# Fed Pause, AI Wealth Effect, and Inflation Risks

**Podcast:** Bloomberg Daybreak: US Edition
**Published:** 2026-01-28

## Transcript

Markets move fast.
Get the insights you need in ten minutes with Barclays Brief, a podcast from Barclays Investment Bank.
Each week our experts analyze market themes, helping you anticipate what's next.
Listen to Barclays Brief wherever you get your podcasts.
Donald Trump is rewriting the Washington rule book and reshaping the global economy.
If you're trying to connect the dots behind the headlines, Bloomberg's Trumponomics podcast is here to help.
I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of government and economics at Bloomberg.
Every week I'll bring you a smart, focused conversation with reporters and experts from Washington, Wall Street, and beyond.
Listen to new episodes every Wednesday and follow Trumpenomics wherever you listen.
Bloomberg Audio Studios.
This is a breaking news update from Bloomberg.
Instant reaction and analysis from our 3,000 journalists and analysts around the world.
Only has two more of these meetings on the calendar as the chairman of the world's most important central bank.
For the equity market on the SP 500, still close to all-time highs on the SP on the Nasdaq 100 up by 0.5 in the bond market.
On twos, tens, and 30s, we look like this.
Your 10-year 425, your two-year 358.
Journalists did their best to make this one interesting.
Chairman Powell was determined to make it boring.
Take a listen to what the chairman had to say.
Some people did want to cut and and and dissented, but committee pretty broadly for for holding today.
That we still have some tension between employment and inflation, but it's less than it was.
I think that the upside risks to inflation and the downside risks to risk have probably both diminished a bit.
So uh, you know, we'll be looking at that.
There are different views on the committee, and you know, we'll find our way forward as the data evolve.
TK, just my takeaway, just my observation.
Towards the end, it felt like a man who was looking forward to retiring and stepping down.
You know, there was a gold question.
It's great.
He doesn't have Krugerans in the drawer, he's got the Jerry Garcia commemorative gold coins in the drawer.
So way looser.
There's no question, no question uh about that.
But it was really interesting to see the nuances of the market, away from the things we usually quote uh folks to look at what seriously was Sterling was doing, the way Euro was vibrating in that.
And I would suggest they can go back and say, you know, we got through that in one piece.
He's got some advice for the next Fed chair, Stater Politics.
Stephanie Roth of Wolf Research joins us now for more.
Stephanie, the questions loaded with politics.
He was not engaging, he was not playing.
What was the takeaway for you?
Yeah, I think it's a a Fed that is comfortable with the backdrop of data, which I think is the right call.
The the data seem to be improving from here.
We actually think that it will continue to get better, in which case this will certainly be the last cut under Chair Powell.
Uh that will be that there's no more cuts under Chair Powell.
He's done.
And he's, I think that's right.
He's fading into the sunset and just wants to avoid all of the questions that he didn't really want to answer.
Unfair question, but I can save it for your morning note at Wolf Research.
Maybe maybe it'll help.
You think Mark Kearney at Davos talking about uh the new geometry of middle countries?
You look at the president, neo-mercantilism, the president, weak dollar.
Did the Secretary of Treasury save this press conference by coming out hours before and sounding like James Baker from another time and place on Strong dollar?
Yeah, I mean, I last night it was getting to be a little bit concerning when Trump made the comments regarding his comfort around the sharp drop in in the dollar that we've seen.
That could also have reverberations throughout the rest of the market.
So I think that is fair to some extent.
Powell clearly don't want to comment on the dollar regardless.
But there was the legitimate risk, and there still is that there could become reverberations as the carry trade on wines.
But it seems that Bessent is very well aware of the aftermath of that.
Can I ask economic questions?
Please go for it.
Let's do that.
This is the appropriate.
Anna Wong has been great on this, as you have as well, Stephanie Roth, where the idea of the vector and goods we take for granted is disinflation.
That's turned around.
Now we've got goods moving up, we've got gold come out, copper, and all the other stuff John's talking about.
Do you just assume out there somewhere after stimulus that goods roll over again into some form of disinflation, even if service sector stays with an inflationary tone?
Yeah, we're probably gonna see a backdrop where we see we're likely to have some some firm goods prices in the next couple of months, in the sense that one, you tend to have there's some seasonal issues in some of the data, you have some consumer stimulus that's gonna hit goods prices for the next quarter or so.
