Closing Bell - Closing Bell: Stocks Sink Following Fed Decision to Leave Rates Unchanged 3/18/26

Episode Date: March 18, 2026

The major averages fell during the final hour of trade – following the Fed decision and Chair Powell’s news conference. The Wharton School’s Jeremy Siegel, CMBC Americas’ Joe Lavorgna and Robinhood’s Stephanie Guild tell us what they think is next for the fed – and the market. Plus, we dig into how rates are impacting refinance demand. And, we run through what to watch from Micron’s report in Overtime. 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. That was Fed Chair Jerome Powell. No rate cut as expected. Stocks didn't initially react to that news, but look at the charts if you can. During Powell's remarks, the Dow dropped about 200 points from down 400 plus to down 600 plus where we are on now. All the major averages down at least a percent and near their lows of the session as we start the last hour of the trading day and we're going to break down what it all means. Welcome to closing bell. I am John Ford. In for Scott Wapner. Let's get straight. to our panel for reaction, Wharton School Professor of Finance and Wisdom Tree's chief economist, Jeremy Siegel, SmbC America's chief economist, Joe LaVorna, new title there, and Robin Hood's Stephanie Gild. Guys, welcome. Professor, I wanna start with you here.

What jumped out at you from both the Fed's statement and from the commentary, especially that we just heard from all of those press questions? I mean, the amount of uncertainty over what's going to happen with this energy shock, the fact that they might have to change the dots on the dot plots, and the importance of consumer inflation expectations jumped out of me. Well, John, honestly, the most surprising thing was basically what Powell said to Trump, you're not getting rid of me unless you drop the suit.

Because, now, it's interesting. This is what I interpret he think. Even if Warsh is, I mean, Tillis drops his objection and say, okay, we could get abortion, he has the right to stay on for another two years, and he will until the suit is dropped. So in other words, the only way Trump can get rid of Powell is by dropping the suit. And now he won't necessarily be chair. If Tillis continues to say, I'm not going to confirm Warsh until the suit is dropped, then he will be chair under the rules of pro tem chair continues on. So I found that interesting.

And by the way, aside from the palace intrigue of that, What do you view as being the policy impacts of Powell remaining connected to the Fed and active on the Fed over that period of time, should that come to pass? Well, you know, I was looking at the bond rate then, and I saw the yield start going up, and I'm saying, oh, my God, does that mean, oh, my, you know, there's a general expectation that Warsh will be more friendly, obviously, to cuts. That's why Trump picked him. So now if Paul stays on, now I don't know if everyone understood that doesn't necessarily mean he stays on his chair. But if he stays on, he's still a very influential voice being chair for eight years. You know, he could argue against those cuts. And, you know, I'm not saying that's the only thing that I thought affecting.

I saw the tenure go up two, three basis points. Now, 10 years been, as you know, following oil pretty closely. I didn't see much happening to oil at that particular juncture. But I thought a lot of people say, oh, my goodness, whatever cut we might have expected under Warsh, maybe that's going to be delayed. What this really means, John, is there is absolutely no reason for Trump not to drop this suit. And I think basically, Bowe says, yeah, I've got a lot of leverage over you because I can stay on. if you don't drop it. Maybe he's putting that hard hat back on.

We're now down 700 plus on the Dow. Let me bring in the rest of the panel, Joe Livorna and Stephanie Gild. Great to have you here at Post 9. Joe, I suspect, given your views on inflation, you think the Fed ought to pay more attention to their GDP expectations that they laid out here than the inflation part?

To some extent, John, I mean, the problem, if I talked to you a month ago, I would have told you, look, the outlook for 26 is great because of the pro-growth supply side led policies the president's put in place, in particular the full expensing of CAPEX and structures, which would lead to a huge building boom, higher productivity, disinflation. The Fed should be cutting rates.

Where the wrinkle now, it's a big wrinkle, is what's happened in the Middle East and where gas and oil prices are going, which one will hurt real incomes if this continues, and will make the Fed, as Jay Powell said, very careful in doing anything because they don't want to repeat the mistake they made back in 22 and 23 by keeping rates too. low for too long. Yeah. So the outlook has really changed in some sense. Stephanie, in a way, Fed Chair Powell sounded like the rest of us.

