

 

Last question on inflation. You have mentioned that prioritizing real economic channels, the real economy over wealth effects. Can you, can you explain this perspective? Why does the real economy channels matter more to the wealth effects? I, I always thought the wealth effect was. So dramatically overstated because you know, it’s typically the wealthy that owns most of the stocks, and the real economy is the real economy.

 

But I’m curious as to your perspective. Yeah, look, it, it the, I would expand it a little more than just the wealth effect. My view is the Federal Reserve Act tells us we should be looking at the real economy, maximizing employment and stabilizing prices.  The stock market. Other financial markets  can influence those two things, partly through the wealth effect.

 

But I’ve, by the very first speech I gave, when I got to the, to the Fed, I went out to Indiana and the, uh, factory, um, where they make the, where they make RVs and.  And, uh, a, a community college where they train people for advanced manufacturing. And I said this, look, the fed by law is supposed to be looking at the real economy and financial markets.

 

To the extent they’re affecting the real economy, we should pay attention to them. But that’s, that’s it. Like, let’s remember the priorities. Um,  I quantitatively agree with you. I think there are a number of people who overweight. The, the wealth effect and its impact on consumer spending. Uh, and  I don’t want us to get into a mindset that  the Fed has an accomplishment.

 

If it does something and it changes the financial markets, that’s a, that’s a indirect, I in my, in my worldview, if you get the real economy right, the financial markets will benefit, but. Doing something to try to create higher equity prices or benefit the financial market. That should not be the Fed’s goal.

 

The Fed’s goal should be stabilize prices, maximize employment, and and focus on the real side. And if you do both of those, stock market tends to do well under those circumstances. The stock market does great, takes care of itself. And that’s how it should be. That’s how it should be. Well, thank you Austin.

 

This has been absolutely fascinating.  I have a, so we’ve only done the first segment, but it’s 1145. How hard is your 1145 stop. 10 45 by you.  What can we do? How do you think we could do the next in five minutes? No, I, I got a board. I got my, my Detroit board of directors that starts at noon in a different room.

 

So I could go, I could go. Five, six minutes. But then I got, so let me just give you, I’ll just give you one more question on inflation and if we ever wanna redo the second discussion on monetary policy, we can always squeeze that in. But I need like, so neither you nor I are brief, so we tend, we. Tend to go a little long and they’ll tighten this up for, for broadcast.

 

Okay. Do you want me to be tight? I can be tighter. That’s fine. Um, but to go through 10 questions can, let’s take five minutes. We got five minutes. However much we want to fit in there. All right. So let me find my best question from this. Um.  You wanna know one from here and one from the other, or I’m just, yeah, I’m just looking for what, uh, what really works.

 

All right. So here are two, two good questions.  So you’ve mentioned that conditions have not materially changed despite recent economic data. Do you still expect to see, uh, interest rates a fair bit lower over the next 12 to 18 months?  I still do.  If we can get out of this dusty environment, look, the I I I’ve highlighted, look, you gotta look at, look at the horizon and look at the through line.

 

And when we’re having a bunch of uncertainties  that are about things that will increase prices, it’s just throwing lots and lots of dust in the air and it’s hard to see the through line. I still think that underneath there. Is a robust, healthy economy with employment, pretty much stable at full employment, inflation headed back to 2% GDP growth, solid and strong.

 

And we can get back to the resting point of normal. Um, in, in that kind of environment if we’re gonna have an escalating. F  trade war that leads to higher prices  and a stagflationary kind of environment where GDP growth is falling.  I could revise, um, I, I could revise my, my economic outlook, but I still think if we can get past this dusty part over 12 to  18 months.

 

The SAP dot plot tells you that the vast majority of members of the committee believe that the ultimate settling point for rates is well below where we are today. And so I still think that, that we can get there. And our final question, I, I love your self description. You have said, I’m neither a hawk nor a dove.

I’m a data dog, so now we have to add That’s right. Hawks. I don’t like birds. I don’t wanna Dogs haw, stuss and dogs. So, explain, um, how you as a data dog, how does that affect your approach to monetary policy, especially in 2025, where you are a voting member?  I, it,  I try to get out there. Uh, the, the first rule of the Datadog kennel.

Is that there’s a time for walking and there’s a time for sniffing and know the difference and the time for sniffing is exactly when there is not clarity. Okay? And that is go get every data series you can, every frequency. Don’t throw anything away. If you can get private sector price information, get it.

If you are looking at the job market, don’t just look at payroll employment when.  There’s a bunch of stuff with population growth and immigration that make it noisier. Don’t just look at the unemployment rate. When labor force participation changes can, can affect it. Take ratios of unemployment to vacancies.

Look at the hiring weight and the quit rate. Get out and talk to the business people in, in our regions and the kind of information that goes into the base book. All of those things are more real time than just the data series, but that mentality that if you, if you have a question, get out there and sniff.

 

That’s the essence of the Datadog credo. If, if, if you wanna and look, it comes with some downsides. Um, if you are more theoretical, ideological, there are times when you might be right and, and you can get to the answer quicker, but. This seems like a very uncertain environment. Unusual, unprecedented business cycles, nothing like things we’ve seen before.

 

So just personally I’m more comfortable with, with that kind of approach. Hmm. Real really fascinating stuff. Thank you, Austin, for being so generous with your time. 1149 and 30 seconds. I don’t wanna make you late. Whenever you wanna do the second, I’m a big fan and, and well thank you. It’s a real treat for me.

 

Thank you. Very. So whenever we wanna do another one of these, we can talk about monetary policy, we can talk about whatever. Happy to schedule it at your convenience anytime. And we’ll run it whenever. That’s great. Alrighty, that’s great. Thank you so much. Talk to you later. We’ll talk to you soon and I’ll, I’ll record the intros and outros now and we’ll do that.

 

Thank you. Austin  Ya.  All right, so I’m gonna end the.  I’m gonna end this. I’m just gonna shut this, uh,  here, and then we’ll just keep recording. Leave meeting,  uh, no, no. Zoom market. Go away. All right, so I’m gonna record an outro. This is gonna be a tough one to edit. Are you gonna do it or is, uh, Colin or Bob?

 

All right, I’ll, I’ll circle back to her.  So, to wrap up. If you’re an investor interested in what’s going on in the economy, looking at inflation, looking at monetary policy, it’s simply not as black and white As you often hear about, uh, many of the voting members of the FOMC, uh, look at the data that’s out there as complex and not binary.

 

Uh, there are a lot of moving parts.  Don’t think that what you’re hearing in these headline, um, reports are remotely giving you the full color of what’s happening. There are obviously a whole lot of moving parts here, uh, a lot of complexity, and it’s reassuring when you hear from people like. Chicago Federal Reserve President and FOMC, voting member Austin Gouldsby, who are data driven, who do focus on filtering out the noise, but paying attention to the most recent trends, but following the through line.

It’s not simple, it’s complicated. We really need to bring a more intelligent approach than we often see. Uh, when. In as investors, we think about. What the federal reserve’s gonna be, what’s gonna happen,  what the Federal Reserve is gonna do in response to what inflation is doing. Uh, perhaps if we had a little more sophisticated approach and a little less binary, we wouldn’t see people being so wrong about when the Fed’s gonna cut, when a recession is gonna happen.

What’s going on overall with the robustness of the economy. Hey, it turns out that. Economics is hard. It’s complicated. There are lots of moving parts. We oversimplify this at our own, uh, risk. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Bloomberg’ At The Money.

 

 

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The post At the Money: Austan Goolsbee, Chicago Fed President on Tariffs, Inflation and Monetary Policy appeared first on The Big Picture.

