Closing Bell - Closing Bell 1/21/26

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

From the open to the close, “Closing Bell” and “Closing Bell: Overtime” have you covered. From what’s driving market moves to how investors are reacting, Scott Wapner, Melissa Lee and Michael Santoli guide listeners through each trading session and bring to you some of the biggest names in business. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to closing bell. I'm Scott Wapner live from Post 9 here at the New York Stock Exchange, and we begin this final stretch with breaking news. Stocks rallying after President Trump says he has reached the framework to a deal with NATO over Greenland and will no longer impose tariffs on Europe that were set to go into effect on February 1st. The president also saying earlier today during his speech in Davos that he would not use force in Greenland. Stocks were up on that as well. And we will hear from the president himself momentarily from his interview with CNBC's Joe Kernan. First, let's go to Washington and Amen Javvers for the very latest. Amen, it would appear once again the art of the threat is especially powerful.

Yep, and in this case, the art of backing off the threat, Scott. What we're seeing from the President's Truth Social Post is a further de-escalatory signal. I want to call your attention to two words in the President's post. He says, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland. I would just circle the words framework and future there. and say there's some questions that we now need the answers to in terms of exactly what is this deal with respect to Greenland. Does it imply some sort of U.S. ownership, some sort of U.S. occupation or participation in the governance of Greenland? What exactly is that? And our Joe Kernan will have the chance to ask the president for any specifics on that. But also importantly for Markets,

Scott, as you know, and you just said, the president says, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. So that's. a relief to financial markets watching this tariff escalation between the United States and NATO countries. Yep, there's no doubt about that. The interview, as you said, moments away between Joe Kernan and the president. You'll see it. Amen, we'll talk to you on the other side of that for more of your reactions, but the market's reaction is clear, and we are rallying. Not quite getting everything back from yesterday's sell-off, but nonetheless, as we begin this final stretch today, we do have a pretty sizable move on Wall Street. Let's talk more about that with our panel today.

Solis is Dan Greenhouse and CNBC contributor, High Tower, Stephanie Link. Also with us, 314's Warren Pies. It's good to have everybody with us, Dan. I'll begin with you first. Ignore the noise. This screams that more than anything else. We're kind of used to this. I was all prepared to come on today and say, what are you talking about?

We're not invading Greenland anytime soon. This is a negotiating tactic, a la everything that we've seen over the last year. And then, of course, that's what ended up happening. I don't mean to say that in terms of I have some great foresight. It's just I think I've been paying attention to this president for the last year. So I don't think it's that you don't have to pay attention or ignore the volatility. It's just that the market has not learned its lesson in terms of pricing and worst case outcomes when those are unlikely to come to pass.

Are we back, Stephanie Link, in some respects to where we started this year as with a pretty good runway for the stock market, this volatility and this news and the threat and the fear, notwithstanding? Yes, we are absolutely back. there are always puts and takes, Scott, in the markets, and we're coming off of three amazing past years of 18 to 23, 24 percent in the S&P 500. High expectations, of course. But at the end of the day, each time we've had a scare on geopolitics or tariffs, it's been a buying opportunity. And the reason is because the economy is doing really well. Better than what most people have been

expecting at 5 percent GDP. We have a trillion dollars of $1,000. monetary and deregulation yet to come into this economy. The Fed's balance sheet is expanding. We had three cuts from the Fed. That's a lagging situation. So we should see a little bit of support there. Maybe we get one more or two more. Who knows? And then the most important thing in my mind is productivity. It is skyrocketing up 4.9 percent last quarter at the same time unit labor costs fell 1.9 percent. That is a, that's a recipe for kind of Goldilocks, if you will. Earnings are set to go higher. They already have been pretty good so far and expect more to come. Warren, we're back because the backdrop's favorable. That remains the bottom line, which people

yesterday in the midst of the sell-off were trying to focus on. And that Tony Pascarello of Goldman Sachs is keenly aware of, as he says today, quote, U.S. equity should be supported by a macro outlook that's inherently favorable. Yet risk reward remains tricky until we see better levels. In the I suspect the tactics of navigation this year will favor the buying of dips as distinct from the chasing of rips. This remains a buy-the-dip market, doesn't it? Yeah, that's our position. I mean, everything Stephanie said and laid out is exactly in line we're seeing. I mean, Q4 earnings, we've been pointing this out, a seasonally accelerated from the end of Q3.

And so that portends a very strong earnings year. I think the first half of this year is what we're calling peak Goldilocks. the three vectors of inflation that we watch are really still dormant. I mean, it's labor market, housing market, shelter inflation in oil. I just don't see any near-term inflation risk. Now, I do think, and we're bullish and overweight equities, and I think that's kind of going to be the theme of our roundtable here. But what I would say is when you look at the last Liberation Day, about of this type of drama, these are not totally risk-free moves that the president does. If you look at the yield curve coming off of the last Liberation Day, it did. It did,

level shift up. It went from like 30 basis points, two, tens to 60, 65. And what that tells you is that you start inserting in drips and erosion of confidence in the U.S. assets, asset base. And so that's a higher term premium. I don't think it's a problem, but we come out of this. Yeah, equities are back to basically where they're at, but the 10 year is now at 425. We started this somewhere around 415. So it's something to pay attention to. Yeah, Dan Warren makes good points. There are still unknowns. There are still risks.

