View full transcript
HEATHER HEGEDUS: Hey, everybody, thank you so much for making the time to join us for another episode of Market Sense. I’m Heather Hegedus with Fidelity. Investors went on a bit of a roller coaster ride immediately following the midterm elections. So if you were following, initially, stocks moved higher the day after the election because the markets like certainty. We talk about that a lot here on Market Sense.
But the next day, concerns the new Congress and state officials might tighten regulations over data center development, contributed to a global sell-off and the NASDAQ briefly entering correction territory. But then the markets recovered in the wake of some positive jobs data. So it truly was a lot for investors to take in.
So joining us to break down the market reaction and talk about where we go from here now, including some of these continued questions that were raised about the return on investment from AI, we are thrilled to be joined today by Bradford Pineault. He is Vice President of Fidelity’s Capital Market Strategy Group. We’re also thrilled to welcome back to the show today Greg Lowman. He’s down in Washington, DC. And he’s a Vice President of Advocacy and Policy Communications in our nation’s capital office. And Greg’s going to be helping us unpack how the new balance of power could shape key policy, as well as the economy.
So I appreciate you both clearing your calendars to spend time to talk about these issues with us today. Certainly was an eventful week last week, and investors probably have a lot of lingering questions. And Greg, appreciate you making the time from Washington.
GREG LOWMAN: Of course. Glad to be here.
BRADFORD PINEAULT: Same here, Heather. Thanks so much for the time.
HEATHER: Today is Tuesday, November 10. Democrats have won control of both the House and the Senate. And we’re going to spend the first half of this conversation diving into the market impact in the second half, talking about potential economic implications. So, Brad, I want to start with you. Just briefly take us through this. And we don’t have to spend a long time on this, but take us through this whipsaw market reaction and where we are today now, where we find ourselves in the wake of all of this. And should any of these developments change investors’ strategies?
BRADFORD: Yeah, I think it’s a great question. It’s a great place to start. Again, thanks so much for the time. So, Heather, as you know, I represent a team of strategists here at Fidelity. And at the end of the day, we are compensated to be curious about what makes the markets tick. Nothing simple about it. But we think about the inputs to the output. Last week, this knee-jerk reaction to the Democrats showing up big in election night was that we started to see a bit more of this rotation out of the AI names into more cyclical names, more Dow-type equities versus NASDAQ equities.
And last week was more about the knee-jerk reaction to the election outcome. This week is more about the fundamentals. We, here at Fidelity, if you ask many of us, we’re all about the earnings, the fundamentals, generically. Stock prices reflect earnings. What we’re going to be doing over the next coming days, weeks, and certainly, over the next two years of this new Congress, is understanding if the earnings outlook continues to remain, let’s just say, strong and attractive.
What we should not lose sight of is the fact that this economy continues to be buoyant. We’re continuing to see economic vitality, economic growth. We’re seeing strong labor markets. We are seeing sticky inflation, elevated to be sure. We’re seeing interest rates slowly—
HEATHER: The inflation printout today showed that, right? New inflation data today.
BRADFORD: Well, by all means, right? So—
HEATHER: Yeah.
BRADFORD: —it’s sticky inflation. So this word “hawkish Fed” comes into play. And we can unpack this. But even on the Fed side of things, Heather, a Fed that is tightening as glacially and pragmatically as they are, could be synonymous with an economy that’s stronger, not weaker. Arguably, higher rates, higher yields are not a deterrent to economic activity. So we’re going to unpack what this outcome means for the markets. But we believe that earnings will continue to dictate the pathway forward.
Now, quickly, on the AI story, we’re going to talk a lot about it. Greg obviously has his finger on the pulse, what’s happening down in DC. But the data center issue that we saw unpack last week—I’ll be really short here—we know we don’t know with fair humility how this will play out. But the demand for compute around AI looks like it could continue to remain robust. And that tells us that this AI story is just digesting uncertainty. Welcome to the game, Heather. We don’t believe that uncertainty means that the AI trade is over. It just means that it could be more volatile, going forward.
HEATHER: Appreciate that setup very much, Brad, about the AI trade. And I wanted to ask you about that as well, Greg. There were about 40 ballot initiatives across the country aimed at trying to slow down the building of these AI data centers, certainly something investors are watching. It was a key issue in states like Texas. So this was a huge statewide election issue. But I’m wondering from you, because you’re down in our nation’s capital, what’s the talk in Washington about whether these election mandates could slow the buildout and even send this overseas?
