Closing Bell - Closing Bell: 5/6/25

Episode Date: May 6, 2025

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, Jon Fortt, Morgan Brennan and Michael Santoli guide listeners through each trading session and bring to you some of the biggest names in business.

All right welcome to Closing Bell. I'm Scott Wappner live from Post9 right here at the New York Stock Exchange. This make or break out begins with stocks on edge today. A Fed decision less than 24 hours away now. No progress at all either on trade talks with China. We'll get to all of that but here's how the majors look with 60 to go and regulation. A defensive day really from the jump today. Utilities are the best performing space. That kind of says it all. The VIX pushing 25. YIX pushing 25 yields are steady the tenure though has been backing up lately and that is something to keep an eye on to plays into the Fed decision and the meeting obviously we'll get to all of that in a bit we'll also ask the Wall Street Journal's Nick Timmeros what Sheriff Powell might say tomorrow about the Fed's policy path and the current economic environment can't wait for that does take us to our talk of the tape today, the road ahead for stocks, given the big comeback and the very big issues still hanging over this market.

One of those, of course, being a trade deal with China, did get some insights into that today, both from the Treasury Secretary and the President himself. For that, we go to Eamon Jabers in Washington. Eamon. Hey there, Scott. That's right, in an Oval Office session where he notably

shifted his tone on trade, President Trump confirmed what Treasury Secretary Besant had said earlier in the day. There have not been negotiations with the Chinese on trade yet, although he suggested that the Chinese want to have such conversations. Now, in his appearance alongside the new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the president minimized the importance

of reaching trade deals at all. Since the President put in a 90-day pause on his tariff regime, the White House has been suggesting that intensive negotiations are going on with countries around the world, and a slew of trade deals could be coming soon, and the market has been waiting for those announcements. But now, the President suggests he's getting annoyed with expectations that he'll sign deals soon and suggested that he's happy

to keep current tariffs in place. I wish that keep, you know, stop asking how many deals are you signing this week? Because one day we'll come and we'll give you a hundred deals and they don't have to sign. All they have to do is say oh we'll start sending our ships right now to pick up whatever we want or to bring whatever we want it's very very simple and I think my people haven't made it

clear we will sign some deals but much bigger than that is we're going to put down the price that people are going to have to pay to shop in the United States now Scott the president also said something that really gives a window into his thinking about the trade war with China. In his view, a trade embargo effectively with China is not an economic disaster. Instead, in his view, it's effectively an economic tie because he says the U.S. won't be running a trade deficit with China if there's no trade. Scott, back over to you. I mean, the big comments really of the day came from the Treasury Secretary himself today,

Eamon on the Hill, right? Where he told Congress right then and there that no talks at all have started between the United States and China. It's one thing to talk outside of your arm in the air on the Hill, it's another to be sitting there. And he said straight up, there are no talks underway yet. Yeah, and Scott, this has been a couple weeks now, this kind of back and forth.

Are there, aren't there talks? Who's talking at what level? I mean, it's clear that there are no substantive conversations between the United States and China on trade right now. And if you put yourself in Xi Jinping's position with the last shipments of non-tariff goods having left or leaving China this week arriving in the United States you know within days you know there is a leverage point that Xi Jinping is going to have in this negotiation once tariff goods start hitting the shelves in the United States or maybe not hitting the shelves in the

United States as US importers dial back on their imports and there's a real supply crunch here. So if you're she, wouldn't you want to wait for that negotiating leverage to kick in before you have significant conversations with the President of the United States? Interesting headlines on both accounts. Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, right? From down in the capital area and then obviously in the White House. Eamon, thank you. Eamon Javers joining us from Washington.

Ed Yardeni joins us now. He is the president of Yardeni Research. Good to have you back. So what do you make of this, right? We're waiting and waiting and waiting with all due respect to the president, of course. We're going to keep asking, like, when are the deals happening? Those questions aren't going to go away. We'd like to have some answers sooner rather than later, particularly when it comes to

China, no? Absolutely. It would be nice to know. But I think the market's starting to get the idea here that there's going to be a lot of noise coming out of Washington. Today's message is likely to be different from what we're going to hear tomorrow and the day after. And I think the market's going to focus on the fundamentals. And the question is, is the economy resilient enough to handle this kind of uncertainty?