A framework isn't a deal. But nonetheless, you try and focus on what got you here in the first place. And why so many other parts of this market had started to move higher as the year had started. The Russell, as we were just talking about in the prior hour, among those averages and the places in this market that had really started to do well. Yeah, mid caps as well. I don't think people realize that since the end of the third quarter of last year, midcaps and the equal way. I mean, the S&P is trailing any number of ETFs, not the Q's per se, but the RSP and the MDIY, which is midcaps, the IWM as well. So you've had a broadening out,

but I agree with a lot of what Warren had to say. And one thing I want to just focus in on is the oil price, which obviously has come down for multiple years now. I don't think people, generally speaking, pay enough attention to how much oil matters for broader inflation. Obviously, you've got the labor market and housing, et cetera, et cetera. But with oil, Oil prices continuously moving lower. It's an enormously powerful downward press on inflation throughout the economy. And yes, oil has moved a little higher more recently owing largely to geopolitics, but largely speaking, WTI in the 50s, if you will, is pretty accommodative for inflation. Steph, you know, it almost feels a bit glib saying, as I did to you,

so we're back, as if none of this had ever happened. But there was never a belief in many corners of this market that the worst of scenarios would take place in the first place. And that all of investor focus should be on the fact that we just started earnings season, and it's expected to be pretty good. And we're going to be focused on a Federal Reserve that's going to be cutting interest rates. And the economy is going to end up growing a lot faster than people thought. Yeah, and we care about the economy growing because what it means to earnings. And earnings could be as high as 16, 17, 18%.

Don't ask me. Ask Ted Pitt, who was on this morning from Davos, and he was wildly bullish. He's the CEO of Morgan Stanley, as you know. He talked about the environment being excellent, that the lights are pretty green right now, M&A, wealth management, IPOs, corporations being healthy, consumers being healthy. Yes, high end, but that's what we, that's what happens. It's been K-shaped for a long time. And we've done all of this, Scott, without a housing cycle. Just imagine if we do get a housing cycle because we know there's a multiplier effect to have, right? You have to buy stuff inside, outside, and an auto and that sort of thing.

So that's what I'm waiting and watching for. But I like the broadening out that we're seeing. I think earnings estimates, the companies that have reported so far, the estimates are going higher, including most of the big six banks. And that's very healthy. They're at the front line of the economy. If they are active, the economy stands a chance to continue to accelerate. You know, Dan, some have been hung up on the price of stocks, the fact that the markets

multiples 22 times historically a bit rich. I thought Kathy Wood today on the halftime report said something quite interesting where she expects a good year for stocks, double-digit returns. She thinks multiples will contract, but productivity is so strong, similar to what Steph is talking about, that it doesn't matter, that in prior. bull markets, multiples can contract and stocks can still go up a bunch. Yeah, this is, you and I talked about this on air for years now. Yes, the market's expensive, but relative to its own history, but it was expensive when it was trading at 17 and 18 times, and people told me that the market

multiple was too high. And it was expensive when it was 20 and 21 times, and people told me the multiple was too high. At the end of the day, in a bull market in general, but specifically one that's powered by the type of tailwind that AI is providing right now throughout the market, industrials, financials, utilities tech, obviously. multiples don't matter in the short term. And I know someone somewhere is going to clip that and say, Greenhouse said multiples don't matter. They do matter for long-term returns.

But in the short term, they have very little determinant, if any determinant on forward performance. And again, you need to only go back one, two, three, five, ten years to see that when the market's been expensive, forward returns, now realized returns, have been quite attractive. Warren, do you have a thought on that? And let me just also say we're moments away here from this interview with President Trump and our own Joe Kern. And so I may have to interrupt you at any moment to go to that. But do you want to entertain that question?

Sure, yeah. Actually, our call is that multiples will expand modestly this year. And that's just because when you look back through history, if you get, we have right now set in according to analyst estimates, and I think that they're going to be roughly correct. We have 90 basis points of margin expansion for the S&P 500 and the Fed is going to cut two to three times this year. Go back in history and find me a year where multiples contracted under those conditions. You just can't do it. So I do think that the nature of this market has, has changed and that's pushed valuations higher. Margins continue to go higher.

The quality of this market is much better than it has been. If we get RIC return on invested capital through across the cross section of companies, you know, I mean, you can get all. I'm going to interrupt you now because CNBC's Joe Kernan, as I said, just wrapping up his interview with President Trump. Let's listen. Mr. President, it's great to see you. Thanks for the time.

Nice, you threw away all my questions. One question I had. We did this five years ago. I don't think you reflect too much because you're looking forward, but can you believe what's happened in the world and what's happened to you over the past five years? I just can't help but think that it's been just something to reflect. It's incredible the five years of me. Thank you very much.

It's been a great ride. We've had a lot of fun, and nothing's easy in life. But you keep at it. We have a tremendous economy going right now, And we have a country that's the hottest country anywhere in the world. And this took place over one year. We just celebrated the first years, you know. Here's how I was going to stop.