And then beyond that, you're gonna move to an environment where goods are running at roughly zero percent year of year, and then it's it's back to an environment where it's all about the service sector.
Away from the politics of Washington, one of the takeaways from that particular news conference that I have is something I've heard repeatedly from a lot of Wall Street participants, market participants, is that the data's gonna be better.
It would improve.
The chairman's saying overall it's a stronger forecast than in December.
The data since the last meeting show clear growth improvement, and a lot of people think that's gonna continue because of the tax refunds.
How important are these tax refunds gonna be?
Do you think people are overly optimistic about the impact this might have?
I think they will be positive for the consumer, but this is a consumer that is already doing fairly well.
Spending was has been fairly solid in the fourth quarter, and everyone's revised up their GDP numbers uh in the fourth quarter, Q1 should be equally pretty solid.
I think the the main takeaway is that yeah, maybe even you you do get a bit of a bump in consumer spending.
People will spend the stimulus checks that come to them, that is the American consumer.
But then beyond that, this is an environment where you're you have positive momentum in the economy.
So I think it will be important.
I that's entirely fair, but it's also an economy that's performing a lot better than many expected towards the back part of the year.
Last year, when everyone was concerned about the the health of the consumer, which was in the case of the case.
A journalist in the news conference asked the question: why wouldn't that lead to higher inflation, given how in some parts of this economy we are supply constrained?
What's the answer to that?
The answer is that you'll see some sticky inflation through the first part of the year, in which case, the next ved chair is gonna be in an environment where inflation is running roughly three percent.
The economy is fairly firm, and they're gonna be trying to cut interest rates, and they're probably gonna have trouble at first.
There it's gonna be later in the year when inflation starts to cool again, you lose a little bit of that momentum where it becomes a little bit more easier of a conversation.
I haven't asked anyone this question.
I think it's it's fair to ask now after this press conference.
We talked about in the president with great uh negativity, would talk about the Biden stimulus.
What does the Trump stimulus actually look like into the midterm elections?
Well, the you'll see so certainly you'll see that the that better consumer for the first part of the year.
It will fade into the election period of time, in which case, then the focus is gonna continue to be on affordability.
So that's that's that's the opposite of uh uh of stimulus from a sentiment perspective.
And this is gonna be the biggest challenge for the administration they're gonna be dealing with all year, and they're gonna have a lot of trouble.
They've been throwing a lot of different things uh at the wall to see what will stick, and there is not that much they can do to change.
Uh whatever, whatever we see with the central bank, they've got to figure out what will stick with half of America flat in their back.
What's the Wolf research plan for that, besides a check in the mail?
There is not that much can be done.
The the one positive is not about anything the administration can do.
It is a just a cyclical pickup in the economy that will help at the margin for a lot of the the bottom end of the K who has been left out.
They've been left out for a whole list of reasons.
This is what Orzag and uh Poston are saying is you know, you get a pickup in the economy, you get productivity, and it pulls up people.
I mean, that's the reigning theory here, John, into Labor Day and into the end of the year.
And just on the next Fed chair, this from the Treasury Secretary in the last hour or so, speaking to Yahoo saying the pick may come in a week or so.
It just feels like a rolling week at the moment.
We're waiting another week to get that Fed share pick.
If you're just joining us, we're live on Bloomberg TV and on Bloomberg Radio, a Fed rate decision behind us, a decision to keep rates unchanged after cutting at three consecutive meetings.
We did get some dissent from two Fed governors, one being Governor Waller, the other being Governor Myron, looking for a 25 basis point reduction.
Let's get to Michael McKee, who was in that news conference with Chairman Powell.
Mike, welcome back.
I give you an A for trying, a big A for trying.
What would you take away from the chairman moments ago?
Well, I think we got the answer to whether Jay Powell would talk politics or policy.
He focused on policy, tried to stay away as much as possible from politics.
When I asked him and uh Nick Timorows from the Wall Street Journal asked him, and then he was asked about the dollar.
All three of us got sort of the Seinfeld answer.
No soup for you.
He's not gonna talk about that issue right now.
In terms of uh policy, however, he seemed to be a little bit stronger on the outlook for the economy than his uh feelings about what rates would be doing.
He didn't give us any indication that rates would be going down, but he didn't give us any indication that they think they're at neutral.