GREG: I would say it’s helpful to put this into context. As you said, 40 of those 41 initiatives oppose some form of data center buildout or AI-related policy. And roughly 56% of exit polls demonstrated dissatisfaction of voters related to AI and that data center proliferation. So the voices of the American people were heard loud and clear. And yet, I think, in Washington, the news on the ground is, this administration is more of the same with respect to their unfettered regulation for the development of AI. And then, also, where this lands in the state-related efforts by governors and state legislatures seems much more pertinent to where zoning, permitting, and energy use policy goes.
I’ll say that the federal level still remains important for proposals that may become law in the next administration, or in a future crisis unforeseen right now. And just to Brad’s point on the demand continuing unabated, that’s where that affordability question comes in, I think, for a lot of policymakers. They were sent to Washington to deal with affordability. Well, how do I assure my constituents don’t have to pay higher energy prices as the demand for compute continues? And that supply could impact that.
And so that’s where, I think, you see policymakers questioning, well, is there a ratepayer protection bill, or is there some sort of unforeseen cyber issue? And that’s where the federal component could come into play. But right now, it’s very much just a state issue for the foreseeable future.
HEATHER: All right. We’ll be watching that. We know your team is watching that for sure on the ground. But we talked a little bit about the near-term market reaction in the midterms. I wanted to zoom out quickly and talk about what we know about what a divided government might mean for the longer term for the markets over the next two years, during the remainder of this Trump administration. Brad, what does our research show us about how the markets perform following midterms?
BRADFORD: So the research is very transparent. So we’ve actually been using a slogan, “Gridlock equals guardrails.” And the reason why we believe that to be the case—and Greg can attest to this—it’s going to be probably an unlikely probability that we’ll see significant legislation. There will probably be plenty of debate around all this. But the one thing midterms have been, historically, typically change elections. So we shouldn’t be completely shocked that we see this change in leadership. But they also represent clearing events.
And if you go back to 1942, the 12 months after a midterm—and again, this is all historical, so no guarantees going forward, ladies and gentlemen. But if you go back to ‘42, there has not been a down 12-month period, Heather, post-midterm. And I believe that to be true because these clearing events—and you’ve already said it—what they represent is an abatement of that uncertainty. Even if your political ideology doesn’t line up here, going forward, we believe more certainty is significant for the markets. The markets hate uncertainty.
The other point I would mention is year three of a presidential election cycle—so that would be 2027—tends to be the very best year throughout the four years of a presidential cycle. Now, why is that the case? Because, again, even though there could be gridlock here, those guardrails tend to be where we should see some type of, perhaps, negotiation, or, at the very least, no significant legislation that could maybe alter the fiscal outlook, for example.
So these numbers are pretty compelling. I do believe investors should continue to be cognizant of the fact that next year could be a decent year, despite all the unknowns. But this market likes to climb a wall of worry. And I’d say a significant notch from midterm to that third year tends to be an abatement of the political landscape. We know what the landscape will be. We know who’s going to be ahead of a number of these committees. And—Greg can attest to this as well—we know sometimes the character, the makeup of who these constituents are. So I’d actually argue that next year could be a decent year, despite all of this noise.
HEATHER: Markets like certainty. And believe it or not, gridlock is market-friendly. In fact, actually—also, you mentioned some of our historical data here at Fidelity, Brad—isn’t it true that when you look back at history, the third year of a presidency, like we’re in right now, or we’re about to enter into, has never seen the start of a recession?
BRADFORD: Well, it is true. And one could argue—my good colleague—give a shout-out to Bryan Sajjadi out there—he actually impact this data. And it’s interesting that you don’t see recessions in year three, all the way back to the 1940s. And let’s face it, recessions do change the whole narrative. We don’t see a recession for as far as our eyes can see. I can’t say that unequivocally. But there is, as I mentioned—coming into this midterm, the economy did have a number of buoyant variables that we should not lose sight of. And in 2027, it would be a challenge to see that alter or decelerate in a significant way.
HEATHER: OK, well, fantastic research there, Brad, to share. So AI was one of the key issues of this election, which we talk about, driving the market volatility last week. But also, during the midterms, exit polling found almost half of registered voters had cost of living was actually the number one driver of the way that they were voting during these midterm elections. So, Greg, I wanted to ask you if Washington has any plans, or can Washington do anything about this affordability issue that is clearly impacting Americans where it hurts the most? And that’s in their wallets.