Transcript: Melissa Smith, co-Head of Commercial Banking at JPMorgan

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Melissa Smith, co-Head of Commercial Banking at JPMorgan, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, SpotifyYouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

~~~

This is Masters in business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio.

Barry Ritholtz: This week on the podcast I have yet another extra special guest. Melissa Smith is co-head of commercial banking for JP Morgan. Previously she was co-head of the bank’s Innovation Economy Group. Really fascinating because she sees the world from a very unique perch, has incredible access to every aspect of both commercial and investing banking that a small startup or medium-sized company, and by medium I mean up to $2 billion in revenue might need. And that gives her this really incredible set of insights into how these companies are growing, what they need, what direction various industries are moving in. It’s really kind of fascinating ’cause if you remember back 20, 25 years ago, wall Street and the large investment banks and brokers were kind of accused of moving up market and abandoning that whole middle section and allowing private equity to get a a toehold there. To their credit, JP Morgan has aggressively moved back into what some people used to call, you know, middle merchant banking or middle market banking. And I thought this conversation is just a whole world that you don’t know exists and is in fact robust and growing rapidly. I thought, I thought this was a fascinating conversation and I think you will also, with no further ado, my conversation with JP Morgan’s. Melissa Smith,

Melissa Smith: Thank you so much for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Barry Ritholtz: Well thank you for being here. Let, let’s talk a little bit about your background before we work up to JP Morgan, bachelor’s in political science from American University and then you get a master’s in public policy from University of Chicago, not the traditional path for people in finance. What was the original plan?

Melissa Smith: So I definitely thought that I was gonna work in the public sector when, when I’m recruiting at JP Morgan I always, you know, get the question sort of how did, how did you get into investment banking? And I, and I would love to tell people I had a grand plan. I didn’t really have a grand plan, but my policy degree was at University of Chicago. So it was very heavy econ and stats and basically the same core curriculum as the business school. And in my summer in between I worked for Mayor Daley in Chicago on economic development issues. And as I was doing that, I sort of decided it would be even more interesting to come to the public sector at a more senior level. And I also wanted to make sure that I was going somewhere that would really leverage the quantitative skills that I was acquiring at Chicago. And I also thought it’d be a really good idea to be able to pay off my undergrad and grad school loans.

Barry Ritholtz: So that makes a lot of sense. But before you got your master’s in public policy, you have a little bit of a different professional experience. You began ballet at age four and dance professionally for how many years?

Melissa Smith: For three years.

Barry Ritholtz: Tell us about that. That is not the usual path to Wall Street.

Melissa Smith: Definitely not. So yes, I started taking ballet at a very early age. That was my original career aspirations. Starting in seventh grade. My poor mother drove me 120 miles round trip every day to Washington DC to go to ballet where I was from, sort of left school early at noon, kind of got home at nine or 10 at night every night. And so, you know, quite frankly my parents were sick of driving me. So I graduated from high school a year early in order to dance and sort of continue my dance training and then dance professionally before I went to college. And my, again, my aspiration was to just continue dancing professionally. As you may or may not be aware, you know, very few people obviously sort of make it in that world 1e-06% are ever gonna be in a BT, which is sort of the pinnacle in the US right? American Ballet Theater. And so while I was, you know, good enough to be in a small company, I was not gonna be an A BT and I didn’t wanna totally give up my education. And so that’s why I stopped.

Barry Ritholtz: I know people who were pretty far along that same process and as they’ve gotten older they talk about like, they sound like old football players come talking about injuries, their ankles, their toes, their calves, their knees. I’m like, wait, no, no, you guys are just dancing. And they laugh when you say that. What, what was your experience like with that?

Melissa Smith: I mean, it was an amazing experience in that it teaches you such a huge amount of discipline and, you know, takes determination, perseverance, and kind of grit. You know, just back to, there’s very few people who sort of make it, you are in a sort of a siloed world ’cause all, all you do every day is dance. That’s kind of how, how I would describe it. And I would also say, you know, I, I can have this debate with people all day long. I think there is no greater form of athlete than a dancer. To your point, they are, it is grueling on one’s body and really,

Barry Ritholtz: Really physical.

Melissa Smith: Really, really physical. I’m in, in any way that any other athletics are. With the added sort of thing on top, which is the whole point of ballet is to make it look effortless. There’s no like grunting down the basketball court or the football court, right? So it takes the same amount of strength, but you add the control of your body on top of that to make it look effortless. And that’s why, you know, sort of the athleticism is, is is very unique. But it was, it was an incredible experience and I felt very lucky at a young age to have something that I was so passionate about. Not everybody sort of has that in their lives at an early age.

Barry Ritholtz: And and the, your comment about perseverance and grit, those are personality characteristics. I don’t know even know whether to call them skills or not, but that will help you no matter what you do.

Melissa Smith: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Barry Ritholtz: So, so ballet to college, to grad school, how did you stumble into JP Morgan?

Melissa Smith: ] So again, did not have a grand plan at the time that I was in policy school at Chicago. JP Morgan’s public finance team recruited specifically at the policy school. Just back to it was this, you know, very kind of quantitatively based and so kind of randomly went to the interview to be quite honest and was, you know, did well, was offered a role sort of back to, back to my earlier point, kind of thought it was good to get some private sector credibility on my resume, learn something new. And I think probably as anybody coming out of either undergrad or grad school thinks, you know, oh, I’ll go do this for five years and sort of see, see where that leads me. And lo and behold, you know, have been at JP Morgan to your point, you know, 20 plus years now that

Barry Ritholtz: That’s amazing. So you start as an associate, you’re focused on debt. Yes. W was there an interest in debt? Was that just related to public policy? So

Melissa Smith: I started in public finance, which is back to, that’s why they were recruiting on the policy. So taxes and bonds for sure. You know, municipalities, I did that for about a year and a half, two years. And then I moved into debt capital markets for corporates. So kind of an, you know, easy transition taxes and bonds to, to corporate bonds. And then I spent, you know, the majority of my earlier career, the first 16 years of my career in the investment bank in debt capital markets.

Barry Ritholtz: And, and just for the youngsters listening, 25 or so years ago, high rated municipal tax free bonds were yielding five, 6% maybe more, maybe

Melissa Smith: More. Yeah.

Barry Ritholtz: Just tho those were the, the before we start were, I guess we were only halfway through our 40 year rate cutting cycle. Right? You could get tax free yield at 7% imagine and, and a rated not junk. Yeah. Imagine what that was like. Totally. Alright, so, so you go from public finance, how did you evolve towards co-head of innovation economy?

Melissa Smith: So was in debt capital markets. I like to say I grew up in debt capital markets, which as an aside, I think that was such a great experience because you know, in DCM you’re sitting on the trading floor, right? I loved being in that environment ’cause I think it fosters learning so much more quickly. I literally sat next to the, the managing director that I worked for and would listen in on all the client calls and sort of, you understand much more quickly how to handle specific situations. I also, it was sort of an interesting dynamic where you’re on the private side, on the origination side, talking to corporate clients and advising them about their next, you know, debt raise or their funding needs. But you have to spend a lot of time with the traders who are trading the bonds in, in the public markets.

And they’re obviously on the public side, so you’re sort of walled off, right? But then you’d have to go over on, on to talk to the traders and sometimes you’d walk over there and you need information from them, but they can’t give you any information. And so you’d walk over there and sometimes they sort of look, look at you ’cause they’re busy and you sort of get this feeling, you know, get outta my face, what do you want? So I think it, it was an interesting experience because you have to kind of, you know, gain some credibility with them and, you know, ask insightful questions, show that you, you have some sort of use. So I thought, thought it was a great way to kind of like grow up and learn about the business. But again, was, was in DCM for 16 years, including three years that I was in London running our European debt capital markets business.

Barry Ritholtz: I got a lot of questions for you about Europe, but we’ll circle back to that later. I’m looking at my own handwriting. 22 or 27 years. Is that 27 years you’ve been there?

Melissa Smith:  I think it’s 26. going on 27. I feel old.

Barry Ritholtz: What’s more fascinating is, and you started when you were, you know, 17, so there you go, it’s not a big deal, but you know, that’s relatively rare these days to be at any one firm for a quarter plus century. What is so special at JP Morgan? What’s kept you there for so long?