And so you get it's very compelling in terms of talking about what you've done in the first year domestically, but also very compelling in the case you made about Greenland. So I was going to ask you, did you see any of your European cohorts nodding? But I guess I don't have to ask that now because of the news that breaks very quickly. can you go into what you just talked about at the NATO meeting? Well, we have a concept of a deal. I think it's going to be a very good deal for the United States, also for them. And we're going to work together on something having to do with the Arctic as a whole,

but also Greenland. And it has to do with the security, great security, strong security, and other things. The mark of 600 points, getting back a lot of some of the nervousness we had in the last couple of days. The tariffs are off. nothing happens on February 1st? No, we took that off because it looks like we have pretty much a concept of a deal. A deal of ownership, a deal? Well, it's a little bit complex, but we'll explain it down the line.

But the Secretary General of NATO and I and some other people were talking, and it's a kind of a deal that I wanted to be able to make. Where does Denmark, did they weigh in on what they want, what they would agree to? Well, I assume they did because he very much represents. He's a strong leader. Mark, you know, Mark, Wuta. And I assume he's been speaking to them. He's been speaking to all of them.

Are mineral rights involved? Is ownership involved? Did the Golden Dome sway people? I don't want to say yet. The Golden Dome was very compelling today when you talked about that. Yeah, the Golden Dome. They're going to be involved in the Golden Dome. And they're going to be involved in mineral rights and so are we.

Is, you can't, it's not specific enough to know at this point how long this lasts, Well, whether it's... Forever. Forever. It'll be forever. For Greenland at this point. Yeah. Forever.

That's staggering. That's better than a 99-year-old. This is, what, two hours after... It's better than the Obama deal with the famous Iran nuclear deal with a nine-year, with a nine-year deal. Now, this is forever. This is a long-term. I mentioned that you, you could have come over here and just talked about what you wanted to... Before you left, I think you wanted to talk about it.

you wanted to talk about the progress that you've made in terms domestically with the economy and everything else in the United States. And you didn't have to talk, I didn't think you had to talk about Greenland, but you're always moving on to the next thing. Well, I didn't. And the speech I gave, I talked a lot about Greenland because we needed for security, and now we're going to have even better security, I think, that I would have had before. And it, I know how you operate. I know that you didn't take force off of the table, but all long, I think if there was going to be a war, it was going to be a trade war. Is that fair to say? I think so, you. I don't think, I don't see us fighting with NATO, NATO. You've done so much

to try to strengthen NATO, I'm sure you don't want to see the dissolution of something you work. It's, I'm proud of NATO from the standpoint. Look, I brought them up from 2% to 5% of GDP. They're paying a lot of money. They pay us a lot of money because they buy missiles and they buy a lot of things. Unfortunately, Obama gave them $350 billion for Ukraine, which was just terrible. I mean, the whole thing was terrible. We should have never happened. That's a war that should have never happened. But they paid a lot of money, and I don't know if you know, but I signed a rare earth deal with Ukraine to probably get most of that back, maybe more, more back than we haven't. But what they did, they were just giving out money like cookies to a child.

I know how much you've done this. I'm going to bounce from thing to thing. When we talked about geopolitical concerns today, we also mentioned Iran. And I made the point that I never thought that Greenland, that geopolitical events would include an actual shooting war. Iran's a different case. It could be terrorists, which you've already announced for Iran. Could be further action than what we've already seen in Iran. Most people think that you probably prevented the loss of, I don't know how many lives for some of the person. Thousands, thousands, more than that.

Was that the end of the story, though? Well, they had one thing specifically that really got me. They were going to hang, hang, the old-fashioned hanging. They were going to hang 837 people on Thursday. And I told them, you can't do that. If you do that, it's going to be bad. I don't want to go exactly what I said, but nasty. And they canceled it, hopefully permanently.

Those tariffs are still on, including China. Is China responded to the 205% for anyone who does business with run? And that will go forward. Yeah, that's going forward. That will go forward. There are assets moving into the Gulf, obviously, carriers and other things. So a lot of people are wondering whether that's a prelude to further action. Well, we hope there's not going to be further action, but, you know, they're shooting people indiscriminately in the streets.

And they were going to look, this was a big thing for me. They were going to hang 830. Hang. Right. 837, mostly young people. When you did successfully hit Fordo, you've got a lot of grief from the Democrats for doing it. Now the grief is, oh, you promised to do something in Iran. Now they want you to do, or they're at least finger pointing.

You said you were going to help the protesters, and now you're not. So you can't win. Well, we had, look, we had, of course, again, I mean, if I came up with the cure to cancer, they'd say, why didn't you do it faster? If you walked on water, you can't swim. Yeah, it's, look, they're sick people. They really are. They are, we call it Trump derangement syndrome.

Should we stay tuned in Iran? I guess that's my question. I guess. I mean, look, it's a rough place. It's a place that we hit very hard with the nuclear, ending the nuclear. They would have had a nuclear weapon long ago. It's actually already. They would have had a nuclear weapon probably a month after we hit, had we not hit.

And we hit them on the B2 bombers. We just ordered 25 additional B2 bombers. They were unbelievable. Those things are, they were totally undetectable, they were undetected. And think of it with no moon in the dark of night, late in the evening. Every single one of those bombs in the Giants, every single one of those bombs hit at Starch. And just obliterated the place. So we're going to find out where they are now about what they're going to do with nuclear.

They can't do the nuclear. You know, the one thing I've been strong on, they can't do the nuclear. Now, this attack that we did at the time, which is now a little bit, older than what happened in Venezuela recently, which was equally as good, but the attack in Iran, if they do it, it's going to happen again. They've got to stop with the nuclear. You know, they keep experimenting with nuclear, and, you know, at some point they're going to get the idea that they can't do that. They're just not going to be able to do that. Can't let them have it. Something else that we might find out in the near future is the replacement for J-PAL.