GREG: Yeah, the incoming majorities in Congress, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, have not been shy in sharing their plans on day one. It’s often referred to in Washington as H.R. 1, the first bill they put forward, which is so symbolic of the approach they’re going to be taking. And they’ve made it very clear they want to tackle affordability across, really, three buckets—health care, energy costs through the Iran war and bringing that to an end, and then health care-related policy around restoring some of the elements of the Obamacare subsidies that lapsed, as well as restoring Medicaid cuts from the last tax package that President Trump pushed through in his first year of his second term on a party line basis.
And your point is a good one, Heather. What can they actually do to bend that cost curve outside of more messaging and noise? And I think that’s the reality right now of a divided government, is, basically, pretty much just on the margins. I think they’re going to have leverage in certain elements of these three buckets. And that’s going to come down to, historically, where we’ve seen grand bargains around must-pass legislation, government funding negotiations, where the Democrats have enough leverage, arguably, to say, we’re going to lie on the tracks for the restoration of Obamacare subsidies.
We’re going to not agree to a government funding deal unless you strip away elements of war funding. We’re going to pass a “stop the tariffs” and trade bill on Canada’s—on that policy for sure. The rest of the world remains sort of more of a hodgepodge of where tariff policy can still remain effective, particularly as it relates to China. But certainly, in Canada, the message was loud and clear there. And does the president want to get ahead of that with a trade deal? Do they have enough votes to overcome a presidential veto? You need 2/3 in both bodies to overcome that.
So, more questions ahead. But it’s not going to be a clear, unfettered path to bringing down costs, but certainly setting up for interesting debates for the next presidential cycle and what can be negotiated upon must-pass moving legislation, government funding, the debt ceiling, and authorization of force-type legislation that Congress must consider in the months and years ahead.
HEATHER: Yeah, I think the big question, as always, Greg, is, what’s aspirational when it comes to what the Dems might be able to accomplish off their to-do list versus what actually might get passed? So, Bradford, when businesses have to spend more due to things like inflation that we talk about all the time, and energy shocks like we’re experiencing, of course, that gets passed on to the consumer.
So if people stop spending, that ends up affecting businesses’ bottom lines and the stock market. But at this point, all signs point to a pretty strong stock market, as you said. And it has not impacted the stock market. How is that so, that affordability has impacted people’s votes, clearly, but it hasn’t dampened the economy at this point?
BRADFORD: Yeah, well, therein lies the conundrum. So the way we think about it in terms of affordability, that topic is not a new one. And to us, it really lies at the heart of inflation. So the inflation that ensued post-COVID, it was a very progressive and detrimental course. And there’s a lot of reasons why it happened. And we’re not going to look backward.
But remember, inflation would have to become deflation for the price of goods and services to actually go down. And what’s happening with oil and the Strait of Hormuz closure is, obviously, keeping things, in a very technical word, messy. It’s a messy situation when you have elevated oil prices due to a supply shock. And we know we don’t know when that may end. We certainly are all hopeful it does. But even so, we’re probably just going to see disinflation. Where inflation still remains high, affordability still remains an issue.
Now, to your question, how is it possible that consumption is still alive and well? Well, the way we think of it is, while there are households that are struggling under the weight of higher inflation or higher interest rates, the economy is not one consumer. It is the aggregation of many consumers. And as many consumers that might be challenged under this environment, we know there are plenty that might have money in the markets who actually are net savers, who appreciate higher rates for their fixed income needs, for example. So we are seeing a number of consumers thrive, as the stock market has done very well here over the past several years.
So we are seeing consumers, let’s just say, unhappy. But as we like to say, even unhappy consumers are just that. And I’ll tell you, Heather, I travel, as you know, 40 weeks a year. I’ve been at every state, except four. So that’s another story. But I will tell you, in my travels, spending time at airports, spending time in Main Street across pretty much every city throughout this country, coast to coast, and certainly, in the middle part of this country, these places are packed, standing room only. Restaurants on a Tuesday night, you can’t get in the door. Airports continue to remain crowded. We’re seeing retail sales across the board continue to trend higher, kind of defying expectations. But we do know there’s a lot of wealth.