Melissa Smith: Sure. So first I would say you’ll actually find many senior people at JP Morgan who have been there for 20 years plus. And I think that is obviously a great testament to the culture that we have at the firm. Sure. Secondly, I would say JP Morgan is a large place, clearly. And, and what that means is there are multiple lines of business with many different things that you can do over the course of your career. And generally speaking, we are sort of number one or number two in everything that we do, which, which again is a great privilege to work there from that perspective. So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to go necessarily to another firm when you’re sort of trading down, if you will, in some, in some instances. Maybe I shouldn’t say it that way, but, and so I think what’s kept me there is, you know, a just the opportunity to do many different things, learn about many other aspects of the business. And two, you know, obviously, you know, very much appreciate kind of the culture and environment at JP Morgan. Kind of back to that’s why people stay there for so long. It’s a very teamwork oriented environment. You know, we, we like to quote JP Morgan first class business in a first class way. We take that very seriously and just appreciated that about the environment. So

Barry Ritholtz: Let’s talk about your dual role, your, your co-head of innovation economy and your head of specialized industries. Tell us what each of those roles encompass.

Melissa Smith: Sure. So our specialized industries business sits within our, our middle market business. And just to define that middle market sort of means in, in the commercial banking, right? So anything from kind of a very early stage startup to a company that’s up to 2 billion in top line revenue. So kind of a very wide, wide reit if you will. About half of that business is the industry business that I run. So I have 19 different industry teams, so bankers that are experts in those specific industries to provide obviously coverage to clients in those industries. And I would just say, I mean we are just a big believer in the, the, you know, better coverage and better that we can much better serve a client when our bankers have that expertise in, in terms of the industry. So we’re kind of very big believers in, in industry expertise and kind of hyper segmentation in terms of covering companies at, at different stages and sizes in their lifecycle. So 19 different industries, innovation economy is basically a part of that. And we use that innovation economy kind of umbrella term to describe tech, early stage tech, life sciences, health tech, climate tech businesses, which are generally speaking, high growth VC backed businesses overall.

00:12:02 [Speaker Changed] Well, let’s talk a little bit about that. Yeah. I’m familiar with a lot of the companies that VCs tend to back, but one of the things that we’ve been noticing very obviously over the past few years is the amount of not venture income, but either private equity or private debt. How does that play out in the companies you’re servicing?

00:12:25 [Speaker Changed] Absolutely. Two really important trends. So I would say, so within the innovation economy, to your point, a lot of the companies tend to be VC backed, but there definitely is growing, growing sort of crossover into, into growth equity funds. I think in the middle market commercial banking business as a whole, there has been a ton of activity from the financial sponsor communities. So a ton of consolidation of those middle market businesses. And when you just look at sort of the levels of activity, like what are sponsors buying, it is within that middle market space. So that has definitely driven a lot of activity overall and something that we spend a lot of time talking about with our, with our clients. And then secondly, to your point on the private credit direct lending side, that also has been just a massive trend impacting sort of that part of the business with these companies looking for alternative sources of capital and direct lending being a great, a great alternative. That’s in fact why we as a firm sort of developed our own direct lending capability a couple years ago. And I think that the great benefit of that is, again, we sort of pride ourselves on being kind of financing our product agnostic, right? We can do a traditional bank loan, we can do sort of a, a sort of, you know, public execution in the, in the public debt markets, or we can do a direct lending transaction, sort of whatever best fits the company’s objectives, we can sort of do it all.

00:13:36 [Speaker Changed] So, so let’s talk about that because you know, part of your job description is delivering a cohesive banking experience to fast growing companies. So the two different divisions that you are running or head or co-head innovation economy and specialized industries obviously have to work together. What other divisions at JP Morgan are you collaborating with? Sure.

00:13:59 [Speaker Changed] So I would say just generally we collaborate across the firm in everything that we do. So the commercial bank, just very broadly speaking, regardless of industry, regardless of what aspect of the commercial bank we’re talking about, we’re constantly working with our partners in the investment bank when companies need, obviously, excuse me, strategic capital raising m and a advisory, whatever the case may be. So we’re constantly kind of working in conjunction with one another. And at the same time, we are often working with our asset management colleagues when companies have, you know, large cash balances that they need to invest and our private banking colleagues. And I think a good example of that is within the innovation economy kind of ecosystem overall where, because it is so interconnected, when you think about VC firms funding, you know, portfolio companies, the, those portfolio companies having founders, they’re oftentimes, they’re repeat founders. It’s important that you can serve sort of the needs of that entire very interconnected ecosystem. So bankers on my team, on the innovation economy team are serving those portfolio companies, right? But at the same time, we’re working with our colleagues in asset management and the private bank who bank the VC firms themselves and bank the, the VC partners and the founders for their private wealth needs. So our objective is to deliver sort of all the needs of the ecosystem. And that’s why sort of by definition, we’re always working across lines of business.

00:15:17 [Speaker Changed] So really what you’re saying is from a checking account up to a, a secondary financing private debt up to an IPO. And even beyond that, if, if there’s an acquisition or a merger, you guys are a full service, not only commercial bank, but investment bank. There really isn’t any space that you guys can’t play in. You said and service Service exactly what a fast growing startup needs. Exactly.

00:15:44 [Speaker Changed] You said it perfectly. And, and as I often like to say, we serve companies from startup to IPO and beyond. And so, you know, again, we believe we’re really one of the few firms who can actually serve every need of these companies. And again, they’re the, the founders themselves.

00:15:58 [Speaker Changed] Huh. Really, really interesting. So let’s talk a little bit about middle market banking. You referred earlier the definition of middle market banking as up to 2 billion in in revenues,

00:16:11 [Speaker Changed] Top line revenues. So,

00:16:12 [Speaker Changed] So that’s, this is not a little, these are not all little companies. That’s a 2 billion in revenue is a pretty decent sized company.

00:16:19 [Speaker Changed] Absolutely. And again, we have teams focused on the smaller size, what we call emerging middle markets. So think about that as kind of 20 million to a hundred million in top line revenue, innovation, economy, doing the high growth, you know, VC backed startups, and then a bunch of different industries obviously within kind of that broader commercial banking universe and bankers that are focused simply on a hundred million in plus in top line revenue.

00:16:41 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. That’s, that’s really interesting. And we’ve talked earlier about the role of venture banking in this. Where does that fit in? Where does venture capital fit into startups and where does venture banking fit in as companies get a little larger,

00:16:56 [Speaker Changed] Generally speaking, and our objective is to really become the, the company’s primary operating bank and trusted advisor from the very beginning. Right. And so as an example of that, we now have a startup banking team that actually covers companies at pre-seed and seed stage. So oftentimes could be before they’ve even raised an institutional round of capital. And at that point in time, their needs are very sort of simple, if you will, right? They need a, they need a bank account, they need to pay their employees, they need to have a way to sort of collect funds, they may need a credit card. Just very simple banking needs. And then obviously as the companies continue to grow, those needs become more complex over time, including the need to either raise additional capital and whether that be from a venture capital fund or whoever that may, may be coming from, they may need some debt financing and sort of on and on and on in, in terms of what, what they ultimately need to achieve their objectives and kind of become the company that they want to become.

00:17:48 [Speaker Changed] So what’s the split between the companies you work with that are VC funded, that are private equity backed or just bootstrapped by the founders themselves?

00:17:57 [Speaker Changed] So I would say, again, it vary, it would vary significantly depending on the industries that we’re talking about. But if I, if just we focus on the innovation economy business specifically, the vast majority of those are gonna be VC backed, as I mentioned, of course, you know, sort of the, the crossover if you will between growth, equity and vc. The lines continue to get blurred, but I would say about 20 ish percent of the business is sort of PE-backed and the rest is VC-backed. Just broad, broad numbers

00:18:21 [Speaker Changed] Bootstrapping still goes on or is that

00:18:23 [Speaker Changed] It does again, and you see that, you know, certainly at, at, at the sort of pre-seed and seed stage and then, but I would say it’s still, it’s a minority, right? Of the larger companies within the innovation economy

00:18:33 [Speaker Changed] Business. Yeah. So, so I’m, I’m thinking about their, their balance sheet. What’s the split between how much is equity, how much is debt, or do you do a combination of debt and equity? What, what are, what does this look like