That's true. I just saw Mr. Hassett, who I have a pretty good relationship with it. He's fantastic. I like actually keeping him where he is to one another truth. I don't want to listen. He's so good on television. On CBC would be a great time to give us more. Are we down to two now?

Are we down to – I heard Rick Reeder had a strong – I'd say we're down to three, but we're down to two, and I probably can tell you we're down to maybe one in my mind. Did Rick Reeder impress you in recent? Very impressive. Yeah, he's been there for – Because for a while, the betting markets had wars in the lead. Well, Rick is very good.

They're all good. You know, all three are good. All three would be, I think, good. We have a problem with a man that's there now. He's too late. He's always too late, except when it comes to politics for the other side, where he was actually too early. Another one, I, first I know you have a great deal of admiration for as your Treasury Secretary. Yeah.

He made the point that. By the way, he only wants to stay where he says what that. He's fantastic. but Scott only wants to stay where he is. His point, as a real estate guy, some people say you always want lower rates. But Scott made the point that if you have productivity gains, whether it's from AI or whether it's from Big Beautiful Bill, whatever it is, that you need a Fed chairman that can't get too agitated about a hot GDP number.

In other words, we might be at a point where we could run nominal GDP of 8% or, you know, after inflation five and a half, but that doesn't mean that it's inflationary and that you need to raise red. So if you consider it someone that could be like a greenspan in the 90s? Well, that's what I want. I mean, right now, if you announce great numbers, the stock market goes down because they say, oh, they're going to raise the rate, they're going to kill it, which really stops you from having any great runs, and we want to have a great run. So we're going to be at five and a half or something. They're predicting, I don't know, it's much higher than they thought. But let's say we're at five and a half. We could be a 10 or we could be at 12, we could be at 15. But immediately

when they announced good numbers, now in the old days, you're too young. In the old days, you think I am, but you know, you're looking. You look good. Whatever you're doing. But look, Joe, in the old days when you had a good run, when you had, you'd announce good numbers and the stock market would go up. Now the stock market crashes every time you have good numbers because I think everyone's going to raise rates. And growth is not a cost. a big cost of inflation. In fact, it can go the other way. So look, we've had tremendous growth and we have almost no inflation. For the last three months, we have 1.2% inflation, and yet we've had tremendous growth. Do you, at this point, have plans for what you would do,

and you said you won't fire J-Powell? Let's say he decides, I'm not going to be pushed around. I don't like the way it was treated. Whatever he decides, and what if he decides to stay on the Fed? He doesn't need to leave when he's no longer. That could create a block of four people that still vote. We just, you know, in this world, we live with the cards you dealt. And if that happens, his life won't be very, very happy, I don't think, by doing it. I think he wants to get out. He has not done a good job.

He's done a horrible job on buildings. He took a small little complex, the Federal Reserve complex. I could have redone it. I could have fixed it for $25 million. bucks that would have looked beautiful. I think he's up to almost four billion dollars. Yeah. The most expensive project ever built per square foot. And he's either incompetent or he's crooked, I guess, right? But, uh, so we'll find out. So if he stays, he stays. If he doesn't stay, doesn't stay, does it. Do you know what would satisfy? He took, he took this job. Yeah.

And they're up to almost four billion dollars for a little. a little building. I'm building this massive barum. I'm way under budget. It's going to cost less than $400 million. I was going to cost maybe $300 million for this massive project. He spent, I just built, you know, recently, relatively recently. I built a hotel, the now the Waldorf in Washington.

And I spent like $250 million. It's a much bigger complex than the Federal Reserve and much more complex. So I say, how do they spend, three to four billion dollars on this little thing. I could have done it for $25 million, and it would have been nicer than what they're doing. Does Tom Tillis, and I know that he's not going to be a senator much longer, but he probably could prevent someone from being voted on while this subpoena is still an issue.

Are there just a couple of, do you know anything about what would be necessary for Chair Powell to answer for to where this would be withdrawn? No, I mean, I don't know about Tom Tillis, but, you know, he's not going to be a senator too much longer. But you figure, whomever you nominate is going to have an easy... Whatever. I mean, whatever it is, you know, life, whatever. Whatever happens. Because we don't have a lot of time, I was going to needle you a little bit about Senator Elizabeth Warren and a meeting of the minds. That's something that wasn't on my, that wasn't on my plate. She was very happy with this phone call, I'll tell you.

Now, look, you won't be having a lot of policy discussions with her other than that. But credit card companies are getting 28%, 30%. These people don't know they're paying that. Right. And I said one year cap of 10%. And I love it. I know it's sort of like,

it sounds like the mayor of New York party maybe came up with that, but people are paying, they can't make it, they can't pay 28. You know, whatever happened to usury, they can't pay 28%. And so I said one year, I'd like to see a one-year cap of 10% with the credit card companies. And they'd understand that.

I've had calls from credit card companies, people that are friends of mine, actually. And I treat them good. I respect them greatly, but they make a lot of money. They've got to give people a break. 28% interest. You know, people go out and they buy something, and if they're a little bit late, they're paying 28%. They end up filing for bankruptcy. So I would like to see that happen.