My bet is it is. I think that the consumer is going to continue to spend. And I think capital spending in some areas will weaken, but in the areas of technology and on-shoring, I think will be very strong. So you think we're going to get through this. Doesn't sound like you think we're going to have much more of a slowdown and certainly not a recession. Yeah, look, I may or may not have properly reacted

to this tremendous rebound we've had in the market. I think I was on your show on April 9th, and we were all kind of looking at this market just kind of going straight up. I was concerned about a negative wealth effect on consumers. I'm not worried about that anymore. I think we've recovered enough of what was lost that we're not going to have a negative wealth effect on the consumer. And I think the consumers are still doing quite well.

So, yes, I do think that all in all, the economy is going to be resilient. It doesn't mean it's not going to slow. It doesn't mean we're not going to have a short period of stagflation. I do think, for example, inflation rates are going to be rising here. But I think the Fed is going to do nothing. And I think in that environment, the reason they'll do nothing is because the economy is going to chug along with some more inflation. And then I think by the end of the year, things will ease off. Look, I think China and the United States have to get this behind them. In the New York Post, there's an

article today about some riots going on in China. Here in the United States the midterm elections are something that the Republicans have to start being concerned about. So I don't think we can go kind of day by day on this. I think we have to look at what is the interests of both sides. And the interests of both sides I think are going to be to get this on the way to being resolved by the summer. It's interesting the economy obviously resilient.

You point to the wealth effect as it relates to the stock market of course and the comeback that we've had from the S&P up 16 and a half percent from the April 7th lows. Now the other side of the wealth effect is knowing that you have a job and so far the labor market has remained equally resilient. But there is a question, though, going forward, the longer this plays out, as to whether it will, right? Absolutely. The labor market is the key.

I was a little bit disturbed to see initial unemployment claims jump up by about 20,000 last week. But a lot of that was New York State, So I think there was something funky in the data, but I'll be watching the initial claims week by week. But look, I think employers over the past few years found it pretty hard to get workers, especially skilled workers. They're not just going to willy-nilly start to reverse their laws. So I think they're going to hold onto it.

I think they're going to look beyond all of this noise and conclude that once we get past this, the outlook for the economy, for earnings is really quite good. But to participate in that, you've got to increase your productivity. So I'm still happy to the idea that productivity will continue to make a comeback. Let's bring in Truist Wealth Co-Chief Investment Officer Keith Lerner. He's here with us at Post 9. It's pretty sanguine on the situation. Are you?

A little bit less so, at least on a short-term basis. Our view at the lows was we were embedding a lot of bad news, right? We were embedding basically a recession that happened and I would say what are we embedding today? I think we're embedding the situation that Dr. Ed outlined, the economy that gets through earnings that push forward, but what we're seeing in the data is we're seeing global economic trends move down, we're seeing earning trends or revision trends start to move down, and then we look at the valuations of the overall market, the S&P, we're about 20 and a half P.E.

And that's what forward earning estimates where they are today. If you think about where we were at the peak, we were at 22. So today we have more uncertainty, we have earning revisions moving down, we have an economy moving down somewhat. So I would say the risk reward up here

is somewhat less favorable. I am optimistic longer term that we'll get through this, that technology will come through, but on a shorter term basis, after this big move back up, again, our view is the risk reward is somewhat less favorable. How about that, Ed? I mean, those points seem to make perfect sense, right?

We only can figure that earnings growth is gonna slow. We can only figure that the longer the tariffs remain in place, that growth is going to slow, yet with the rally back, the market might be expensive. Too much so, again. What do you say? I think those are all very good points. I think much depends on the time horizon

at which investors are thinking about the economy and about the earnings and stock market. I think increasingly the market is looking at 2026 and at 2026 this tariff issue is gonna be behind us. And if that's correct, I think, I think, and I'm getting confirmation from the market that with this tremendous V-shaped recovery we've had in the market,

the market's kind of thinking along the same lines. Remember, it was not too long ago that everybody was thinking that DeepSeq was going to deep six the earnings outlook for the Magnificent 7 because they were spending too much on AI infrastructure. I think everybody's calmed down on that issue, which is one of the reasons that the Magnificent Seven have made a pretty impressive comeback. But all relevant points for the next few months. But I think the market's looking beyond that.

Yeah, I mean, should investors look beyond that, too? I mean, that's that's the great conundrum that investors find themselves in. Yes, correct. It's so foggy, Keith, right in front of us, but we still think the sun's gonna come out. We do, because we think we're gonna get the extension of the tax cuts,

and we think we're gonna get the deregulation that was promised, and we think we're gonna get the overall better economic backdrop what do I do with that? Well I think timeframes matter. Are you a trader? Are you an investor? I think most of our audience I'd like to say probably skews on the investor side not to say there aren't traders here too but all right I think most of us think of let's think about the longer term not the next 10 minutes. Sure and that's how we think about it too. We're dealing with private wealth clients as well.