I’ll give you one statistic, and I think it’s an operative one. If you look at household net worth, go back 10 years. The net worth for the 80-plus million households in the United States was $100 trillion. That’s a big number. But it’s doubled in the last decade.
HEATHER: Wow.
BRADFORD: Now, a portion of that is inflation. That’s a nominal number. But it just goes to show you that there’s a lot of wealth available. And you mentioned something else that I just have to pick out for a moment. You mentioned the strong jobs number that we saw on Friday. And we saw a strong revision to the two prior months. Those numbers don’t lie. The labor market is in a good position.
So think about this. You have a wealth effect that’s allowing maybe the top of the income cohort to spend more money. And you have a 4.1% unemployment rate, which is emblematic of a labor market that continues to remain buoyant. So no matter how you shake it, this economy is in decent shape. And as much as affordability is a real issue—we’re not going to sugarcoat it—it doesn’t seem to be a negative for the fundamentals of the companies that are represented in the S&P 500, or the stock market, more generically.
HEATHER: Right. Therefore, the stock market. Great explanation there, Brad. Really just fascinating macroeconomic situation that we’re in right now. Well, we can’t do a show about Washington, though, without talking about taxes. And Brad, investors have generally viewed the Trump-era tax framework as pro-business and supportive of corporate earnings, which we were just talking about. But now we have this new Congress coming in. Could this new balance of power, perhaps, lead to a less supportive business environment than the first two years of what we experienced during the beginning of the Trump administration?
BRADFORD: Yeah, so, factually, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—say that a few times quickly—we shortened it to the OB3. Greg, I don’t know if they do that in Washington, but—
GREG: Yeah.
BRADFORD: —we do it up here. So the OB3—there’s a lot of components, but I’ll just give the super high level ones—it really didn’t change the taxation at the corporate, nor the personal level. On the personal level, what it did, the biggest provision there was the SALT deduction, the State And Local Tax deduction. It increased that number so more people were able, in high tax states, to take advantage and actually write off that. So in some ways, it lowered their tax liability. We saw an increase of the child tax credit by about 10%. And there were a few other provisions. It also made permanent the lower taxes that we saw during the Trump tax cuts of 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the TCJA.
On the corporate side, what we saw, a lot of things, but the biggest one was the immediate expensing of CapEx. So typically, CapEx, ladies and gentlemen, if you have an asset with a certain life—let’s say a 10-year life for a piece of equipment—and that asset costs $10 million, you could write off $1 million each year for the life of the asset—in this case, 10 years. What this provision does is, it made permanent an immediate expense. So you could take all $10 million right up front, and you might say, why would you do that? Well, because it makes you look less profitable to the IRS as a corporation, and therefore, you have to pay less taxes.
So it’s been an incentive. It’s been a tailwind for companies, certainly in the AI space, to put money to work here because the government is inducing you, is incentivizing you to do it. Your question, Heather, about could we see that repealed, as a strategist, my sources would say, we could see it repealed. But will we? And I think, Greg, you probably have some insight into this. I don’t think that we’re going to see a full, let’s just say, taking away of that incentive because it does have to make its way to the president’s desk. And I feel like there could be a veto there. But it remains to be uncertain.
The bottom line here is, I don’t think there’s much we can do from a taxation perspective, either pro or con, in this next Congress. But that’s the way we see it from strategy. So it’s not something that we’re ultimately too concerned about, but we’re certainly keeping our eyes open.
GREG: I have to agree there—just stepping in, Heather—that the mandate we saw from this election was to try and reverse things that the administration was doing from an executive branch policy level. So you think about tariffs and trade, the war, and other energy-related policies, geopolitically.
And I don’t see, to Brad’s point, the ability to overcome a presidential veto or to get enough Republicans to join in on a filibuster-busting Senate Bill that raises taxes on any level of individual or corporation in the next two years. But it certainly could seed proposals for 2029, should a Democratic administration come into power and control Washington. I think you’d have to be clear-eyed about tax policy, progressive tax policy, to shore up initiatives, the fiscal situation, and other policy priorities.
HEATHER: So, not likely that it will be unfriendly to businesses and corporate, but something we’re watching. All right, speaking of the federal government’s balance sheets, another issue that both parties sort of are responsible for is fiscal deficits. Both parties have contributed to the fiscal debt. Every week, we get questions about this. So I wanted to ask you about that.