So there's, I guess, we're getting toward the end, but there's classic conservatism, there's populism, and I guess there's common sense. Are you, is that how you would describe some of the steps that you may? I mean, there's people that call it statism or that we're getting too involved with managing the private sector? I think I'm conservative, but I think I'm common sense. You know, it's like people say, are you a conservative? I say, yeah, but I'm a common sense person. I mean, I do things that aren't necessarily that conservative sometimes. And like men and women's sports, okay, people think it's wonderful.

I think it's a horrible thing. I think it's a ridiculous thing. Open borders for everyone so that everybody's prisoners can pour in, where they come in from the Congo, where they come in from all over the world, from Venezuela. And by the way, we picked up 50 million barrels of oil the other day from Venezuela. We're going to sell it at the market price. We're going to give some to Venezuela. We're going to keep some.

That's going to be great. You know, we're getting along great with Venezuela. They have tremendous oil and oil reserves and other things, too. And 20 years ago, Venezuela was sort of a pretty hot country. And now it's going to be maybe hot again. By the way, they'll make more money with us than they would have made in 25 years. All these things that the 10% on the credit cards, It's not allowing corporations to buy single-family homes.

They were gobbling up all the homes. It's aimed at affordability, I think, at this point. It's also aimed at common sense again. But they were buying up all the homes. People couldn't buy homes, you know. You have these big companies, these big corporations, buying up thousands of homes and renting them or doing whatever they do with them. Some of them are flipping them for a big profit.

But it got to be too much. Too many. It became, you know, it's good investment. And we're not saying take them away, but we're saying that we don't want that. We want people to be able to buy a home. It's been a long day for you, I know, and energetic, more energetic than I am right now. Thank you for the time. Thank you for the time, Mr. President.

Thank you, thank you very much. Okay, you're welcome. All right, that the President of the United States, of course, in our very own Joe Kernan in Davos. They began speaking on the news of the moment, the news that has moved this stock market decidedly in the late afternoon. what the president has called the concept of a deal with NATO over Greenland, something he put on social media earlier, the framework to a deal, called it forever when he was questioned about what this will actually look like. Earlier said he would not use force in Greenland and reiterated that, of course, with Joe saying, I don't see us fighting with NATO. He also commented, and quite extensively, on the Fed, not only the current state of it, but on the future of how, it may look and who the next Fed chair might be.

I like keeping Kevin Hassett where he is, said President Trump, said, we are down to maybe one in my mind of those who may succeed, Chair Powell. He was asked if Chair Powell stays what that would mean after his term ends. He said if that happens, he won't be very happy. And then, of course, he repeated his criticisms of the Fed chair, not only of his policymaking, but of the building renovations. Let's bring in CNBC's Amin-Javours and CNBC's senior economics correspondent, Steve Leesman.

Amon, you first. Do you want to react to some of what the president had to say here? Yeah, absolutely. First of all, I mean, what a moment for Joe Kernan to have this interview in the middle of this global market-moving news to be able to ask the president questions about it and press for some answers. The president said he's got a concept of a deal. Joe asking him for specifics on what exactly was agreed to here in terms of Greenland.

He said the president said it has something to do with the Arctic as a whole. He called it pretty much a concept of a deal. Joe pushed him on the idea of, is this going to be U.S. ownership of Greenland? And the president said, well, it's a little bit complex. We'll talk about it down the line. So the president not committing to any specifics of the deal that he's agreed to here that seems to have ratcheted down tensions. Also, not necessarily saying that he spoke directly with Denmark.

He said Mark Ruta of NATO has been consulting with Denmark on this deal. The president not saying that he himself had spoken. anyone in Denmark or in Greenland on the deal, but saying that the deal, whatever the specifics of it are, the deal will last forever. Another point I think, Scott, we should talk about is the tail end of that interview, where Joe asked him about the sort of the strange horseshoe effect, where you have the president pushing for caps on credit card interest rates and aligning himself with Elizabeth Warren on that. The president acknowledging the sort of the political oddity of that moment, he said, you know, this is something where you could, he said, he

I know it sounds like the mayor of New York came up with that. Obviously, a Democratic socialist he's talking about there, but he said people can't make it. They can't make their payments. He said, I've had calls from credit card companies. They make a lot of money. They've got to give people a break. So the president here putting himself squarely in the populist economic camp and not really afraid of the political fallout of aligning himself with Zoran Mandami or with Elizabeth Warren on this credit card issue

and saying he's rebuffing some of the credit card and bank CEOs who've called him to complain about this. I was going to say populism sells on both sides of the aisle, as we have learned over the years. Amen, thank you very much for that. That's our Aiman Javers. To Steve Leasman now, Steve, the points that the president made regarding Chair Powell, not only staying, but who the next chair may be, and that comment about Kevin Hassett, I like keeping Kevin Hassett where he is. We're down to maybe one in my mind on who this person's going to be who sits in that chair next. Yeah, hats off to Joe trying to get the name out of him. He couldn't quite get there. I will needle him when he gets back to New York about that. I think it's interesting. Joe asked the president about Scott Bessett, and he said, Scott only wants to stay where he is. And I don't know what you want to do with that, Scott. But I will tell you, there is still speculation out there that the president believes the best person for the job is Scott Besant, wants Scott Besant to have that job, but Besant doesn't want it.