He suggested we're at the high end of it, which would leave you open to a rate cut if you were able to.
In other words, if inflation's going down and uh unemployment uh calls for it.
Uh but as Stephanie was saying, it inflation's gonna stay elevated for a while, so it's gonna be hard in the remainder of Powell's term to have any rate cuts, and it'd be hard for somebody new coming in to get rate cuts right in the beginning, even if, as uh Powell says, they think that inflation X tariffs is running just about uh two percent or a little above.
On the committee, Mike, there is still a push for an interest rate reduction from both Governor Myron and a Governor Waller.
Mike, for the paper that missed your coverage a little bit earlier, immediately following the decision.
What's the rationale for that push from those two governors on this FYMC?
Well, we know Myron has sort of been ordered to uh dissent.
It's interesting that he only dissented for 25 basis points this time instead of for 50.
Either he thinks they've gone far enough or uh he didn't need to do uh 50 to keep the president's favor.
Uh for Chris Waller, uh the the initial reaction I've seen from just about everybody who has written about it is that he's trying to keep his place in line for uh possible promotion to Fed chair, replacing Powell.
But I would imagine also that Waller uh knowing him and get knowing his reputation, uh, we'll probably come out on Friday when the uh blackout lifts and uh give us some sort of statement on the economic reasons why he thinks a cut is important at this time.
It's a little bit different situation now because the unemployment rate has gone down.
Inflation is, according to uh the Fed's calculations, which Powell talked about, going to for the core PCE hit three percent.
So it's harder to make the case for a cut at the moment.
So it'll be interesting to see what Waller has to say.
My McKee, thank you, sir.
Stay close.
We'll come back to you a little bit later in the program.
We talked about this in the immediate aftermath of the decision.
That dissent from Governor Waller for a 25 basis point reduction.
We heard from Vice Chair, former vice chair Richard Clarider from Torsen Slock of Apollo, essentially calling it unfair to characterize this as a man purely voting for a reduction to keep his name in the running to become the Fed chair.
Yeah.
That has been a man who's delivered effective leadership, thought leadership of the Federal Reserve, and caught every single turn of the economy over the last several years.
Yeah, I think Torsten summed it up nicely.
This is a legit academic folks, uh, with major cred out at Washington State.
He wrote a very important small, tiny, perfect paper in 1991, I believe it was.
It made his reputation.
And it's on game theory, but accessible game theory.
The w, you know, besides, he's like you, he's cut and chiseled, he's lifting weights every day.
I wish I lifted like he did.
Have you seen him deadlift?
Oh, yeah.
It's ridiculous.
Yeah, it's ridiculous how much weight he lifts.
But yes, please continue.
He's a legitimate guy.
I mean, Ken Roger's a huge fan of what this academic has done, and he's delivered it.
And here's the key thing, and I think attractive to the president.
He's done it in a plain spoken way.
And that may be to the benefit of President Trump.
I want to avoid the politics of this, Tom, but we've complained so much about groupthink of the Federal Reserve.
We can't complain when someone sticks their neck out and says we need to do something different, and this is why I think we need to do this differently.
Risk cut both ways, and we've seen that coming out of the pandemic.
How wrong the consensus has been.
Oh, yeah.
Risk cut both ways.
It's the humility is an order.
And I frankly I heard that from Chairman Powell today.
Jeffrey Rosenberg of BlackRock joins us now to weigh in on all of this.
Jeff, welcome to the show, sir.
The big takeaway for you, unchanged, and a chairman who's not looking to change things for the next several months.
Would you agree?
Yeah, I think the big takeaway on the policy side uh was the removal of the balance of risks from the labor market assessment.
He got asked that question.
I think the most interesting interchange was in the very first question, where he very clearly laid out he wasn't going to address the politics side and then and got into the substance on the change of the balance of risks.
And I think from the economic perspective, that was the most interesting thing in acknowledging that they've moved away from both sides of the inflation and the labor market uh tension that was there previously.
And that's an upgrade to the assessment.
I think the near-term, you know, implication is the bond market has the pricing right that, you know, in the in the next six months, there's really no real movement towards a cut.
Now, obviously, it depends on the data, and everything in terms of the expectations for the FOMC is going to be in the back half of the year.
Jeff Rosenberg, maybe more important in the press conference is the American exceptionalism at 402 Microsoft, 403 Tesla, 405 Meta, 408 IBM.