And what we try to do is focus on that long term, be anchored on that long term, and then we try to smooth the ride for our clients. So I think, again, on a short-term basis, we're slightly below benchmark equities. We have a little bit more cash, we're overweight utilities, but we're not at 30% equities or 30% cash. So we're just saying moderately relative to long-term targets, be a little bit less aggressive here. If you get pullbacks, we'd likely step in at some point.

But again, I think on a shorter-term basis, we're thinking the next couple of months, I think it's gonna be a choppy trade. If we come back down, we might get more interested in boosts and equities for the time being. Again, the risk-reward after this 15% move off the lows, we think is somewhat less attractive. Help set us up for our interview that's waiting in the wings here.

Nick Timoros, the journal, is going to join us in just a second. So Ed, what's the Fed going to do? Nothing. I think they've made it pretty clear. Fed Chair Powell has made it very clear that the Fed is in no hurry to lower interest rates. They're still biased to the dovish side. They're still thinking that interest rates are on the other side when they look at the Fed funds rate.

But on the other, they've also said, and Paul has said, that the tariffs, at least on April 2nd, turned out to be larger than expected. And then of course they were postponed. So it'll be good to get an update from Powell on Wednesday for how they're thinking about the impact of the tariffs. But we've already, we can almost be sure that there's going to be a pickup in inflation on a short-term basis because a lot of the indicators, the prices paid and prices received, survey data, which is really pretty good at telling us where inflation is going

short-term. I think we're going to see a somewhat higher inflation, and I think we're going to see some slowdown in the economy. So I think all in all, the Fed's probably going to do nothing. The unemployment rate should stay around 4.2, 4.3 percent, while the inflation rate, instead of 2 to 3 percent, could be 3 to 4 percent, all the more reason not to do anything. So I completely agree with Keith. He mentioned the word choppy. That's exactly the word I've been using since the beginning of the year to describe the action in the first half. And we started chopping at the downside. Now we're chopping at the upside.

Yeah, do you agree with that? I mean, they're certainly not gonna do anything tomorrow. No, it's all in what they say And I think bets are still being placed pretty heavily that June could be the time. Yeah, we do agree that they're in a hold in power. Our best guess is probably July. Maybe they cut 75 to 100 basis points, but they are in somewhat of a pickle and they're somewhat more constrained

because of that inflation. And it's complicated relative to the past. Normally if we're down 20%, the Fed comes in, that's a really positive environment for the equity market. One of the reasons that has held us back is less of a policy response from the Fed, less of a policy response from the fiscal side as well. I think that's important to our overall view.

All right, guys, we're gonna leave it there. Ed, thank you. Thank you. Keith, thank you, Ed, thank you. Got a lot going on up there right now. All right, what the Fed thinks about all of this will be top of mind tomorrow when Chair Powell meets the media following its decision on interest rates.

The Wall Street Journal's Nick Timmeros joins us now with some insights. It's nice to welcome you to our program. Thanks, Scott. No hurry, but bias to the dovish side. That's what Ed Yardeni just said. Is that square with how you think Jay Powell's thinking? Well, ask me again at this time

tomorrow I mean that's right this is a meeting where they will do nothing and where Powell has every incentive to say less. So I think the press corps will have its work cut out for itself at the news conference to try to get power to say anything

because I'm not sure why you would tie yourself in at this point you know the mistakes that the Fed made four years ago, yes they blew the forecast but it was really about tying yourself to a course of action when you didn't know just how things were going to go. So there's even less incentive now for the Fed to tie their hands in any way here. Interesting but you do point to what you think could be a lose-lose scenario. Those are your words from your piece in the journal today.

What do you mean? Well it's lose-lose in that, you know, I compare it to a soccer goalie during a penalty kick. You have to choose, are you going to dive left and focus on downside risk to growth? Are you going to dive right and focus on upside risks to inflation? A lot of people think that ultimately the Fed will focus on growth. The question though is when and the when matters, right? I think the issue here is that the Fed is off the hook for being blamed for a recession. If we have a slowdown now, I think people are going to point their finger at the tariffs.