My wife was like, oh, should I fill up the car now? Should I wait? And I'm like, it's only four or five bucks either way, but maybe 10. It's not a huge SUV. But still, that uncertainty on what this is going to mean longer term. How do you see this period affecting retail investors who have had such a big influence over the market over the past few years? I mean, I think in some ways it's going to affect everybody, not just retail investors the same way,

which is you're seeing in real time the impact of policy decisions, and you need to wait and see whether it's something you adjust your budget for or is it a short-term thing. And I think that's what Powell said over and over again, that we're data dependent. And he even said, you know, we always learned something by the next meeting, and that's especially true this time. And I think that's like, that's the most important thing to know is that, like, he'd, they're not reacting right now. The one thing I'm wondering about, though, is that with the rates kind of reacting and going higher in this and probably pushing stock prices down, is it the bond

market saying, like, you might need to think about raising rates this time? And I, you know, and it really... Well, Powell did answer a question about that and said it came up, but practically nobody was thinking seriously. Because if it's short term, then by the time they try to do something about it, it doesn't work. But it is the market, like, speculating on that, I think. Our Steve Leasman was in the room. Stick with me, everybody. I want to bring our senior economics reporter in. Steve, quite a lot of, I mean, there's always uncertainty.

Chair Powell's never trying to get tied down here, but with this energy stuff, an extra help it. Yeah, I think what's happening here, it's in the first instance, the chair is not saying the Fed is going to do anything. And I think that's really the case. But I think the gaming out is if push comes to shove down, the road, if you have, say, an equal challenge on the inflation side and on the growth side,

what does the Fed do? And I asked the chair about this issue of, are you concerned about the idea that you look through tariff inflation, you have inflation above target, and your credibility is in question about your commitment to the 2% target? Here's what he said. It's one of those things where it's a repeated set of things, and you worry that that's the kind of thing that can, you know, can cause trouble for inflation expectations. And so we worry a lot about that. And we're, you know, we are very strongly committed to doing what it takes to keep inflation expectations anchored at 2%. So maybe that's suggesting a little reluctance to at least immediately address any challenge to the growth side of the equation because of the history

of where the Fed is and the context with which it goes into this oil price shock. I don't know, John, if you want to talk about the other news that was there at this point in time, which is what the Fed Chair said about staying on as a governor. I do want to talk about that. Jeremy Siegel was laser focused on it as we started the conversation at the top of the hour. What was your take on that? Well, let's hear what the chair had to say. I believe we have a piece of tape available to give people an idea of his response to the question that we have been asking for a while.

But finally, he decided to give us some news on this. I have no intention of leaving the board until the investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality. And I think the story here, John, is that if the Fed chair were to leave amid an investigation, it would really call on the question the Fed's independence and the issue of could a criminal investigation actually, you know, cause somebody to leave, even a spurious criminal investigation, as the judge has suggested this current one is. Joe, well, actually, I want to go back to Jeremy Siegel on this because you started the conversation. He said well and truly over with, was it clarity and finality? That sounded like very crafted, very parallel, almost poetic language, but not like, oh, I think I'm going to drop this, but no, this is definitely done. Have you had some more time to chew over that? And what you think the impact is?

How much perhaps that does have to do with the reaction of equities, which are now back at session lows? Yeah, well, I mean, we're talking about that. When he started talking about it, and people said, oh, my, if he's still going to stay on the board, maybe not as chairman, but still is an influential voice, which he has the right to do, and Trump cannot remove him, that's when I saw that bond rate started moving up, because I think a lot of people think, if we're going to have some cuts, and I actually thought it was a little bit more dovish, those dots than really I had anticipated. They might not materialize if, you know, if Powell stays on becomes influential and the inflation doesn't go down.