Honey, thank you so much for those times.
I mean, what's keeping this Fed going is this exceptional America.
How do they keep that experiment going with their policy given politics?
Yeah, that's a really important point, Tom.
And it came up a little bit in the press conference.
You just had to like listen for it.
It's a point I made uh often, you know, in these discussions that, you know, where is the surprise coming from?
It's it's coming from the consumption side.
It's being supported by the wealth effect, and the wealth effect is being supported by all of those earnings and that AI story.
So, you know, we talk a lot about the macroeconomic perspective here, but it's really about the micro.
And the micro is the AI and the technology story, the concentration, and it's flowing through from the micro to the macro through the wealth effect, and that was why most economists are underclubbing growth in 2025.
It may be again the story in 2026.
It's a little bit of the K-shaped economy story as well, because it's only a small portion that are benefiting, but that small portion overwhelmingly is influencing that consumption.
Stephanie Roth, I look at that.
I love how uh uh Mr.
Rosenberg goes to the wealth effect as well.
I want to frame out what we talked to Torsten Slock about.
Real GDP, which is being buoyant by the wealth effect, maybe with a little bit of add-on inflation.
Where do you see nominal GDP for the next chairman?
John, we go out two meetings, then there's like one or two or three meetings.
October 29 is a dead meeting because of the election.
Where's nominal labor day-ish in America?
Yeah, you're gonna be sitting 5%, a little bit higher.
Wealth effect, John.
That's what we call this.
Rosenberg's right.
Yeah, I mean, and the and the wealth effect has been really important for the past couple years, partially just because it has broadened out beyond just the the very wealthy.
This and this this is a a consumer where younger people are involved in equities, more people, even though they they don't have the lion's share of the equities, they are still more invested than many years past.
So it's a it it's helping a big part of America, of course, not that bottom of the K, which just continues to be.
And yet, by some measures, by some measures, conference board, consumer confidence hasn't been lower in the last decade.
Explain.
Yeah, conference board was was weaker, you miss was stronger.
I think the net of the two is a consumer that feels bad about the uh the their the price level in the economy, which is something that cannot be changed easily by any means, but they're largely employed and they they they don't like the policy uncertainty.
So they're they continue to spend because most of them are employed and continue to make decent wage gains.
They also have the wealth, they benefit from that wealth effect.
But when you ask them how do you feel about the economy, it's perhaps not great.
Well, maybe four or five percent nominal GDP is not what it used to be, that it's not a lay as labor intensive, that this growth is coming from tech capex spend that did not change in the lives of everyday Americans, at least not now.
Isn't that a good explanation as to what's going on?
Yeah, I think that's part of it, and also concerned about the future prospects because we all know AI is gonna have important impacts on the labor market.
You continue to see headlines about job cuts.
The thing is, at this part of the year, there is often headlines about job cuts, and everybody gets scared in January about the labor market because they see all these headlines, and then it proves to be not such a big problem.
Jeff Rosenberg, I'm sure you're aware of Posen and Orzeg's mapping out of a higher inflation, a more resilient inflation.
What does your bond world do if we get inflation resilience?
So a big part of that, Tom, is in the term premium, right?
The Fed and what we saw in 2025 was that the short end of the yield curve, shorter maturities were very responsive to policy rates.
It came up in the press conference today in the question about long-term interest rates.
And Powell basically admitted that you know longer-term interest rates are going to be a function.
He focused on the fiscal policy uncertainty, but there's more than that.
There's real interest rates, the whole other picture to AI is an incredible shift in investment demand.
That raises real interest rates.
And the inflation piece to your question, Tom, is about inflation risk primia.
And as you move further out in time, there's more time for that uncertainty for all those reasons to pot to affect inflation.
And the bond market impact is a steeper yield curve, reflective in nominal space of greater inflation risk premium.
I mean, I look at this, Jeff, and the the question of where we are, and this goes back to dollar analysis of the last couple days, is it's very nonlinear at some point.
If I looked, you know, to look at the benchmark 10-year yield, how close are we to a point where you get accelerative tendencies if we unwind that would be lower bond prices, higher yield.
Is it 10 beeps away?
Is it 30 beeps away?
Is it a fiction that's just out there somewhere?
Yeah, again, it can't kind of came up in the context of the recent volatility in JGBs.
