00:00:00
Dan Loney: And a pleasure to
welcome to our show, as always,
00:00:03
Wharton Emeritus Professor of
Finance, Jeremy Siegel, who is
00:00:06
also chief economist at
WisdomTree. Jeremy, will be
00:00:10
joining us on the final friday
of every month moving forward,
00:00:13
to give us his sense of the
markets, the economy and more.
00:00:17
Jeremy, great to talk to you
again. How are you, sir?
00:00:20
I'm fine. Thank you, Dan.
00:00:22
So as we are recording this, we're a
few days away from the August 1
00:00:26
deadline that President Trump
has put out there on raising
00:00:29
tariffs on the EU up to 30%. Lot
of discussion about that, on the
00:00:35
impact that that will have, or
could have, if it actually goes
00:00:39
forward, on both sides, actually.
00:00:42
Yeah, absolutely. And the impact
is negative. I've always
00:00:50
believed and still believe that
the tariff impact is negative,
00:00:55
even though the results on the
real economy and inflation so
00:00:59
far has not yet been seen.
That's because most of what has
00:01:03
been sold has been sold out of
inventory that was purchased
00:01:07
before the tariffs. Now I'm not
saying that the tariffs mean
00:01:12
disaster in any way, or even
recession, but they do mean a
00:01:17
slowdown for economic growth.
And you are right. As we're
00:01:20
recording this, we don't know
what exactly Trump will put on
00:01:24
on August 1. My feeling is
that all the organizations
00:01:30
negotiating in, quote, "good
faith," will get an extension,
00:01:35
and those who have not yet come
to the table will probably get a
00:01:39
slapped-on tariff that would then
be reduced once they start
00:01:44
coming to the table. We
really don't have a lot of full
00:01:49
trade announcements to be made.
Trump has been promising, you
00:01:53
know, those trade announcements
for a long time, and they've
00:01:56
been precious few. But it does
mean that they happen in
00:01:58
negotiations. And I think many of
them are virtually done,
00:02:06
subject to their own
government's approval. I do
00:02:12
think it's going to take GDP
down from what it would be
00:02:17
otherwise. Cut a point, point
and a half from GDP over the
00:02:20
next year, year and a half, add
a point to two points on
00:02:24
inflation. That's not
disastrous, but it certainly is
00:02:30
a negative. It doesn't mean that
the stock market can't continue
00:02:34
to do well, because there's a
lot of other, you know, positive
00:02:38
factors in the economy that are
offsetting the tariffs.
00:02:42
What do you see as those factors?
Because it has been kind of
00:02:45
unique to watch the markets over
the last few months to see, to a
00:02:50
degree, the resiliency that's
been there.
00:02:53
Yeah. I think a very
positive factor, first of
00:02:56
all, the tax cuts. They were,
many of them, made permanent.
00:03:02
There's much more certainty
there in terms of what we had
00:03:05
before. Going forward, they are
positive for capital formation.
00:03:10
And secondly, the AI boom.
There's a lot of opportunities
00:03:16
for firms. And I think I
mentioned this before, that can
00:03:23
use AI to offset some of the
increased cost of tariffs and
00:03:27
offset them. So we may be at the
verge of sort of a revolution
00:03:31
of productivity where firms are
going to really— they have an
00:03:36
excuse now for laying people
off. Either you produce, you
00:03:41
learn how to use AI to help in
the position, or, unfortunately,
00:03:47
we don't need you anymore. So
that could raise productivity
00:03:51
growth. AI has recovered,
certainly. You know, it looked
00:03:56
like it was down and out in
February. I mean, throwing
00:03:59
Trump's reversal on Nvidia, in
terms of allowing them to sell
00:04:03
chips in China, you know, has
been certainly positive for
00:04:07
Nvidia, but it's also been
positive for the entire AI
00:04:10
sector and tech sector. So the
tech sector has recovered its
00:04:15
steep losses. The rotation that
looked like it was happening in
00:04:20
the stock market towards those
value stocks really sort of
00:04:23
reversed. AI is back on top. I'm
not giving up hope on those
00:04:28
other stocks. They're valued
very, very well, but they have
00:04:32
to start producing profits and
using AI in order to up their
00:04:38
margins and increase their
earnings.
00:04:42
There's been a growing
level of discussion, switching to
00:04:44
the Fed, about what we will see
with the leadership of the Fed
00:04:48
over the next several months. We
see Chair Powell has his tenure
00:04:53
into 2026, but a lot of
discussion around that. What are
00:04:57
your thoughts on the work that
he has done, and what we need to
00:05:02
see moving forward from the Fed
and from the leaders of the Fed?