So, you know, I think that that was important. And then, of course, I did say that this all means that, hey, you know, Trump should give this up if he wants to get rid of Powell. I see no purpose to hound them any further in this way. One thing also I thought was very important, and I would like Steve's assessment here. The long-term real GDP was raised from 1.8 to 2.0 percent. That is one of the biggest, and maybe the biggest I've ever seen raised in a three-month period. That is a huge increase. You know, Chair Powell mentioned AI productivity, but it seems like the FOMC thinks that this is not just something for a few years.

This is something long term. And, you know, 20 basis points may not seem like a lot, but it is a lot. And if it gets any higher, it could really change the whole game in terms of real wages, in terms of the deficit sustainability and all sorts of other things going on in the economy. I was shocked by that. Actually, I agree with it. I think it might even be higher, but I think that, again, I've never seen an increase like that. I was trying to bait Joe LaVornier with that on the growth side before.

Well, here's the thing. On the growth, the Fed, if you look at their forecast over the past 15, 20 years, they tend to overplay the demand side effects. So when one administration cut the payroll tax, they get real exuberant on growth, and they've downplayed the tax cuts under the first Trump administration. If growth turned out to be stronger, two tents at least to start John in the right direction. But there is a very strong case, I think, could be made that potential growth is closer to three than it is two. The reason the market is down today is oil is back up on the highs.

And even though, you know, some people may not suffer much from higher gas prices, working class Americans, middle and lower income earners who don't have the ability to not drive to work or can't pay are leaving paycheck to paycheck. This is going to compress the real income. So the sooner this situation is resolved, the faster the underlying. economic fundamentals, which I believe are excellent will reassert themselves. Yeah, and maybe before those fundamentals get damaged by the overall effect. Leesman, let me let you have your take on that as well, since the professor did ask you. Yeah, I just want to bask for a moment in the glory of having been asked a question by the professor, which is a huge honor for me, especially given the professor asking the question.

And I'm just going to agree without actually knowing the facts here in terms of how long it's been since they've had that upgrade. But just so you understand what the professor is asking about and the profundity of the question, which is nothing is sort of more important to the outlook for policy and how you guide policy long term, how you judge economic growth and the results than the long run rate. It's the potential of the economy. It's the sum of how much we're growing in terms of hours worked, our population, and our productivity, and I'll just underscore what the professor is asking and the point he's making in his question, that if you're upgrading the long-run rate, it means you have some belief in the sustainability of the productivity surge we've had,

because we know what's happening on the employment side. So I think that 1-8 professor has been around for a while. I'll check it for you and send you an email, but it is absolutely correct to make that point. And I think the chair actually underscored it in his statement, in his press conference, that they do. Do you have this emerging confidence in the sustainability of the productivity increases we've seen? Steve, we'll see if he was asking you a question to get information or to give you a grade. That might temper your enthusiasm. No, Steve gets an A. Okay.

Stephanie, we see the 10-year move higher on the remarks that the Fed chair gave. There are other reactions of individual equities, groups of equities, whether you want to talk, small caps, MAG7, Big Tech, et cetera. What do you tend to see? Maybe what are you already seeing within Robin Hood's platform as we speak in this final hour? Yeah, I mean, I think the point about productivity and what Powell was saying about that is very important because I feel he said it never lasts or in the past it hasn't lasted, and so they're shy to kind of reference it because it always dissipates.

But I do think the Gen AI story is the lift to productivity. and to deflation over time or disinflation over time, I should say. And what we are seeing our customer base to is invest in that. More recently, I think they've been kind of taking profits and actually selling some of the more esoteric AI names and actually investing in broad-based equities, and I think more just kind of trying to leg into this little dip that we've been seeing. But they very much believe in that long-term story. And Robin Hood Strategies, which is the portfolios we manage,

we also, we allocate to receivers of the capbacks, we allocate to the resources, because that is, I think, the longer-term future. And I don't know if you've felt it personally, but the amount of work I can now do using AI, even in the last, like, month is just incredible. In the last week, growth covers a multitude of sins, Joe. And I think as you were talking before, I was thinking about, do you have a take on how long these conditions in the Middle East can go on before this starts to affect the overall economy, certainly domestically, perhaps globally, but if it lasts a little bit of time, then things bounce back. Right.