00:18:44 [Speaker Changed] Today? Yeah, no, absolutely. So again, the, the whole purpose of of having a partner like JP Morgan is that a, we can sort of help the companies think through what the optimal capital structure is. And back to sort of the point of we’re sort of product agnostic depending on what, what the company choose to do. Most of these companies that are high growth VC backed in what we call the innovation economy business, tend to still be pre profit, right? Sure. They’re growing really rapidly, they’re throwing everything back into the business in order to achieve scale. So for the most part, their use of debt is quite small. Usually some kind of small venture debt component. And we really want to work with those companies to think about when is the right time to put debt in their capital structure, depending again on where they are in sort of that life cycle. And depending on sort of what their cash burn looks like, how close they are to the next capital raise, what is the likelihood that they’re actually gonna be able to raise the next round of capital. So it is a combination of both, but again, the majority of their capital structure is definitively gonna be equity given that they’re cash burning companies, generally speaking. Right. Yeah.

00:19:42 [Speaker Changed] And I’m assuming you’re not involved in angel rounds or, you know, very early seed stuff. Which kind of leads me to, what sort of criteria does your team use when you’re trying to figure out, hey, is this an early stage company that we want to have a banking relationship, can we be value add to them? Or are they still too novel, too green, no business, no revenue? Like how, how did Sure, what sort of criteria do you use?

00:20:10 [Speaker Changed] Sure. So I, I think about it as, as quite as a pyramid. So there is a lot that we can do for companies across, you know, all stages of their lifecycle. But when you’re talking about the very early stages back to they have fairly simplistic needs, right? And so we want to be able to bank and can bank as many of those companies as possible, assuming that, you know, there’s, we don’t find anything from a reputational risk perspective or something, or an industry that we think is challenging. But I think, again, becoming their primary operating bank, helping them optimize their working capital is sort of like the biggest challenge that these companies are not the biggest challenge, but one of the challenges that these companies face. So we can bank in terms of providing a bank account credit card, again, sort of payables receivables, many, many, many companies as we think about which of the companies we’re gonna lend to, right?

00:20:58 Which is a, a sort of the next round of the pyramid if you will. And that’s, we obviously need to really assess their sustainability over time, their ability to raise the next round of capital. ’cause when you think about venture debt, that’s really one of the gating factors. Is this company be able, gonna be able to raise the next round of capital? What’s the cash burn look like to obviously get them to that next capital raise and how are they using debt to sort of extend that runway overall? So those are sort of the types of things that we’re thinking about when we think about which of those companies that are sort of credit worthy for us to be lending to and obviously support them to again, get to the next round of capital.

00:21:36 [Speaker Changed] Huh. Really, really interesting. So I have a recollection of the era following the.com ramp up and then the, the crash in 2000. And it felt like a lot of the major banks had moved up market, like the middle market was kind of abandoned. So I, and, and lots of private equity seemed to have filled that gap. So I’m kind of fascinated that a giant bank like JP Morgan is addressing that same market segment that generally people seem to feel like the bigger Wall Street banks have abandoned. You’re telling me you’re focusing in that space

00:22:17 [Speaker Changed] A absolutely, because I think in all, in all, again, kind of of focus on two segments if you will, kind of just the broader commercial banking business and then the innovation economy business specifically, when you think about the broader commercial banking business, right? So not just high growth VC backed companies, but small businesses overall, right? There are 300,000, you know, small businesses across, across the country that represent, you know, 13 trillion in revenues and employ 40 million people, right? Right. So it is a massive part of the economy overall that we very much want to serve. And we’ve been expanding that business quite substantially, mainly through sort of geographic expansion over the course of the last several years. We serve, you know, 32,000 middle market companies today across our commercial banks. So certainly again, there’s back to a lot that we want to do and can do to support small business as kind of an engine of the economy overall that we very much think is a, is a, there’s an opportunity there for us, but it’s also sort of a, a responsibility, right?

00:23:13 For us to serve those businesses. I think on the innovation economy side, just back to how, I mean when you look at the disruption going on across every industry today and the innovation, JP Morgan clearly wants to be there to support those founders with sort of the next innovative idea. And I always like to point to the fact that, you know, we’ve been serving innovative companies literally for over 200 years. When you look back at our history, right? We supported Thomas Edison and the invention of the light bulb, the railroads, the automobile, like those were disruptors at that time. But I think on the, the innovation economy business specifically, when we first started, I’ll give you a little history of the business. When we first sort of started a dedicated focus, so we had always served early stage tech companies in the commercial bank, but just by sort of a local banker that didn’t have any expertise in tech, right?

00:23:58 That covered all industries. So back in 20 16, 20 17, we put in place sort of a dedicated team of bankers at that point in time, I would say we primarily did, we, we were very good in terms of our capabilities at serving, let’s call it kind of series C and beyond, right? And when I came into this role, we very much noticed that a founder, right? And for their company would walk into a Chase branch, they’d open a, a bank account, and then they would quickly leave that chase branch and move to one of our competitors who were very good at serving early stage, high growth, early stage VC backed companies. And then they’d come back to us at sort of series C right? Generalization. But so when I came into this role, sort of said, what are we missing, right? In that very early stage in terms of our capabilities, like let’s skip that part where they leave the JP Morgan sort of franchise, right? And really what we were missing was sort of a very simplified treasury, what we call treasury kind of payments bundle for companies to manage working capital, a simple digital platform for earlier stage companies and a venture debt capability. And that’s what we really built out sort of from kind of 20 17, 20 18 over the course of the past several years. So that we had best in class capabilities, both for early stage companies as well as late stage companies where everybody thinks about JP Morgan is serving later stage.

00:25:14 [Speaker Changed] So you mentioned earlier that you’re expanding geographically, we’ll talk about international in a few minutes, but let’s stay in the United States for a bit. I think of JP Morgan down on Wall Street, very New York based. What geographies have you been expanding to? What parts of the country seem to be very fast growing these days? Sure.

00:25:35 [Speaker Changed] Well, so I would just say today our commercial banking business, you know, is in the 85, you know, fastest growing top sort of MSAs across the country. We have 125 offices across the country, 2000 plus bankers across the country. A big part of that expansion over really the last decade has been sort of California and the west coast overall, where we, prior to the WAMU acquisition didn’t have a ton of sort of like retail presence and or sort of boots on the ground there. So that’s accounted for a lot of that geographic expansion as well as, you know, expansion into the southeast and sort of other states in, in the west, obviously sort of moving from what historically, you know, decades and decades ago was more of a kind of east coast dominated business. And that’s what’s accounted for a lot of the growth within the business as a whole.

00:26:20 [Speaker Changed] What, what about down south places like Charlotte or Nashville or Texas or Florida?

00:26:25 [Speaker Changed] A absolutely, I mean, when you look at, again, kind of depends on the industry, but when you look at the innovation economy business and kind of where some of the newer markets are from a VC funding perspective, you are seeing a lot of growth in, you know, the, the Phillies of the world, the dcs of the world, you know, San Diego. I mean certainly there’s still like a huge, a huge concentration in kind of, you know, the Bay area and then kind of New York, Boston area. But there are cities, Miami’s a good example for our healthcare business. Nashville is, you know, has exploded over the past several years. Yeah. So again, depending on the industry, it depends on sort of where our concentration of bankers are. But you know, back to, that’s why we are in 125 cities across the country.

00:27:09 [Speaker Changed] Huh. So let’s talk international. You spent, was it a year in London? Is that three, three years. Three years, yes. Oh, so you are an old hand at there you go dealing with Europe. So let’s talk a little bit about what’s happening in the UK and what’s going on in Europe. How, how do you look at those markets? Can, can you play in those spaces? Tell us a little bit about what the work is like there.

00:27:28 [Speaker Changed] Sure. So I would say from a commercial banking perspective, we definitely support companies globally. And I do think that’s, again, one of JP Morgan’s competitive advantages. As earlier stage companies are looking to expand internationally, we can support them across, you know, basically any market they’re gonna, they they’re going to across, you know, both AMEA and apac. So yes, we support companies there and then we have teams on the ground in, in Europe and Asia, et cetera, that are supporting early stage companies that are headquarters in, in Europe and and apac and then their expansion into the us. So kind of doing it both ways, inbound and outbound. And again, I think that that’s something that with our long history of operating in these various jurisdictions, helping to advise companies on sort of the right strategy as they think about those international expansions. Huh,

00:28:15 [Speaker Changed] Really, really interesting. What percentage of your business is international? I can’t imagine JP Morgan feels like it’s so dominant in the us What’s it, what’s the perception like o overseas? How is it?