But the issue for the Fed is still, you want to be blamed for making the recession worse than it has to be you know if inflation turns out not to be the thing that you have to worry about and So that's what I'm focused on here And I think you know the the debate that you've heard on the committee to the extent you've even heard one It's really just been Chris Waller making a more dovish argument that they can look through these tariffs I think the question is how broadly shared is that view that you can just look through all of this as a one time increase in the price level. Well, I mean, that's an important point you make.

Not just now, but you made it in the piece too. The emerging differences, so to speak, in what members of the committee might be thinking most especially about the timing of doing anything right. Right so you know Waller makes the dovish argument well Scott which is tariffs won't be inflationary and you can get on with cutting

as soon as you see the weakness in the labor market that's the dovish view what is going to nourish higher prices here it's not coming from 3.8% wage growth cooling job demand job vacancies. And that's the What is going to nourish higher prices here? It's not coming from 3.8% wage growth, cooling job demand, job vacancies down, labor openings down.

The reopening boom in 2021 wasn't just goods, right? We had imbalances in housing, which you don't see right now. We had imbalances in the labor market that you don't see right now. So it was economy-wide imbalances, and this is concentrated just in goods. What is going to sustain higher prices? The hawkish case is that psychology matters here. We've just been through a period of higher inflation.

The Fed can't take for granted that expectations, that inflation expectations are anchored in dry cement. We just went through the experience where businesses now have the experience of passing along higher prices. And so if the economy does okay, maybe you see more of a price response. I think that's the argument you're going to hear from the hawks. Before I let you go, I want to ask you about the independence of the Fed, which obviously he gets asked about, the chair does, seemingly every meeting now. Now since the last meeting, there has been some ratcheting up of the rhetoric from the president again about the whole issue, though it's calmed down a bit. However, you did have the treasury secretary the other day suggest the signal, I think

is the way he put it, the signal from the bond market, the two-year, was saying that it's time to cut rates. Then you had these comments from Kevin Warsh in some corners who people think could be the next Fed chair pretty critical of Jay Powell and company. I'm wondering what you make the arc of all of that and I don't know of the historical precedent if a future potential Fed chair has come out as critical as Mr. Warsh has of the sitting Fed chair, but also the idea of independence in general. Well, I think you raise a good point, Scott, which is that really, since Volcker, every Fed chair during these transitions, you know, from Volcker to Greenspan, Greenspan to Bernanke,

Bernanke to Yellen, Yellen to Powell, the new person always pledged continuity with the man or woman that he was following. And it's not at all clear that you're going to have that now. So you know, that is a wild card, but that's a wild card for 2026. On this whole issue of will he or won't he, the president pushing Powell out, you know, I think the president has to be taken at his word here that he's not thinking about it right now. He said in that Meet the Press interview on Sunday that he'll get to put his own person

in there in a year, so why rush it? The other comment that caught my ear in that Meet the Press interview was when President Trump said he wants the board to cut rates. He recognizes that just replacing the chair here doesn't change anything if you don't have the support of the committee. And right now you don't have that. I mean, even Governor Chris Waller, who has made the most publicly dovish case, is not calling for an interest rate cut right now. And so I think that's another challenge that the White House has here.

Scott Besson knows that the two-year Treasury note is predicting what the market thinks will happen. It's not saying what the market thinks the Fed should do. And we had an inverted curve, you know, for a long time in the last couple of years. It's really the market, what they think the Fed will do, not what they're saying the Fed should do. Appreciate your insight.

We'll talk to you soon. Nick, thanks. Thank you. That's Nick Timoros of the Wall Street Journal. Quick programming note as well. Don't miss a very special CNBC exclusive with Jeffrey Gundlach tomorrow right here on Closing Bell and this time Mr. Gundlach is with me here at Post 9. Right after the chair finishes his news conference, we get the first reaction from the double

line capital CEO and founder, Chippipa Stevens now for Look at the Biggest Names moving into the close. Hi, Chippipa. Hey, Scott. Shares of Palantir are sliding despite reporting a revenue beat and lifting full year guidance. International was a weak spot with revenue down 5% from a year ago. CEO Alex Karp saying Europe is going through a structural change and that it doesn't quite get AI.

But shares of him and hers are surging double digits after beating on the top and bottom lines in Q1. Guidance did come in lighter than expected with the telehealth company detailing long-term targets through 2030. Citi though reiterating its sell on the stock after the print, saying while were encouraging uncertainties abound those shares have more than doubled this year. Scott? Alright Pippa, thank you Pippa Stevens. We're just getting started here on the bell.