As the national debt continues to grow—you mentioned fixed income, Brad. Higher Treasury yields make the government’s debt more expensive to finance. So, do you see any realistic chance this Congress actually addresses this, Greg? And how much influence can Congress realistically have on the long-term debt trajectory, anyway, or isn’t so much of it driven by interest and entitlement programs, like Social Security, that it can be hard for them to really make progress on it?
GREG: Yeah, I mean, that’s the reality. We have a situation with a $2 trillion deficit where only 14% of it is non-defense discretionary spending. So that’s all the spending of how a federal government operates outside of the Pentagon. That’s roughly $800 billion. And whatever you thought about DOGE and Elon Musk’s attempt to eradicate the government from our lives and cut costs and personnel, he barely scratched the surface. And even if he did shut all of Washington down—planes couldn’t fly, food couldn’t be eaten because it couldn’t be tested—that would still only be 14% of the federal budget on an annual basis.
So it just goes to show, to your point, how critical those mandatory spending initiatives from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are to getting at this crisis, $40 trillion national debt, $2 trillion deficit and growing. And that’s 60% of that. And you’re seeing just the unpopularity of cuts to Medicaid. Certainly, nothing was touched in Medicare in the tax bill. And then, in 2032, we’re hearing 23% potential annual cut to benefits for Social Security.
So I’m not going to hold my breath for this Congress to navigate entitlement spending. But the conversations proliferate. There are bipartisan proposals, actually, to get at Social Security. But I am struck by how often it comes down to an 11th hour negotiation in Washington around these critical and sometimes systemic issues.
It will certainly, I think, be fodder for, as I’ve mentioned, what the presidential campaign could lay out, and whether one candidate or another wants to make the case that I’m going to prevent a 23% cut to your Social Security by doing these variety of things. Because that seems to continue to be a concern we hear from Americans, our own customers and clients, as it relates to the Social Security cuts that are on the offing and, right now, six years away.
So that’s something we’re watching very closely. But no, to answer your question, entitlement spending right now, I don’t think, is on the agenda of this Congress, particularly going into a presidential election cycle. That is not how you garner the senior vote.
HEATHER: OK. Brad, I know you have a completely different view on the national debt. What do you think about whether investors should be worried about it, as investors? Not as Americans, but as investors.
BRADFORD: I think that’s a great distinction. In my view, just to be clear, I don’t have an opposing view to Greg. I would concur. It’s going to be very difficult for a newly-elected congressman or woman, given their two-year tenure. It’s only two years until they have to get back at it and ask for votes. It’s going to be difficult to increase taxes or cut spending for their constituency. So it’s going to remain difficult.
So, what you are getting at, though, is, we don’t necessarily believe that the debt is as much of a call for concern that maybe the media likes to talk about. So going forward, the way we’re thinking about the debt—and just one point of clarification, the outstanding national debt is right around $40 trillion. But if you think about the debt that’s outstanding to the public, that number is actually $32 trillion.
So what’s that $8 trillion? Well, the $8 trillion is money that the federal government owes to itself, namely Social Security trust—that’s over $4 trillion, for example—Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions. It’s not as if that money doesn’t matter, but we omit the $8 trillion from the actual debt number, because the public debt is what we think about from an economic perspective.
And the other thing I would mention is, we cannot talk about debt—any type of debt for that matter—in isolation. We actually have to compare it to the asset of the national economy, that being the GDP level. So think about this, Heather. We have a $32 trillion amount of public debt outstanding. We have a $32-plus trillion nominal GDP. That ratio is one for one.
If I was running for Congress going forward, what I would say is, it’s going to be very difficult to tackle the deficit and the subsequent debt level. But what we could do is accentuate the GDP. Well, how you do that? Well, GDP, at the end of the day, is real simple. It’s either population growth—which is something you really can’t control—or it’s productivity growth. Productivity growth, of course, stems through disruptive innovations, such as AI. Bring it back full circle.
So if we see productivity where the economy grows with the same input, if you will, that could grow the denominator in a debt-to-GDP ratio. Right now, our ratio is about 1, one for one. If it’s going to be sustainable, we have to grow GDP faster than we grow the debt level. Now, of course, we’ll all be bearing witness going forward, but that’s important.