00:28:27 [Speaker Changed] So I would say for our commercial banking business, so let me separate this out a moment. So again, the commercial banking business of the US is serving US headquartered companies, but when they have a European sub or an Asian sub, that clearly is a smaller percentage of the company’s overall revenue. Sure. So a smaller percentage of like the revenue that we would earn as well, but we’re supporting them globally. The commercial banking sort of build out in Europe and in Asia for bankers on the ground supporting European and Asian headquarter companies is a newer effort, newer over the past seven or eight years. So it’s not as robust in terms of our robust as the wrong word, it’s not as far along right, right. As our business in, in the

00:29:13 [Speaker Changed] Us I mean clearly, clearly well established here for hundreds of years,

00:29:17 [Speaker Changed] Hundreds of years. And we’ve been in Europe and Asia for hundreds of years, really from an investment banking perspective, hundreds of years is maybe a strong word, but for many, many, many decades from an investment banking perspective. But the build out of the commercial bank supporting smaller size companies in those markets is, is newer seven or seven or eight years ago.

00:29:33 [Speaker Changed] And, and that’s a white space that’s gotta be wide open now, right?

00:29:36 [Speaker Changed] Absolutely, absolutely. And and again, we’re finding great traction because there is so much, obviously as we all are well aware, economies and companies operate in such a global fashion today that a company sitting in Europe obviously has generally speaking plans to expand in other parts of the globe, the US being a huge market, particularly across tech and consumer facing businesses, et cetera. So that, that connectivity is important. And

00:29:57 [Speaker Changed] You said earlier from from checking to IPO, how do you think about the IPO market, which has been so quiet the past few years, we really haven’t seen a lot of companies coming public. How do you view this, when might that change and, and how does this impact your business? Sure.

00:30:17 [Speaker Changed] So we are definitely optimistic on the IPO market this year. And I think even, you know, in 2024 I saw a significant uptick in issuance versus 2023. Obviously we were coming off a low base, but we saw about 33 billion in IPO volume in 2024. We think that that could double this year, you know, just given I think a stable backdrop, more kind of confidence all around the markets. We’ve also just seen a more stable, you know, US economy obviously so far, you know, knock on wood feels like we, we sort of took a soft landing right in the US we now have rates on the decline, which is supportive of the IPO market. We’ll sort of see if that, you know, how that kind of plays out over the course of the year. And then I think, you know, the expectation of sort of double digit earnings growth in the coming year is also very supportive of the equity market. So we do think you’re gonna see a lot more activity in the IPO market this year. And obviously there’s just a ton of supply that’s built up over the past couple years of, as companies have stayed private longer and waiting for a better window to access that IPO market.

00:31:20 [Speaker Changed] So we’re recording this at the end of January. I don’t recall seeing anybody’s forecast for the year ahead saying, Hey, really inexpensive AI from China, deep seek is gonna completely disrupt everything. How do you look at the, not just the technological disruption that we’re all experiencing, but the incredible pace as to how rapid everything is advancing. How do you think about this and how does that impact the day job? How does it impact the work?

00:31:51 [Speaker Changed] Sure. So clearly, you know, just talking about deep seek specifically obviously just a huge impact on the equity markets. You know, as you saw a lot of, a lot of some of the, the larger names trading down significantly. We did see a rebound sort of the, the following day, which was, which was beneficial. I do think, you know, AI is obviously gonna be continued to be a big story over the course of 2025. There’s also just a tremendous amount of capital that needs to be raised to kind of support that industry overall. And so I I do think like back to sort of the comments about sort of stable macroeconomic backdrop rates, declining, all of that will be supportive of the broader IPO market and the ability to access those markets. Yes, we’re gonna kind of continue to see volatility with some of these, these surprises, like the deep sake example, but, but it, it hasn’t really changed our view, our very constructive view on, on the market going forward.

00:32:47 [Speaker Changed] Let’s talk a little bit about some of your thoughts on, on leadership at the bank and, and long-term strategy. If we go back five or six years, you are a managing director and head of specialized industries. What types of firms were you working with then? And are you still working with the same firms or has your portfolio widened since then?

00:33:10 [Speaker Changed] Well, I would say the portfolio has widened in the sense that we’ve continued to add various industries. So specialized industries, I think I mentioned before, it’s 19 different industries that we cover. Give

00:33:19 [Speaker Changed] Us some examples. Cover,

00:33:20 [Speaker Changed] Yeah. So that, that spans a, a very wide remit. So some of our very mature businesses, for instance, our government business supporting states and municipalities and school districts across the country, we’ve been doing, excuse me, doing that since, you know, JP Morgan sort of was founded. So the government business are not-for-profit. Healthcare, higher ed and nonprofit business, again, two very mature businesses. We also have, you know, beverage, food and ag, our m and c business supporting some of the subsidiaries media communications and di digital infrastructure, very hot sector right now in terms of the, the huge need for data centers and capital for data centers overall, the innovation economy business, again, as I mentioned, sort of part of all that. So those are some examples of the industries that, that fall within that, that remit. So again, when we first started specialized industries, I’m not gonna remember the exact number, but we probably had five industries within, within that, right? And so we’ve just continued to build out that dedicated expertise over the course of the past several years, which we’ve just found great success in.

00:34:17 [Speaker Changed] So how do you assess risk when you’re rolling into a new sector or specialized industry when you’re working in a space for a while, you kind of learn what, what the, you know, where the mines are laid when you move into a new space. How do you, how do you approach that? Yeah,

00:34:34 [Speaker Changed] Well I would just say it’s not as if we weren’t banking companies in each of those industries before. It’s simply that we did not have dedicated bankers that only did that, right? So back to this is why we very much believe in, it’s been proven out in terms of the growth that we’ve seen in, in sort of the specialized industry’s business. So we sort of focus in on the sectors where we think it makes a difference for the banker to have that industry expertise. Keep in mind we, we partner with the investment bank on the m and a advisory and strategic capital raising, and they’re all industry focused, right? But does the commercial banker need that industry expertise? Is there something very different about the credit risk associated with those industries that, that that banker expertise helps and that we need sort of dedicated credit teams, again, with the, with the focus on those specific industries.

00:35:20 Is there something different about the product and solution set for those companies that would require us to have that dedicated focus back to kind of the innovation economy business? As I was saying earlier, we didn’t have the early stage capabilities that we needed, you know, seven, eight years ago. And that’s what we, and it was a very kind of bespoke to those high growth companies and the challenges that that we face, that they face that led us to kind of build out those digital capabilities and bundled solutions. So that’s a good example of why we felt like we needed to build that as an industry.

00:35:50 [Speaker Changed] So it’s kind of fascinating that you’re serving clients who are rapidly innovating, expanding into spaces that wholly unforeseen. How do you keep up with that? How do you make sure that you are innovative and cutting edge and how do you build this when it, it’s almost as if your clients are outpacing, you know, the rest of the market.

00:36:13 [Speaker Changed] Absolutely, and I would say that is one of the best parts of my job is meeting with founders all day long and really obviously hearing about their businesses and, and what they are doing to kind of disrupt industries, new technologies. And that is extraordinarily rewarding in terms of hearing about that and how we can help support that growth overall. It is very different meeting with, again, kinda back to my, my earlier background, spending time in debt capital markets, you’re basically covering Fortune 500 companies. It’s very, which is its own unique circumstances and, and those companies have their own challenges, but it’s very different speaking to the treasurer CFO or CEO of Fortune 500 company, right. Than a founder, right? Like there’s just, it’s a very different, different

00:36:59 [Speaker Changed] Focus, different priorities. Exactly. Different experience

00:37:02 [Speaker Changed] And skillset sets. So that, that again is sort of the, the, the most fun part of my job is being able to interact with all of those founders and hear about sort of the technology to come.

00:37:10 [Speaker Changed] So I’m, I’m intrigued at the, about the work you did in debt capital markets, especially when you were in Europe for three years. How, how did, what are the major differences between the way we manage debt capital markets and the way they do? Is it structural? Tell, tell us about, you know, why is it that, are they very similar or are they different?

00:37:32 [Speaker Changed] Well, so a couple things I would say that just one in terms of how we think about co covering companies and, and d markets in the US we’re, we’re organized by industry team in Europe for obvious obviously reasons we’re, we’re organized by country team given language differences. So that again, was something that I very much enjoyed was sitting back to in DC you in the trading floor environment, I would have my UK team over here, my Germany team, my Italy team. So you know, everyone’s speaking different languages. I kept thinking I was gonna learn five languages by osmosis. That did not work. So unfortunately that’s not the case. But that was, that was a great experience overall I would, you know, the European debt ca capital markets are, tend to be a little bit more volatile than the us It’s also because they are a lot smaller, right?