Up next star analyst Stacey Raskan. He tells us what he's expecting from AMD results in OT. It's just after the break. We're live at the New York Stock Exchange. You're watching Closing Bell on CNBC. All right, welcome back. Disney shares down more than 20 percent from their peak of last year. And now, with the economy slowing, international travel dropping, and potential movie production tariffs to contend with, the road ahead looks especially dicey.

Pulcher Prize winning New York Times columnist Jim Stewart is with us here at Post 9, the man who literally wrote the book on Disney. We say that every time. I say it was a great book but I mean you know. Thank you. Biggest issue on your mind right now because there always seemed to be so many with Disney is what today? Well Disney had all its previous headwinds and now it has a whole new overlay of political, social, and global macro industrial things. I guess you'd have to say that like many companies right now, the risk of a recession, a major slowdown is the biggest new risk to them and it's significant for them.

They are very dependent on consumer spending, consumer confidence, willingness to go to the theme parks suspended movies to advertise Advertising right which is a big is a big factor So that's I think that's the main reason the stock is down 20% this year Yeah, you know, what do you think we think Bob Iger thinks about when he looks at the trajectory of Netflix shares? Versus his own on many different levels. I wonder what he's thinking about in terms of do you do you try to spend more to compete more? Do you still tighten the belt? What do you do? Yeah the the Netflix Netflix model you know has

bedeviled the traditional studios since they came upon the scene. They didn't have all the legacy networks to have to contend with. And I think that's the main competitive advantage that they've had. Meanwhile, their spending, Disney has pretty much pulled back on that front. I think the strikes gave the traditional studios a golden opportunity to kind of put the brakes there and see if they could compete more strategically.

But Netflix is running away with that. It's like you drill 100 oil wells and you hope one gushes. Netflix has the money to spend very widely where Disney has to be much more focused, much more surgical, and hope that a very high percentage of what it invests in is gonna be popular and a hit. When you saw the headline or the social media post about the movie production tariffs,

which are not in place today and they may not be tomorrow and they may never come to fruition, but nonetheless, it seemed to send shivers down the back of people out in Hollywood. What was your reaction? Well, understandably, because terrorists, if they got applied to production outside the United States, it's gonna raise costs tremendously.

And that's not what the industry wants. I mean, if Trump and the president wants to help the movie industry, subsidize them, give them the incentives, give them the tax breaks that these foreign companies he thinks are unfairly doing, to compete with them and make it more advantageous, that would lower their costs. And by the way, from what I can tell,

like when John Boyd and his manager with the White House they weren't asking for terrorists they wanted something I think more along those lines which makes sense that the tariff idea is a going to be incredibly difficult to implement and B really doesn't make any sense if we want to help the industry. What do you make speaking of the industry of the ability to do, announce and then ultimately close deals. The FCC chair who was on our network again from from Milken made it pretty clear get with our program or forget about your deals. I mean he was reasonably explicit in saying as much. Well I he should be explicit because his actions have made it very clear that

there is now an incredible political and social dimension, cultural dimension to whether these deals are going to get approved. These are not considerations of monopoly, unfair competition, the traditional business considerations that went into these, whether there's some kind of fairness in the news broadcasting. It's very much tailored to this current political agenda, which of course includes things like diversity, equity, and inclusion at the corporate level.

Presumably that could be a factor. They're very publicly holding CBS's feet to the fire, delaying the approval of that deal month after month after month. What do you think is going to happen with the Paramount deal? You wrote that book too. You've got to stop writing all these books. I did. It's fascinating that these things keep being in the news.

It's great. But I mean, that deal should get approved. What are they going to do? They want to take over. The government essentially control the content of CBS News. That would be a terrible precedent, I think, in the public interest. And that's what they're supposed to be representing here. What is in the public interest? The other curiosity of that deal is that the Ellison family, which will have a major role

in the once the deal is complete, are allies of Trump, this would be a golden opportunity to have someone controlling a network who is actually a supporter of his. So I frankly have been completely baffled from the beginning why there is such hostility to this deal and why they're refusing to go forward. It's good to see as always never stop writing books. I was only kidding. Please. Because we need to keep reading your great books.