Question becomes, you know, who is the president have in his mind? Who is that person? Are all three still there? And how close is the president to making that choice? I was a little bit unclear when he said, I think I have one or whatever his exact words were in that case. It wasn't clear the president has made up his mind already. The question, I suppose, in part, is, does the president want a loyalist? in that role, or does he want somebody as well who is viewed in a certain way by the financial markets? And I ask you that because Kevin Warsh and Rick Reeder, who are, we believe, among those that are still on that list, maybe one of the names that he has settled on, would certainly fit the bill of the latter, maybe more than the former.

Yeah, I think it was interesting what he said in his speech at the World Economic Forum, where he said, they turn on you, or they go their own way, which is, I think, a recognition by the president that he can't have everything he wants in this regard, which is why, by the way, the Cook case I was covering today was maybe so important because the question is whether or not he'll have an ability to have a majority of his appointees on the board. But, Scott, I think what the president wants is somebody he can trust to do his bidding of lowering interest rates. but I'm not sure that the president is now in a place where he can get anything he wants. This issue with the Federal Reserve, with the investigation of the Federal Reserve,

the criminal investigation of the Federal Reserve has changed things a bit in terms of the president's ability to get through any candidate he wants through the Senate. All this on a day when the Supreme Court is taking up the issue of whether the president can fire Lisa Cook. We didn't even get to that, but that also is significant in what the future makeup of the of the Fed may look like. Yes, not only significant as to the individual case of Lisa Cook, but also in terms of the future ability of the president to fire with what kind of cause.

The Supreme Court, I would say most of the conservative majority was skeptical of the president's ability to fire a federal reserve governor based on relatively flimsy cause here. And that was sort of clear. Even Chief Justice Roberts asked, what if it was inadvertent? And there was concern about the independence of the Fed from the president's actions at the Supreme Court level. And it seemed clear to me they were not going to rubber stamp what he did.

They may yet send it down to the lower courts, keeping Lisa Cook in her place. All right, Steve, thanks for your insight there. Steve Leesman. Dan Stephanie and Warren Pyes are still with us. The Dow right now is good for a 600-point gain, but we do have better than 1%. gains for all of the major averages. I think what we have learned here, too, Dan, from hearing from the president with Joe, we don't know many details behind whatever the concept of a deal or a framework of a deal may look like, but details be darned in some respects here as well.

And they have been from the outset. Do we really know what many of the alleged trade deals look like? No, didn't matter to the market. As long as the issue of extreme tariffs were off the table, we're good. Yeah. And I think more or less. That's right. The most likely outcome here is that we strike some deal to have a greater U.S. presence, access to middle rights, perhaps a boots on the ground, so to speak. We don't actually invade and take over Greenland. We don't actually annex it or anything like that. Hearing the president say that, obviously, a bit of a relief to market participants who thought that might be the case. But yes, details be damned. The details don't matter. The overriding theme is that the worst case outcomes in terms of the implementation of new tariffs and the potential threat of armed invasion, if you will, are taken off the table. Steph, do you care who the next Fed share is going to be? Not really. I care about more about what the economy is going to do.

And I'm in the camp. I'm not even sure we really do need to cut. It would be nice. I want housing to really pick up the slack and contribute to the overall economy. But I think all four of them are doves just to lesser degrees. I think the main point, Scott, is the market isn't like a unknowns. And we're now getting clarity on three of them, right? We have green land. Yeah, okay, we have to get the details. We will eventually. Tariffs doesn't look like there's anything new there.

That's good. And now he's maybe down to one. He's going to make the announcement at some point. Then we can move on, focus on growth, focus on better earnings, focus on the rotation that's happening in the marketplace, which is really very exciting. So many opportunities out there. And that's what I care more about. And Warren, we believe that no matter who is next in that chair, rates are going lower before they move up. Yeah, I think that the key distinction, though, is how much the market trusts whoever Trump nominates to be the next Fed chair. And to me, there are some big differences in the potential candidates.

You saw that. I think the selloff really started here in recent days when the betting odds started to flip to Warsh. And I think that the market, he has something to watch for. You know, just getting cuts without trust in whoever is the Fed. chair is not going to transmit into the long end of the curb, into the housing market, into those areas that Stephanie is talking about that are getting restricted right now. And that's what I think Trump really wants to affect.

So he should really focus on credibility. I don't think he's going to take my advice. But that would be my advice. It's focused more on credibility. And, you know, I like Chris Waller, I think he's been spot on on his macro predictions. And the market would have a very positive response to him in the race market in general. That's my two cents. All right, Warren Pies. Stephanie Link. And of course, Dan Greenhouse. Thanks to everybody.

We'll see you soon. We'll have much more reaction to CNBC's big interview with President Trump. Fundstraz, Tom Lee, is standing by. We get his take next. Well, we have a concept of a deal. I think it's going to be a very good deal for the United States, also for them. And we're going to work together on something having to do with the Arctic as a whole, but also Greenland. And it has to do with the security, great security, strong security, and other things. Oh, that was President Trump speaking with our own Joe Kernan just moments ago in Davos. The market rallying on that news that a framework to a deal with NATO over Greenland has been reached. Joining me now is CNBC contributor Fund Stratt's Tom Lee.