00:38:15 In terms of just the total volume, the investor base that sort of supports those markets all around. And so that’s one of the major differences. What I would say is for larger global companies, having access to that European market has been quite advantageous, both from a capacity perspective, if they were running up against capacity constraints for a very frequent issuer, obviously in the us and two, just from a cost of funding perspective. So over the last several years, given the, the divergence in interest rates between the US and Europe, for many companies it’s actually been cheaper to issue bonds or, you know, access the debt markets in Europe than it has been in the us right? Interest u US interest rates were higher. So that’s obviously just a great alternative, right? For companies when they need to access enormous amounts of capital and or are obviously very focused on sort of what the, what the most advantageous cost is. So,

00:39:08 [Speaker Changed] I know you’re not an economist, so I’m I’m not gonna ask you that question, but it just feels like Europe cannot get out of its own way for, I don’t know, past five years, 10 years, go back to Brexit and, and nearly Brexit, what’s going on that Europe seems to be almost structurally lagging the US and having such difficulty finding its footing.

00:39:32 [Speaker Changed] Well, I’m also not an expert on politics, so I’m not gonna comment on that. ’cause I think there’s, there’s something to be said there, but what I would say from sort of a structural perspective is I think probably the, one of the bigger differences today is demographics where kind of working age population in Europe is declining. I think it’s still growing modestly in the US and obviously that will turn in the US at some point in time. But so that, that has been sort of one issue in Europe. I think the post COVI recovery in Europe was a lot more challenging primarily because of the Russia, Ukraine war and sort of the energy crisis that they faced given a lot of their energy was coming from, or energy supply was coming from, from Russia. So that had a very different impact in Europe than it did in, in the US overall.

00:40:17 If you look at Germany, obviously the largest, you know, economy in Europe, it’s very still sort of heavily manufacturing based. Higher interest rates have really had hurt to manufacturing, global manufacturing. And so that’s had a bigger impact I think on, on Germany with those manufacturers operating globally. So those are some of the things that I would point to. And you know, there’s just never been the same labor productivity across Europe as there has been in the US and, and quite frankly, just the support for innovation and tech, right? And new technology. And I think that’s just had a big impact back to Germany’s heavily manufacturing based, right? The US probably less so

00:40:54 [Speaker Changed] Because we’re more service oriented, is that the thinking

00:40:56 [Speaker Changed] More service oriented? And I think again, you don’t have the same, I think a lot of countries in Europe are looking to put in place policies to better incentivize some of the technological development. But I mean, you don’t have a Bay area type, right? Right. I mean, you, you have little pockets of that kind of concept, right? Where you have sort of this ecosystem coming together to, to disrupt and innovate and, and support new technology. But there’s not, there’s nothing as sort of big as the Bay area in, in Europe,

00:41:24 [Speaker Changed] But you do have world class manufacturing throughout Europe and I I think absolutely. Yeah. Of Mercedes, Porsche, BMW in Germany, you think of all the, i i I guess it really doesn’t scale watchmaking and things like that, but there are some really high-end companies that are incredibly successful. Are, are they just the exceptions? What is it I’m trying to conceptualize. Sure.

00:41:49 [Speaker Changed] But I also think it’s, it’s much more fragmented obviously than the US market with, with each different country, with its own, own rules and regulations and Sure. And you know, some, some sort of more nationalist policies than others. And I think that just has an impact on their ability to kind of dominate. And we’re talking about Europe as if it’s one thing, but, but it’s not, it’s not,

00:42:06 [Speaker Changed] Right. So you’re saying really it’s, it is structural, it’s not so, so the combination of these structural challenges, relatively high interest rate, less productivity gains and a focus that’s less service oriented, more manufacturing oriented

00:42:24 [Speaker Changed] Demographics

00:42:25 [Speaker Changed] And demographics. Yeah. So the people who have been waiting for, hey, you know, Europe is gonna catch up, it’s gonna mean revert any second. That doesn’t seem to be in the imminent cards anytime soon.

00:42:39 [Speaker Changed] I don’t think that’s in the 2025 cards, let’s put it that way.

00:42:42 [Speaker Changed] Okay. Hey, that’s fair. That’s perfectly fair thing. I wanna talk a little bit about some of the work you’ve done on women in banking. You were on the Women on the Move podcast and one of the things you said that struck me was women don’t have as robust of a network as, as men do explain.

00:43:07 [Speaker Changed] So that was, that was a little bit of a generalization probably, but I think what, what I meant by that was if women tend to stick to, because I, I think often earlier in their career, and probably I did the same thing early on, that you stick to sort of the women’s network that you develop, right? Right. And there’s a lot of sort of women’s networking events. I’ll speak for, you know, financial services specifically. If you only stick to that network, there’s still a lot fewer women in sort of banking or pick, pick many industries, right? Than there are men. And so that limits kind of that network overall. And so I think like important that you spending time with people across the organization, picking mentors across the organization, networking across the organization to make sure that you are developing the same robust network that sort of some of your male colleagues would, would already be doing.

00:43:55 [Speaker Changed] So I also read you value and prioritize mentorship. What, how do you approach this at, at your job? We’ll get to questions about who your mentors were, but do you have mentees? Are you, are you practicing what you preach?

00:44:11 [Speaker Changed] Yes, I and I, I very much take that as a, as a serious responsibility and sort of part of my day job. You know, we have various, I would say organized programs and then there’s more informal, you know, mentor mentorship programs. And I think both are important, but I think over the years, you know, making sure that all of the senior individuals are sort of participating in those mentorship sponsorship programs, giving younger people sort of the opportunity to, to learn from someone else about their career. And again, sort of doing the informal mentoring. I think back to the JP Morgan culture, I think it’s just very endemic there. Someone reaches out, you know, to have a cup of coffee with you, you, you go do that, right? And it’s just sort of something that’s expected and something that sort of I grew up with, if you will. And so certainly something that I again take very seriously.

00:45:01 [Speaker Changed] So when I first started this podcast, I, I wanna say almost 11 years ago was very hard finding women in senior leadership roles and having them come on as guests. That has become much easier. I’m curious how you see the industry as as once male dominated. It’s still mostly male dominated, but it feels like it’s improving somewhat. What, what do you, what’s your perspective?

00:45:31 [Speaker Changed] I do think that a lot of progress has been made overall, I think, you know, JP Morgan, not to toot our own horn, but I think is a great example for the industry where you look at, you know, our operating committee, which are the, the individuals that report directly to Jamie, you know, it is heavily female job.

00:45:45 [Speaker Changed] Jamie, I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with who, who was that?

00:45:48 [Speaker Changed] There, there are many, many females on the operating committee. So we’ve done a great job there and I think that that’s kind of, you know, filtered down throughout the organization. So yes, I do think it has, has improved substantially. I do still think there’s a lot of challenges, particularly at that sort of vp, late VP early ed level, early executive director level. A lot of times when people are having sort of their first, their first children and sort of making sure that we’re providing this a supportive environment that they’re able to obviously, you know, come back to work as, as they would like to. But yes, I think significant progress has been made, but I think that is a very intentional effort back to kind of understanding why if we are losing female employees or diverse employees, why that is. In the same way that we wanna understand why we’re losing any employee, right? Any talented employee, we don’t, we don’t wanna lose. But I think you have to be just very intentional about measuring progress and, and understanding what the challenges are and if there’s anything that you can do or should be doing to have a more sort of accommodative environment and inclusive environment. So

00:46:49 [Speaker Changed] I have a question later about advice to recent college grads, but as long as we’re talking about women in banking, let’s stay focused on that here. What advice do you have for any young woman who wants to become part of the financial sector or, or banking industry?

00:47:08 [Speaker Changed] I would just say really taking advantage of friends, colleagues that you know, your network peers to understand all aspects of the industry. And I, you know, that’s hard to do sometimes when you’re in college and you’re not sort of sitting in the organization. But I do think, and this is not a commentary on females versus males, but just sort of back to the networking point, you, you have kind of a natural advantage if your, your parent was an investment banker or a lawyer or Right. That dealt with, with sort of the banking industry or, you know, pick, pick another sort of adjacent profession. And so, you know, those individuals know the right questions to ask, are more aware of the opportunities across the firm. It’s not just investment banking, there’s lots of other things we do at do at JP Morgan or, or any affirm. So I think just making sure that you are figuring out how to kind of gather that information and, and ask all of those questions so that you’re a little more educated coming in about sort of what the opportunities are overall.