How long do you think something like this has tended to last in the past before there are those cracks that form in other areas, ripple effects? The market is of the view that it won't last long, and from recent experience, the economy does okay. For example, take the Russia evasion of Ukraine, prices went up to 120, stay there for a little bit, a few weeks and then came down. But the job market was booming because of the V-shaped recovery that began under President Trump and all the stimulus that began under the Biden administration. Jobs are running three to 400,000 a month. Now we're in a situation where job growth was turning

up. It's kind of flattened out. You've got the soil shock, so it's the speed and duration of the move. Nobody knows. The market seems to be overly sanguine, perhaps, on there being a quick resolution. If there is, it will not have any lasting effects. But if we're talking, John, another month, what's been a couple weeks, but we go a month from now, two months from now, we're at 100, 110, people are going to start marking down their numbers. And the problem, as it relates to recessions, is that they're non-linearities. Like when it breaks, it breaks really quickly, and in 90, it broke, and the Fed didn't know it. But they're in a tough spot.

They don't want to ease fundamentals to suggest they should because the weakness has been in housing and manufacturing, but with inflation going up, Fed doesn't want to take that chance. Professor Jeremy Siegel, I'm kind of going to do my armchair economist. thing here. I don't know if there's anything to this, but it seems to me like the numbers at the gas station up there, they're really big. And so they tend to have a bigger influence over consumer inflation sense and expectations, almost because the numbers are so big. It's one of those things people talk about, more than the price of any single food item. Fed Chair Powell talked a lot about inflation expectations as being one of the concerns they have.

How much does this energy story feed that? Well, you're perfectly right, John. It is the most visible of all prices to consumers. Yeah, we talk about food. A while back we talked about eggs and sometimes other things, but gasoline has been for 40, 50 years, one of the biggest factors. Actually, when economists do sentiment studies about what affects sentiment,

And gasoline comes first. Stock market often comes after that. And then there's a lot of other factors. But yeah, the visibility can talk about that. And I'm sure, and Trump is, I'm sure, worried about it and trying to see, you know, how long it is. By the way, if you want to know the truth, I think most of the decline today is nervousness about what's going on in the Middle East with the oil, with the Israeli strike on the natural gas. And then Iran saying, all right, that opens us to start striking oil facilities in the Middle East. I think that is the major corals of this decline more than really what went on in Powell's testimony.

Steve Leesman, the Fed Chair did not talk that much about AI and its impact on productivity, but he did talk about the data center buildout and some of those implications. what you thought about his remarks there. Anything else you want to be sure to touch on? Well, unless time has been called in the exam, I have a response to the professor. It looks like June 2016 is when it was 2%. That's what I can see here in the chart that we have from Haver Analytics. So it's been about nine or 10 years, actually, that we've been at this 1.8%. It did tick up to 1.9, but anyway, it is 0.2% rise. And that is, a reasonably big deal there. I think the Fed is watching AI, John, the way we're all watching

AI, trying to separate a little bit the wheat from the chafe when it comes to this issue of, you and I've talked about this, John, this issue of AI washing where you're laying off people because you messed up and hired too many and you call it AI. There's that concern, a little bit of hype around it. And a lot of people out there, John, need this AI story to be out there in terms of we're laying off a lot of people because of all this investment we've done in AI. I think Some of that's going to be a reality. Some of it's not going to be a reality. One place to focus, obviously, is in those initial graduates that are out there

and the tough job market we actually know they're having. There's data on that. So it's something that's going to influence the Fed. They tend to be a little more optimistic compared to the doomsayers. And I think because they've been through it before, John, as have you, as have I, this issue of everybody calls for Armageddon because of some technological development and it looks pretty bad on the front. And then the technology and the economy catch up.

and people get hired. So a little bit of a wait and see on that. All right. Great takes all around. Thank you, Professor, Joe, Stephanie, and our own Steve Leesman. Thank you very much. So much to digest as the markets continue, major averages still making new lows for the session. Quick programming note, don't miss Scott Wapner's exclusive interview with Double-Line Capital's Jeffrey Gunnlock. We're going to get his first reactions to today's Fed decision. that's coming on Monday. Gotta wait a little while right here on closing bell. Well, up next, we are tracking this move in oil as geopolitical concerns still loom over investors.