One other analogy here—because I use this quite a bit with investors—to think about that debt relative to asset. Think about—if you have a mortgage. So if you’re out there hearing me, if you have a mortgage on a piece of property—let’s say your primary home—you would never think about your liability in isolation. You’d probably want to think about your mortgage relative to your asset. And that’s exactly how I think we should think about the fiscal sustainability of the national debt, considered debt relative to the asset. And I think that’s the best way to think about this construct going forward.
HEATHER: Interesting. It’s like finance 101. When you think of a corporation, you think of their debt relative to their assets. And our debt is secured by, arguably, the strongest asset in the world, the US economy.
BRADFORD: I would agree.
HEATHER: All right. We got to wrap this discussion. It’s just been so comprehensive. But just, I thought it might be nice to end, Greg, with what you’re watching down the pipeline right now in Washington, as we get ready to have this new Congress be sworn in 2027. What should investors be watching down the pipeline?
GREG: Just a perfect segue off that debt conversation, two points to look for. Before that Congress gets sworn in, the 120th Congress, in the first week of January, some of them are in town right now for a little bit of an orientation. So you’re seeing the selfies and pictures proliferate on social media. But they don’t have to deal with government funding on December 11.
And that is going to be an interesting debate on whether this Congress decides to clean the deck and say, we’re going to push a continuing resolution at status quo levels on a bipartisan basis, and just let the new Congress deal with it in the first quarter of the next year, or whether they try to lock horns and create a longer appropriations funding vehicle. All signs point to a CR that just pushes it into the next season. Amazing how the seasonal holidays will force people’s hands to get home. Also, getting people back to Washington who’ve lost races is a challenge.
And finally, I’ll just say—and Brad is going to be a much better expert on this—but the debt ceiling. We need a 101 from him on that economic situation. But that is going to have to be raised in, I would call it, Q1, Q2, probably more likely Q2 of 2027. We’re not in 2017, are we? 2027. And that is going to be a very tough negotiation. I think enough adults will be in the room to make sure we do not default on our obligations. But that is going to be one to watch, as far as what leverage the Democrats, the Republicans feel they have in that negotiation, with all the potential pitfalls of something we’ve never touched before on defaulting on our national obligations.
HEATHER: Yeah, folks might have forgotten that the government funding does run out in December because of these midterms overshadowing that. But interesting that you think that they’ll just punt that down the field, so to speak, Greg. Brad, I’ll get some final thoughts from you, too. How do you think investors should think about the market over the next two years from now?
BRADFORD: Yeah, so I say, first and foremost, just like we saw kind of a microcosm of last week, as an investor, don’t jump to conclusions. Even if your candidate didn’t win last week, candidates’ tenure, or, if you will, the new office tenure, is typically shorter than your time horizon. I think that’s an understatement.
We also would say, don’t let politics become your portfolio. What I mean by that is, focus more on the economy. Focus on the fact that interest rates are still pretty conducive. We have slightly sticky inflation. And then earnings above all else. That’s really critical.
Going forward, the AI story will continue to be, let’s just say, technically messy. I do believe that to be true. I’m expecting it to happen, but that doesn’t mean that the fundamentals are not improving. So every quarter, we’re going to hear from the hyperscalers, the big cap tech companies. They’re going to tell us how much money they’re going to spend. They’re going to tell us what they believe demand is. So every quarter, you should be looking at that, following along closely to see what the trend might be.
And then, lastly, as I said earlier—I’ll say it again—what we’re really looking for with this new Congress is, to what extent could that have influence over the earnings that we’ve seen trending higher over the past several years? That will guide our pathway forward.
HEATHER: I know you both will have your ears and eyes open. Thank you so much, Brad and Greg. We have to leave it at that. But very thorough discussion. Covered a lot of ground today. And you had some terrific insights. So, great job to both of you.
And to our audience, if you are looking for more market insights from our Fidelity leaders, we want to recommend that you bookmark Fidelity.com/MarketVolatility. And on that page, you’ll be able to find some articles from our partners at Fidelity Viewpoints about some of the latest market headlines and some guidance on navigating markets when they do become volatile. Plus, you’ll find some links to the latest Market Sense episodes there as well.
On behalf of Brad and Greg, I’m Heather Hegedus. We hope to see you right back here next Tuesday at 2:00 Eastern. Jurrien’s going to be back. And we’ll be talking next week with a, Greg, fellow Canadian like you, one of our Canadian portfolio managers who’s going to be talking about why he thinks Canada is entering a new chapter of growth. So that should be an interesting discussion. Have a great rest of the week, everybody.