00:48:09 [Speaker Changed] Huh, really interesting. So let me throw you a curve ball question. We talked earlier, not only about your ballet at age four, but dancing professionally for three years. You’re a member of the board of trustees for American Ballet Theater. That’s the pinnacle of dance in America. Tell us a little bit about the organization, how you found your way to it. Like what, what are you doing with them?

00:48:35 [Speaker Changed] Sure. So I have been on the board since 2009, so Oh wow.

00:48:40 [Speaker Changed] That’s 15 plus years.

00:48:41 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, so a long time. So again, American Ballet Theater, one of the greatest ballet companies in the world based here in New York, officially designated by Congress is America’s National Ballet Company. Huh. And actually, as of January of this year, I’m the new chair of the board of A BT, which is super exciting. Congratulations. But, you know, the board obviously has, its, its basic sort of governance functions, but, you know, we spend a lot of time helping with fundraising for the organization and helping provide, you know, expertise where each individual has it. Any nonprofit obviously has a much more limited sort of staff overall. So if there’s people on the board that have real estate expertise or finance expertise or HR expertise, that is very valuable to the organization as a whole. So there’s always sort of special projects that, that we, you know, sort of participate in from that perspective. But a but a big chunk of what the board does is really making sure people are aware of a BT helping with fundraising, helping attract new donors, helping attract and develop new audience members. Huh.

00:49:43 [Speaker Changed] Really, really interesting. Have past board members and or chair people been former professional ballet dancers? Or is this unusual? There’s

00:49:55 [Speaker Changed] Always a few, but certainly the majority of people on the board don’t have a background in dance. And, and as, as I always remind everybody, I call it the separation between church and state. The board is there to sort of help with the business of running the ballet company. They have no input whatsoever to anything artistic, which is why it’s not required that you have any sort of background in.

00:50:14 [Speaker Changed] But I’m curious if there have been previous chair people who were professional ballet dancers

00:50:20 [Speaker Changed] That I would have. I, I don’t think so, but I’m not a hundred percent possible. All right. But I don’t think so our previous chair who retired at the end of last year, his sister danced with the company for many years and that’s really how he became involved and obviously, you know, very passionate about the ballet

00:50:36 [Speaker Changed] Really, it, it’s one of those fascinating things that just, I don’t see on people’s resumes all that often and I had no idea you were chairman, but it, it’s really fascinating. Alright, so while I still have you, let’s jump to our favorite questions that we ask all of our guests. Speaking of, of entertainment. Let’s start with what are you streaming these days? What’s keeping you entertained? It could be Netflix, podcast, whatever. What, what, what are you enjoying these days? So

00:51:02 [Speaker Changed] First I would say I am sort of an avid reader. I was talking with a colleague on my way over here. Everybody consumes information differently. I consume it better reading, I think, than always on the same way, always listening right?

00:51:13 [Speaker Changed] On

00:51:14 [Speaker Changed] The same way. So I, I’m sort of very religious about getting through The Economist and the New Yorker every week. And I won’t let myself read the next issue of The Economist until I finish the first one. So even if I’m behind, I’m I, I I

00:51:25 [Speaker Changed] Do that. Right. I, I’m, I’m in 1986. If I followed that there rule.

00:51:29 [Speaker Changed] Okay, there you go. I might have to get that up at some point. I am currently streaming, I guess the second season of the diplomat, which I’m very much enjoying. I so good.

00:51:38 [Speaker Changed] I

00:51:38 [Speaker Changed] Love the political actions thrillers, but I think I’m running out of them ’cause I’ve watched all of them at this

00:51:43 [Speaker Changed] Point. So I Lion s have you seen

00:51:44 [Speaker Changed] That? Oh no, I haven’t seen that. Okay.

00:51:46 [Speaker Changed] So a little more intelligence community slash tip of the spear. Okay. Okay. But you know, the same sort of back and forth layers of intrigue and, but I really enjoyed the diplomat. I I thought that was fascinating. And then, what was it, secretary of State was the other one.

00:52:06 [Speaker Changed] Madam Secretary. Madam

00:52:07 [Speaker Changed] Secretary. That same concept.

00:52:09 [Speaker Changed] I will admit, I’ve watched it a couple times.

00:52:11 [Speaker Changed] Oh, oh really? I thought it was,

00:52:12 [Speaker Changed] She’s great. Yes, exactly. I think it’s a good pick me up. Particularly when partisan politics are, you know, depressing everyone. It’s good. It’s, it’s just a happy, there’s always a happy ending. I appreciate

00:52:23 [Speaker Changed] That. Anytime there’s, you have an ability to go to a space you’re wholly unfamiliar with and be challenged. It’s not just entertaining, but it, you know, clears the cobweb out little bit.

00:52:32 [Speaker Changed] A bit. Exactly.

00:52:33 [Speaker Changed] So, really interesting. So we talked about you as a mentor. Who are your mentors who helped shape your career?

00:52:42 [Speaker Changed] So I would say I feel very lucky when I was, most of my career, when I was in debt capital markets, I worked for a, a woman who ran DCM at the time. And then she went on to do different things at the firm who was very much a sponsor mentor for me overall. And has just, you know, over time she’s retired now from JP Morgan, but sort of, you know, become a friend. But I think that’s where I really, I think learned and embraced kind of just this concept of attracting talent, retaining talent, helping to kind of bring up the next generation of women is a responsibility of senior people. And she really demonstrated that. And, and certainly, I, I took that to heart.

00:53:25 [Speaker Changed] So since you are a reader, let’s talk about books. What are your favorites and what are you reading right now?

00:53:31 [Speaker Changed] So favorites are hard, but what I’m, what I’m reading right now. So I actually just finished over the holidays. I tend to alternate between fiction and nonfiction. I do a little

00:53:42 [Speaker Changed] Of both. Okay. I get that

00:53:42 [Speaker Changed] Because I think both are important. I finished Chasing Hope, the Nicholas Christoff book. He’s a foreign correspondent for The Times, which is interesting. I finished a biography of Alex Monki, who’s a, a choreographer. I don’t think many, many listening to this podcast may find that book interesting. But I did a new fiction by Michael Cunningham called Day. So those were all, all really good. Some of my favorite authors, Isabella Enig, Dave Edgar, that’s what I would

00:54:13 [Speaker Changed] Say. Edgar is kind of funny if I, if we’re talking about he same guy, right? He’s

00:54:17 [Speaker Changed] Kind funny and he has funny titles, which I love. Heartbreaking work is staggering. Genius. Yes. One of his first books. Love that book. Yeah.

00:54:23 [Speaker Changed] So we’re down to our last two questions and this is a broader question that I asked earlier. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in either banking or finance?

00:54:39 [Speaker Changed] I think to make sure that they embrace risk taking. And I say that because maybe, maybe just because I myself maybe am a little bit risk averse, but I think over the course of your career you have the opportunity often to do many different things. And a lot of times people are afraid to sort of leave their current group and do something different and it just opens up a whole world of possibilities. So I think sort of taking a little bit more risk than you might naturally do is always good advice.

00:55:11 [Speaker Changed] And when you have no spouse, no mortgage, no kids, that’s the time easy to do it, to fall on your face. ’cause you get up, dust yourself off and, and start over again. It’s funny how when you’re a few years past being young, that’s obvious, but at the time it doesn’t feel that way.

00:55:28 [Speaker Changed] Well, and it feels like such a big risk. Oh my

00:55:30 [Speaker Changed] God. So risky. Right, exactly. And our final question, what do you know about the world of banking and investment and growth companies today that would’ve been really helpful 25 or so years ago?

00:55:43 [Speaker Changed] That’s a really good question.

00:55:45 [Speaker Changed] And it’s not, I should have bought Nvidia when it was 50 cents. It’s like what philosophically would’ve been useful to know that you eventually figured it out?

00:55:55 [Speaker Changed] I think because I started in the investment bank and then by definition was really working with primarily larger size companies, I think it, I, you know, as I kind of mentioned earlier, understanding how different it is and, and the fact that you have the ability to make an even bigger difference for a smaller size company that, that needs that sort of trusted advisor even more. I think it would be, would be sort of good to know, right? Because it is, I think financial services overall, you have the ability to take on a lot more responsibility at an early age than other industries. But I think again, the ability to kind of influence and advise an early stage company is, is just incredibly rewarding given the limited resources staff that they have.

00:56:38 [Speaker Changed] Melissa, this has been absolutely fascinating. Thank you for being so generous with your time. We have been speaking with Melissa Smith. She is co-head of commercial banking for JP Morgan. If you enjoy this conversation, well be sure and check out any of the past 500 or so we’ve done over the previous 10 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you find your favorite podcasts. And be sure to check out my new book, how Not to Invest coming March 17th, wherever you get your favorite books from. I would be remiss if I did not thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. Sarah Livesey is my audio engineer. Anna Luke is my producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Sage Bauman is the head of podcasts at Bloomberg. I’m Barry Riol. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