It's Jim Stewart right here at Post 9. Up next, we'll tell you what's driving some of the massive moves in the pharma space today. We're back on 15 from the bell. Let's send it over to Angelica Peebles now for a look at what's hitting vaccine stocks. I looked at all of these and they're all down sharply. What's happening? Yeah, Scott, all of Bio Pharma today getting hit,

those stocks going from bad to worse after Vinay Prasad appointed to lead the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Now that division oversees vaccines and Prasad has not been shy about criticizing COVID vaccines, particularly boosters. So his current day job is professor and doctor at UCSF, but he also has a very active online presence, so there's a lot to go through here. He's been skeptical of

cancer vaccines. That's a double whammy for Moderna. They're stocked down about 11% today, because of course they have COVID vaccines and also cancer. Other vaccine makers getting hit, look at Pfizer, Merck, GSKK and he's also been very critical of gene therapies so Verve, Intellia, Beam those are all some of the names falling hard today look at Beam down 19% so a lot going on here Scott. Wow Angelica thanks for that update Angelica Peebles still ahead what to watch when Wynn reports in OT we're back right after this We're now in the closing bell market zone.

CNBC senior markets commentator Mike Santoli here to break down these crucial moments of the trading day. Plus a rush of earnings and OT contested Brewer on win. Phil LeBeau on Rivian and Lucid. Michael I'll turn to you.

I suppose we're you know I guess that the head China headlines or lack thereof, there's lack thereof talks. I don't know. What's what's on your mind? Not a lot specific to react to. And so I think the market's kind of

reacting to its own context. We came into the week very hot up nine straight days overbought short term. The best case scenario is we have these listless days where nothing much happens and we work off the overbought that way.

We'll see if that's how it can develop. Come back to you in a minute. Contessa Brewer, tell us about Wynn. Well, Wynn's earnings this afternoon, Scott, are expected to come in and be largely irrelevant given the global sea change that we've seen since the quarter close. What analysts and investors are likely to focus on is the impact of the tariff wars on Wynn's Las Vegas business, where a monied international crowd is part and parcel of the business when does there in Macau where recovery has been slow to ramp back to pre pandemic levels there's concern about the impact of the trade war on China's economy questions about consequences for us based companies I've heard this for other gaming

companies as well as other hotel and cruise companies as well. Okay, so the street here is expecting revenue to come in at 1.74 billion and earnings per share of 1.19, a dollar 19 adjusted. The shares by the way, Scott, we're seeing them up slightly for the, over the last month, 20% and just slightly negative year to date. All right, Destyn, thank you. Phil LeBeau, Rivian and Lucid, tell us more. Scott, let's start first off with Rivian and the interesting thing here with

Rivian is they posted a gross profit in the fourth quarter. Well, did they do the same thing in the first quarter? There's significance there because one of their stipulations with Volkswagen as far as the financing that they're on the line for with Volkswagen, one of the benchmarks is two consecutive quarters with a gross profit. Did that happen? We'll find out in a few minutes. What's been the tariff impact on production? And also, are they winning over Tesla buyers? You know the story here. People are saying, well, I see people are not buying Teslas anymore. They're shifting over to Rivians. Curious if that's the case.

Their guidance was 46 to 51,000 vehicles couple of months ago. Are they still on track to open their plant in Georgia? And also quickly shift gears to Lucid. They are expecting a loss of 23 cents a share. Their production, remember they raised their production guidance earlier this year saying, we're gonna go build up to 20,000 vehicles this year.

Previously, they were building 10,000 vehicles out in Arizona. So we'll get the lucid numbers here in a few minutes as well. Scott, back to you. Good stuff, Phil. Thank you, Phil LeBeau. Back to Mike for his last word. Fed chair gonna surprise us with anything tomorrow? I think he's gonna try not to.

I think it's always this call. Now we don't have the summary of economic projections, so you don't have to do that dance where he needs to explain away some of the outlier views. I think that they're gonna have to be open to move in either direction. They have to be cognizant of the fact that there could be a stagflationary shock being delivered to the economy or in two months there could not be. And so you know exactly how much certainty can you convey in that environment. Markets hoping I think we skate past it with at least them not closing the door on

leaning toward easing June, July in that timeframe. But look, I don't think it's really that Fed-dependent. It's more about do yields keep going up when the dollar's going down? Do we see signs of global capital flight? Today, it started to look like that this morning, and then it's calmed down. So the market is just kind of trying to gather itself. By the way, non-U.S. stocks at a new high. A total V-bottom in the rest of the world index right now.

So that's also, you know, perversely helping U.S. actually. The flow is not that far from the lows. Nearly up down, certainly about 400 down. But it will be right across the board. Don't forget about those earnings in overtime. I'll send it there with Morgan and John.