Tom, it's great to have you react to the president and what's happening in the market. So a framework to a deal, no force. All is well now for the Bulls? Scott, I think so. you know i'd say on monday morning before the open i think investors were very concerned about greenlands and and what's happened in japan and they thought of 20 you know 20 25 when it took eight weeks for stocks to find their low you know down 20 percent so i think there was a lot of fear so today's news really does do a lot to diffuse a lot of that anxiety and i think it's wise to buy

that too yeah i mean as part of this of course the president also saying no tariffs on europe on February 1st, and that's what really upset the market. Are you still looking, though, Tom, as positive as you might sound for a bare market sometime around mid-year? That's right, Scott. I think we have been pretty clear that we think that there is going to be a mid-year hiccup. It could be around policy or it could be around the new Fed being challenged. but that's coming from us markets being at a higher level and i think one of those mistakes people make whenever they hear that commentary is they think it means to go to cash now as you know we've advised to stay invested and to buy the dip but yes uh there is a lot of good taking place in

2026 but we do have a lot that's already been pricing because of three good years of market means what dip would you be buying specifically uh well for instance I would be buying the dip on companies that have good earnings visibility or a structural reason to be long because those that got sold yesterday, for instance, they're still the same great company. They were just 10% cheaper. I mean, to me, that's the stock I'd want to buy. The names I'd want to avoid are companies that are in the bull's eye of White House policy. Because we know last year, the White House picked winners and losers, you know,

created problems with health care and consulting companies. This year it's credit card issuers, you know, institutional buyers of single family homes, and it's, you know, some countries too. So I think that's the stocks to avoid, but I think fundamentally strong names you still want to buy the debt. I mean, it's complicated, though. You say that. You don't know who's in the so-called bullseye next. That's one of the problems.

100%. You're right, because if the White House decides that there's a company or a series of companies that are creating problems for Americans right now, whether it's credit card bills or electricity bills, you know, there could be action. As you know, one of the potential, quote, risks is data centers and their consumption of electricity. So that is something to launch. I mean, you're going to, you know, you're going to say, don't buy the homebuilders because what if the home builders, he doesn't like home builders building homes and charging the prices they're charging. I'm just saying that's a, it's a slippery slope to start going down where, in your words,

you have an administration picking winners and losers. It certainly complicates the picture a bit, doesn't it? I mean, every administration picks winners and losers. You know, Tom Block, our policy strategies has pointed out that's what Washington's talent is that they tend to pick winners and losers. But we do have a White House that is quite ambitious. They've accomplished a lot, but they're trying to accomplish a lot. So you're right, that's the risk. And perhaps one of these is enough of a tipping point to cause a broader pullback in markets.

I mean, that's another possibility for why we'd have a drawdown that feels like a bear market. But you still feel as though whatever upset we see or feel is going to be reversed and we end up having a pretty strong year? Yes. You know, in 2025, that 20% decline did not lead to a recession. And as we pointed out that since 1950, waterfall declines that are now followed by a recession, and particularly of VIX hitting 60, have been symmetric recovery. So I think if we have a, you know, six-week drawdown, investors should itself.

As unless they're great at timing, we can recover all of that loss within six weeks. And we are expecting a really strong finish for the year. So I think it's just to. Where does the Fed? Where does the Fed factor in to all of this? You heard the president with his obvious criticism of the current chair, Jay Powell, and some commentary on where the next chair may come from. How much does this matter to your outlook?

It's important, Scott. The Federal Reserve is a single most important entity in the world, and its independence is incredibly important because markets respect the Fed and they actually hear the Fed. So the independence matters. the process and Steve Wilson made some good points. I think we're at odds increasing that it's a Fed that'll be respected because the multiple things taking place of the Fed now kind of limit how the White House can proceed to pick the Newport Chair. And actually that's probably a good thing.

Tom, we'll leave it there. Appreciate you coming to the phone and reacting to this interview between Joe Kernan and President Trump. It's certainly the market reaction to a day where the headlines have certainly moved in favor of a positive outcome, if you will, between the United States and NATO regarding Greenland. We'll do the Market Zone. We're now on the closing bell market zone. CBC senior markets commentator Mike Santoli and ARIUS asset management, Kerry Firestone, are here to break down these crucial moments of this trading day. And what a trading day, Michael, it has been. We're not getting everything back, of course, from yesterday, but a sizable portion of it.

Yeah, I mean, obviously, you know, a. Aside from the potential rupture of the post-war Western alliance, the main thing that the market was consumed with was this idea that we're going to go back sliding into escalating on tariffs. Maybe that's off the table right now. It did seem that the most spring-loaded response to that de-escalation post by the president came in the stuff that was under the most pressure. So before that, the market had been trying to rotate away from danger into the old familiar banks and industrials and energy and things like that. And then once we got a little bit of clarity, we weren't going to have to. have to worry about this policy flux as much as we thought. It was the kind of NASDAQ 100 stuff that springs back. So you mentioned we didn't get it all back. It's not a full round trip.

You know, it's sort of one of these situations where we think that's what was bothering the market, but is it all that was bothering the market? Well, it's certainly a sizable portion of. In fact, let's listen to one of the exchanges between Joe and the president on the issue of Greenland and what apparently was agreed to today. We took that off because it looks like we have pretty much a concept of a deal. A deal of ownership, a deal? Well, it's a little bit complex, but we'll explain it down the line. But the Secretary General of NATO and I and some other people were talking, and it's a kind of a deal that I wanted to be able to make.