~~~

 

 

The post Transcript: Melissa Smith, co-Head of Commercial Banking at JPMorgan appeared first on The Big Picture.

My Bias Blind Spot Bubble

 

 

Since March Madness is nearly upon us, how about a fun basketball story?

I was lucky enough to be a hoops fan during the golden age of basketball: Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, the Bad Boy Detroit Pistons, Michael Jordan, and the perennially-on-the-verge-of-winning-it-all New York Knicks during the Patrick Ewing, John Starks, Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason era.

The most frustrating aspect of being a Knicks fan was the terrible officiating. Jordan got away with murder, and not long after, Shaquille O’Neal became the refs’ favorite. Countless bad calls against the Knicks at the worst possible moments made fans feel like the league was colluding to favor the Bulls and undermine the Knicks. It never felt fair or just. “Jordan Rules” were real, and I was absolutely convinced – convinced! – that something foul was afoot.1

Fast-forward to the 2000s. Over that decade plus of doing CNBC, I had become friendly with Big Joe Besecker of Emerald Asset Management. Joe’s a great manager and comes at the markets from a very different perspective than myself. We had been on the air many times together and always had fun riffing off of each other. Joe invited me to see the Saint Joseph’s Hawks men’s basketball team (or was it St. John’s Red Storm? I don’t even recall) play in the National Invitation Tournament (2012ish? or ‘13?). At the time, I had never sat anywhere near courtside, and as a big alum, he had great seats.

The NITs are fun. When you are five rows off the floor at center court, you see EVERYTHING. It was a close game, and Joe was endlessly berating the refs for their “bad” calls. Travel! Flagrant Foul! Charge! C’mon refs, keep it fair!

Joe is a really big guy, and his voice boomed across the Garden floor. We were so close, you just knew they heard every word.

Here’s the thing: I’m a big Knicks fan but never really paid close attention to college basketball. I’ll watch March Madness, especially when a team like Michigan or North Carolina is having a breakout year. But I have absolutely no emotional involvement in any outcome – zero skin in the game. Couldn’t care any less about who wins.

Joe kept turning to me every other play: “Did you see that foul?”

My response: “The hand is part of a ball, he barely touched him, not a foul.”

Joe: “Travel!”

Me: “Two and half steps on a lay-up is always allowed.”

Joe: “That was a charge!”

Me: “Not really, the guy was moving and not planted – it was a good foul call.”

Joe: “Three!”

Me: “Nope, his foot was on the line.”

On and on this went, all game.

That night stands out to me because I don’t even remember who won. All I recall was this horrible sinking feeling that everything I believed about the bad officiating and the Knicks’ was completely, utterly wrong.

I had a massive blind spot as to my own biases. This was a self-created bubble of my own making, and I was unhappy learning just how delusional I was.

It was eye-opening. My emotional involvement in the game’s outcome affected everything: how I perceived the action, what stood out, what I remembered, and even the narratives I told myself about what was going on. Being a fan hopelessly affected me in ways I had not even imagined. It wasn’t just that I was wrong, it was – Goddammit! – that I was completely and totally living in an artificial construct of my own making that bore no relationship to objective reality.

My bias blind spot bubble has been burst.

I had been deep down the behavioral finance rabbit hole ever since my days on a trading desk in the 1990s. But it was always a tool to see how everyone else, from other traders, brokers, clients, strategists, etc., was engaging in selective perception, narrative fallacies, and hindsight bias. It was never me that made all of those mistakes.

But it was.

That game was eye-opening. It made me realize that, despite my extensive research into the psychology underlying behavioral economics, I suffered from the exact same cognitive errors as everyone else.

As Daniel Kahneman explained, “We are blind to our blindness. We have very little idea of how little we know. We’re not designed to know how little we know.”

~~~

Kahneman’s themes — humility, acknowledging how little we actually know about today, (and even less about tomorrow), striving to understand reality, and recognizing our own inherent shortfalls — are prime drivers of How NOT to Invest. If these ideas interest you, then please check it out.

 

 

__________

1. Some people think of “Jordan Rules” as the Detroit Pistons coach Chuck Daly’s playbook of how to stop Jordan and the Bulls, but I am referring to the unwritten rules how the league officiated superstar players, most especially Jordan.

 

 

Coming March 18, 2025
see more at HowNOTtoInvestbook.com

 

The post My Bias Blind Spot Bubble appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Monday AM Reads

My back-to-work morning train WFH reads:

The D.C. ‘PayPal Mafia’ Goes Beyond Elon Musk. A Guide to Silicon Valley’s Hostile Takeover. As Elon Musk dominates Washington, there’s another wave of tech appointments still to come. They’ll influence policy around cryptocurrencies, healthcare, China, and more. (Barron’s)

A Modest Stagflation Shock But Not a Recession: There are often adjustment costs associated with changing policies. Laying off government workers puts upward pressure on unemployment, and imposing tariffs increases prices and lowers demand for foreign goods. How significant the impact of these policies will be on the economy depends on the magnitude and duration of each policy. (Apollo)

We’re Turning Down Free Money by Firing IRS Workers: Increased tax enforcement more than pays for itself. Republicans’ opposition to it is a signal that they don’t truly care about closing the deficit. (Bloomberg)

Rich People Are Firing a Cash Cannon at the US Economy—But at What Cost? Industries get recalibrated, economic signals get crossed, and the social fabric begins to fray. (Businessweek)

Elon Musk’s Internet: So Based, Much Wow. So Cringe? Mr. Musk uses online slang to marshal his 200 million social media followers in support of his efforts to gut the federal government. But he might be reaching his limits. (New York Times)

The Price of Russian Victory: Why Letting Putin Win Would Cost America More Than Supporting Ukraine. (Foreign Affairs)

An Effective Treatment for Opioid Addiction Exists. Why Isn’t It Used More? A drug called buprenorphine may be the best tool doctors have to fight the fentanyl crisis. Why hasn’t it been more widely adopted? (New York Times)

Edward Sard: The Rise of the Permanent War Economy: The war industry has become a permanent fixture of US capitalism, channeling massive public subsidies to private corporations. The first writer to analyze this “Permanent War Economy” was Edward Sard, a brilliant Marxist economist working in the 1940s. (Jacobin)

RFK Jr., America’s Leading Advocate for Getting Measles: Contrary to what the health secretary says, the outbreak of disease in Texas is, in fact, unusual. (The Atlantic) see also The Texas Measles Outbreak Is Even Scarier Than It Looks: Overall, the vaccine is highly effective and the rare breakthrough cases — a few in a thousand exposures — tend to be mild. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns, however, that those cases can be vectors for the illness. (New York Times)

Winners of the 2025 World Nature Photography Awards: Winners of the 2025 World Nature Photography Awards (The Atlantic)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Melissa Smith of J.P. Morgan, where she is co-head of commercial banking. Previously, she was co-Head of Innovation Economy and Head of Specialized Industries,. She has been with JPM Chase for more than 20 years, working with founders, entrepreneurs and startups.

US Imports from China, by Category

Source: Apollo

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Monday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.