You know, is there a nonlinear uh event for the US bond market?
Um, you know, it's a different market, it's much bigger, it's much deeper.
There's a lot more impact in terms of price and substitution effects that can happen.
He talked about it in terms of the fiscal side.
It, you know, the the debt level is sustainable, but the path is unsustainable at some point.
You know, no one really knows where that point is.
We we used to talk about it in the context of small open market economies, around 100%, 80% debt to GDP.
That's a very different setup than for the U.S.
economy, and we don't really know.
Uh I I would I think it's a much longer term process in terms of building a risk premia slowly and less of this kind of tipping point argument.
But we don't really know for the U.S.
bond market what that will uh what that will look like.
Jeff, I'll ask you a direct question.
I asked this to Tosen Slock of Apollo in the last hour, and he said no.
Do you have a decent understanding now of this Fed's reaction function?
Um I mean, I I don't know if it's as as clear as as no.
I mean, I think that they shifted in the summer, and Waller was ahead of it with regards to the payroll side, the labor market side.
Uh they were validated in that shift by the slowdown in the labor market.
And they told us today that slowdown market in the labor market is kind of stabilized.
So if you look at the response function, at least for consistency, they paused the cutting, and they appears to be justified by the reduction in the downside risk to the labor market.
So to me, that kind of validates a little bit of what we understand about their response function of this current Fed, that they are more keyed in on the labor market risks than they are on the growth side.
And the growth side is being upgraded at the same time.
He talked a little bit about that.
So I think we're still getting, you know, some view into that response.
Well, let me put it another way.
Let's say growth picks up in the way that Stephanie and Torsten are looking for.
And let's say inflation picks up alongside that.
Do you have an understanding of what they will or won't do later this year?
Well, he kind of answered that one as well, at least from Powell's perspective, is that no one has trying to find my notes on this one, no one has rate hikes uh in in the expectation.
The economics of an uptick in growth and an uptick in inflation, you know, might otherwise say that.
But yes, in terms of the response function, it's still asymmetric here where they're looking, you know, to be stable or maybe looking for economic reasons to cut, but not looking for uh an economic scenario where they're raising interest rates.
And folks, I really want to say if Jeffrey Rosenberg here with Stephanie Roth is important because they both uh carry uh their day-to-day work with a lot of humility.
Where in your head is the unemployment rate where everyone involved goes, oops.
It's not 4.6, 4.7 or that.
Is there a Stephanie Roth unemployment rate where the dialogue radically changes if we get that?
Yeah, if you start to shift towards 5%, then the the dynamic.
Good round number, 5%.
Good round number, 5%.
Is that 5% now the same as it was a 5% 10 or 30 years ago?
I don't think it is.
No, I don't think so either.
In what way?
Describe describe to our audiences here worldwide why 5% all American unemployment rate now was you know 7% unemployment rate back when.
Yeah, it it's it's structurally shifted down over time, in which case because the the labor market dynamics have have changed materially.
The econom the the what keeps us in full employment today is is not the same as as as what we were.
So therefore, if we're sitting at 5%, that's a that's a much riskier environment than than what it would have been.
John, you live this in Coventry with the auto business in the United Kingdom.
I just watched the the destruction of Eastman Kodak yesterday.
Great YouTube video.
It's like walking through my childhood.
But that world is gone when it was a 7% unemployment.
And now we're walking around happy with a 5% number.
Well, the things built on that, Tom, I think we have to confront a new risk.
You bring up the old manufacturing hubs, the basis of, say, the United Kingdom and for that matter, Detroit here in the United States.
That's what globalization did to manufacturing.
And the risk now that we have to confront in the West at least is whether AI is going to do that to services, what globalization did to manufacturing.
Do you think it was a brief acknowledgement there from the chairman in that news conference, just to give a little nod to the prospect of a reduction in jobs, at least in the short term, because of this new technology?
Yeah, I think that's fair.
And I guess that that is the risk in the future that we end up with a structural shift higher.
Because before it was, you know, a backdrop where globalization and manufacturing help to sort of bring the economy into today, we're a much more developed economy than we were, you know, of course.
Then that's the risk that we see into the future that you that we end up with a structurally slightly higher unemployment rate.
But I'm not convinced that it will end up being quite that.
I think there's an environment where you end up with job gains as a result.
I think that's the problem being a policymaker right now.