Mike, we took that off the president, said that being these additional tariffs, which is the thing that certainly one of, which really is. upset the markets. We figured we being the market investors had moved past that issue. We had already worked it out in our minds as to what the tariffs were going to mean. We don't want to have to go through this exercise again. Yeah, I think that explains a lot of what happened yesterday, which was this notion that we may have to start to think about that friction point again in the markets. And by the way, you know, over the course of the day, you also had the reports that the EU was saying that maybe we're not going to stick to the trade deal that they had sort of framed out before. So I do think that, look, you sell the threat, you buy the de-escalation.

We know this pattern is in there. I think it's from here where we see exactly how it proceeds. If it just remains this rotational market, if you get some relief in some of the megas, or if we're just going to kind of churn around here and wait for other shoes to drop. All right, Michael, I'll let you run, get ready for the top of the hour, of course, when you and Melissa Lee will take things over. talk through the events of this day and look ahead to the days ahead in the context of what we have learned. Carrie, it's good to have you here. Your thoughts on this market and what we've learned from this interview

with Joe and the president. Well, it's been a fascinating couple of days, that's for sure. I think that what we've seen in addition to this question about tariffs and what's going to happen when they're going to do is that we keep bumping up toward the highs and we get there and there's a backing off. And what we saw was what appeared to be a tipping point right as we're about to hit through new highs. And then there is this fear about what happens with tariffs or NATO or escalation. But you begin to wonder if there's something around the corner that keeps stopping us from getting through those highs because we've had three years in a row that have been fantastic years in the market, 25%, 25%, 18%, roughly. I mean, honestly, everybody's been saying 8 to 10% this year, that feels high.

It feels to us is that the market really isn't so sad on pushing through and back up another 10%. We've seen this movie before, quite obviously, and we're conditioning ourselves, and maybe we will even further, to ignore what some would suggest is simply noise. and the fundamentals and the backdrop of what got us here in the first place and what we think is going to take us to the next stopping point in this record-setting rally are still in place. Yeah, we're definitely in a good economy, right? We know that GDP is growing, they're going to be tax cuts, consumers have money, they're spending money. We also know that what's powered the market are the Mag 7 and Mag 7 adjacents that have moved us to where we are right now.

And the idea that we're going to move up another 10%, not on the back of those stocks, but on the back of the rest of the S&P, becomes tougher because the 300 names that are the bottom 300 in the S&P, I've been asking people all day if they could identify how big those are. That's 300. They're roughly the size of Nvidia, all 300 of those names, the size of one stock. So if you don't have participation from the top names, it's very hard to push the whole market higher without the rest of the market, the lower, you know, going up 30%, 40%, it just makes the math hard to work. Are we to assume that we are in at least for the near term renewed environment of volatility? I'd say right now we're back on risk on. I think Mike alluded to that. Right now, people are feeling good.

They don't feel as if we're going to have a war in the North Atlantic. It's pretty good for my four Danish grandchildren. And I think the market is, you know, enthused. We saw it react so quickly. But it worries me that we had that big drop yesterday. I mean, it was just, you know, like cataclysmic right there. And, you know, who knows what can precipitate it. But we're not going to have that tomorrow.

Tomorrow, I think we could, you know, continue to look good. What looks the best to you in the market right now? What's going to dominate the story? for the year in terms of returns. AI is going to dominate the story in terms of, you know, the environment. But what's going to lead, do you think, this year? All right. Well, I'll tell you a category and then I'll look at sectors.

So, as you know, I've said health care was going to be a top sector. We've not seen it great. It had a very good fourth quarter. It's the industries that figure out how to play ball correctly in this administration with this environment that we're in. And, you know, right now the energy companies are looking good because their stocks have been strong. They're concerned about what happens to them if the president has the price of oil capped at $50 or whatever is his choice. So if you can figure out how to manufacture your goods cheaply and sell them at a price that doesn't attract scrutiny, those are winners.

I thought Kathy Wood of Arc made an interesting comment today on the halftime report. when I asked her, why if she's so bullish on the AI story, and she owns some of the names that play right into it, she has around 1% positions in the hyperscalers, the metas and invidias of the worlds. And she has obviously had a history with her ownership of invidia. And she talked about the return of invested capital, that traditionally it's been so tremendously high for those types of companies. But now when you're spending all this money and you're not exactly sure about what the return on that capital might be, it could be a bit of a comeuppance in the way that you have to think about those names as to why she has what some would suggest are

smaller-sized positions for even somebody who's so bullish on the story. Yeah. And she probably had 10% positions in four or five of them two years ago, right? So I would agree that the return on that capital investment is a big issue. And when I grew up in the business at Fidelity, we all were under the impression. And we traded in a way that if companies were beginning a capital investment cycle of huge proportion, that was not the right time to own them. You waited until they began to see the return, the cash return on that investment. And that would not be this year. All right. I appreciate you being with us to react to this big day on Wall Street. of course, this very, very timely interview between our own Joe Kernan and President Trump.

The headline of the day is the framework to a deal with NATO over Greenland. No force being used, the president says. At least that's how things stand now. We don't have many specifics. But for this day on Wall Street, it was enough to spur the bulls. The Dow is going to go out close to 600 points to the height, not getting everything back from one day ago. But certainly on its way to doing just that. We'll see what tomorrow brings.

I'll leave it there, and I'll send it into overtime now with Melissa Lee and Mike Santoli.