00:05:06
Yeah, now let me say I've been
teaching monetary theory and
00:05:11
economics for almost a half a
century. I know how important
00:05:15
the independence of the Fed is.
Yet it might be surprising, I
00:05:20
actually went on news media last
week and said I actually think
00:05:28
that Fed— that Chairman Powell
should consider resigning. I got
00:05:35
a lot of resistance, of course,
and I expected it, but I do not
00:05:39
see a win-win for Chairman Powell
now. I mean, if the economy goes
00:05:42
down, he'll be blamed even more.
Trump will remove him. The
00:05:46
Senate will be much more
sympathetic, saying he didn't
00:05:49
lower interest rates, and in
fact, could ask the Senate for
00:05:54
more powers to restrict the Fed.
Don't forget that the Fed is a
00:05:59
creature of Congress and can be
modified by Congress at any time.
00:06:03
If, on the other hand, the
economy booms, you know,
00:06:06
Trump will be taking all the
credit due to his Great
00:06:09
Big Beautiful Bill, his tax cut, his
deregulation, and his tariffs.
00:06:12
So, I mean, it sort of tails, the
Fed and Chairman Powell go down,
00:06:17
and heads, hey, they come out
even. Those aren't good odds.
00:06:23
He's also going to be, you know,
replaced in 10 months anyways.
00:06:26
He may— if a successor is named
earlier, he becomes a lame duck
00:06:31
even—even sooner than that. My
preference on the— on the front
00:06:36
runners to replace Powell, it
would be Kevin Warsh. I'm
00:06:43
impressed with him. I always— I
have been. I know Kevin Hassett,
00:06:49
by the way, very well. And
personally, I don't think he
00:06:52
would be as good for the Fed as
Warsh. Warsh has been on the Fed
00:06:56
and has a tremendous amount of
institutional knowledge about
00:06:59
the Fed, and I don't agree with
everything that— that he said
00:07:03
about it, but I agree a lot with
what he said of it. So we're, you
00:07:07
know, we have a— we have a good
person in the wings. You know, I
00:07:12
don't know how— now it looks
like any member of the Fed that
00:07:16
votes to lower rates is bending
to Trump. Let me say the following.
00:07:21
I want Trump to own this
economy, good or bad. I
00:07:24
don't want a scapegoat. I don't
want him to have a scapegoat in
00:07:26
order to blame— blame the
Fed, they didn't lower rates.
00:07:30
That's why things didn't work
out. If he named his own person,
00:07:33
he can't use the Fed as a
blame. Certainly not as
00:07:37
effectively. You know, he wants
to set the economic
00:07:41
agenda. Let him own all the
failures and all the successes
00:07:47
that his policies entail.
00:07:50
Before I let you go, let me
quickly ask you about the path
00:07:52
on rate cuts and what you think
we're going to see play out for
00:07:56
the remainder of this year.
00:07:59
Well, it depends completely on
the economy. I mean, if Warsh
00:08:03
comes in, let's say, or even Hassett,
there will be faster rate
00:08:08
cuts. I don't think the final
position will be much. I think
00:08:11
many of the models I look at are
talking about Fed funds
00:08:15
eventually to 3%. The economy is
holding up, to be sure. I do
00:08:21
not think it's appropriate for
the Fed to tighten when there is
00:08:27
tariffs that add to the cost.
That's like tightening because
00:08:31
there's a tax increase. That's
not what I think is effective. I
00:08:35
think they should be
looking through the tariffs, and
00:08:38
we do see a slowing economy.
There's no question, GDP growth
00:08:41
is slower, labor growth, market
growth is slower, and it looks
00:08:48
slower in the second half. So
given that it's slower, I think
00:08:51
the Fed funds rate should be
around 3%. Now, it's not going to
00:08:55
be changing next week, the
meeting. And everything else
00:08:59
really depends on whether, you
know, Chairman Powell hangs on
00:09:04
and— but most importantly, do we
get slowest in the— in the labor—
00:09:09
labor force really seeing that
payroll go down near zero or
00:09:16
even maybe negative, if the
economy slows down sufficiently.
00:09:21
You know, it weren't for state
and local increases last month,
00:09:27
and that would be— you know,
we're talking about the month of
00:09:30
June, we actually would have
seen almost no growth in the
00:09:33
private sector at all in terms
of employment. So we haven't
00:09:36
seen that slow down. I think the
Fed should be reacting to it. I
00:09:41
do not see any recession on the
scene, at least at this point.
00:09:46
Jeremy, always great to talk
with you. We will catch up with
00:09:49
you again next month.
00:09:50
Thank you
very much, Dan.
00:09:52
You've got it. Jeremy Siegel, Wharton,
Emeritus
00:09:54
Professor of Finance and Chief
00:09:56
economist at WisdomTree.