I'm not convinced of anything, and I'm not sure they are either.
Things have changed.
We asked Bob Michael at JP Morgan, your former colleague, the question a little bit earlier.
What's more important for the outlook for the economy now?
The spending numbers from these big names that report in about 20 minutes time in the next hour, or the payrolls report that we get every first Friday of the month.
And he's pointing to tech capex from the major tech players in the United States.
That has completely changed the conversation.
How do you set policy with traditional macro indicators when what's driving the economy right now is something else?
So I think what's driving markets is of course AI, and that kind of is required to continue moving ahead in order for the US economy to be okay.
If Tech Cap X started to slow down materially as a result of AI, there was a whatever reason they decided the return on that investment wasn't quite as high.
The US economy would still be okay.
We're not in a at a place where AI is so ingrained and important into the economy that if it were to that, if those dynamics were to change the economy, we'd be in big trouble.
We estimate that the domestic share of CapEx uh is of AI-related CapEx is at one and a half percent of GDP.
Housing is, you know, a little over three, so it's not that ingrained yet.
In a couple of years, if this continues at the pace, then the conversation is different.
Well, Jeff Rosenberg, let me ask you a Stephanie Roth question.
I think it it fits in here fine.
And that is if you look at the labor upset that's out there, John and I are overwhelmed every day with emails talking about fancy people at BlackRock and Wolf Research, talking about AI this, AI uh that when does the central bank just have to address with these two Americans?
When do they address two Americas?
Uh it it's it's a great conversation.
It came up again in the in the press conference.
And I think Powell did a really nice job in in addressing what we don't really know, and we don't know what that impact is is going to be.
But he also critically added this component this comment on this is not something that Fed policy is well suited to, right?
So if we want to address labor market frictions and disruptions, that's much better suited to other government policies than the broad cudgel of monetary policy.
I want to just come back to your earlier conversation and just make one other point that the wealth effect that we were discussing, it's a double-edged sword.
So while the CapEx impact that Stephanie was talking about, well, point well taken, the wealth effect, if you were to have, you know, a challenge to the valuations or concerns or repricing, the benefits that we've seen can also, you know, turn into uh headwinds.
And so we should just be kind of aware of that fact of the AI micro impact to the macro economy.
Jeff, I just want to avoid the rant, but we have got a few more minutes.
I get frustrated when we say things like the Fed can't do things about certain situations when they've contributed to them themselves.
And I'm talking specifically about say inequality and the K-shaped economy.
Jeff, haven't they contributed to that problem?
Uh yeah, it's it's one of my favorite uh discussions.
And you know, it goes back, you know, Jonathan, even in the comment that I just made, you know, how does the Fed address these things in their policy framework?
It's financial conditions.
And and and the Fed does affect financial conditions, and they are affected by financial conditions.
And so, you know, when the Fed made a policy choice back in the GFC through the portfolio channel to try to address the challenges of the collapse in the housing market, they kind of pushed up into their transmission mechanism toolkit, transmission through financial conditions.
And so that's really the problem that we've been inheriting for the last two decades.
Uh, and so, yes, it is something that they're part of.
It's it's part of Besson's, you know, criticism in the gain of function, and it's part of the kind of you know, future potential for Fed policy review of, you know, how do we how do we extract or how does the institution extract itself from those things?
At a at a simple level, it's it's what should the portfolio look like, what should the holdings look like?
Should we still have mortgages?
And that's one example of how you could, you know, change some of those functions in a in a new policy setting.
Rantover, that's the challenge for the next guy.
Jeff is good to see you.
Jeffrey there of BlackRock.
I'm Barry Rittholz, inviting you to join me for the Masters in Business Podcast.
Every week, we bring you fascinating conversations with the people who shape markets, investing, and business.
CEOs, fund managers, billionaires, Nobel laureates, traders, analysts, economists, everybody that affects what's going on in the market, whether you own stocks, bonds, real estate commodities, crypto, you really need to hear these conversations.
Sometimes it's behaviorists like Dick Thaler or Bob Schiller.
Sometimes it's fund managers like Peter Lynch, Bill Miller, Ray Dalio.
Sometimes it's authors, Michael Lewis, author of The Big Short, and Moneyball.
Regardless of the conversation, these are the folks that move markets each week.
That's the Masters in Business Podcast with me, Barry Rittholz.
Listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.