Plus, much more on today's market reaction to the Fed decision. Ed Yardinney is standing by with his first take when closing bell comes right back. Welcome back. 17 minutes for the closing bell. Let's send it over to Pippa Stevens for a check on oil. Pippa. Hey, John. Brent, settling today above 107, its highest in July 2022, as energy infrastructure. structure is targeted. But LNG is in focus this hour after Qatar Energy said that its Rass-Lfan plant was targeted by missiles and suffered, quote, extensive damage. The Middle East supplies about

20 percent of global LNG, and virtually all of it comes from this one specific plant. Now, this does come after strikes on Iranians South Pars gas fields earlier today. That is according to Iranian state media. And that site extends into Qatar's northfield, which is where all of the gas for Rass-Lafan comes from. Now, Qatar was in the process. process of a major expansion of the north field. And the longer this plant is offline, the harder it is to turn it back on, which is driving up global gas prices. Today, Egypt announcing its cutting energy use as the country contends with soaring fuel costs. John? Wow, Pippa, thank you. Well, up next, much more on this late day sell-off after the Fed.

Ed Yardini standing by with his take. The market zone is next. Now in the closing belt market zone, Mike Santoli and Ed Yardini are here to break down these crucial moments of the trading day. Plus, Diana Oleg is watching the housing market following today's Fed decision. McKenzie Segalo is standing by ahead of Micron's report on overtime. And Jim Stewart from the New York Times joins us as a new CEO takes the helm at Disney. Mike, let's start with you. We had this leg down around the time when the Powell Presser was starting. The Dow is now down almost 800 points.

Does this have to do with the oil spike around the same time? Do both have to do with the prospect of Powell staying on? I don't know. What did you see? What do you think? I think, John, pretty much everything moved in the direction of at least marginally more hawkish, a little bit less friendly. I don't think dramatically so, but it was another thing that was added to the pile of unresolved

that's been staring down investors. If you look at the way Powell characterized, you know, weak job growth, he was unconcerned. He wasn't really suggesting that lower rates would be an immediate remedy on that front. And Treasury yields responded accordingly. And yes, him sticking around, creates a little more uncertainty, maybe puts off down the road farther any turn toward a more dovish chair. I don't know if the market's kind of extrapolating it all, but it all did move in that direction. Now, even though WTI crew did go higher, it's not really at the highs that we've seen for this move, but it's just enough, I think, to create this extra little downside test for the index.

were not too far above the recent loads for this move, which were Monday, also threatening to hit that 200-day moving average again. So it's been a little bit of a fragile technical setup as well. Are you able to see where some of the more extreme reactions were coming from? Like I noticed the Dow is down about 1.6 percent, whereas the S&P and NASDAQ are down less than that. Consumer staples I was seeing was down quite a bit, I believe, more like 2.3% versus some other areas. taking it on the chin. Does that tell us anything about how the market is digesting this? I mean, those are just, I think, sustained weak trends in things like big consumer staples.

I don't think the people who have confidence that those types of companies are going to be able to capitalize on an inflationary backdrop. I would say the S&P on a net basis is benefiting from its exposure to things like the memory trade. The biggest upside contributors to the S&P today, Micron, Intel, AMD, Sandus. So it's kind of a, idiosyncratic source of support for the S&P 500 that is not as present in some of the indexes like the Dow. Indeed, Mike, thanks. Now let's get over to McKenzie Sagalos for a look at Micron ahead of earnings. Mac memory has been a big bottleneck in the data center this year with AI's buildout,

and names like Micron seem to have been benefiting. Yeah, and expectations for Micron in particular are sky high heading into this report. you've got Wall Street looking for 150% revenue growth and for earnings to increase sixfold with average selling prices expected to climb about 32% from the prior quarter. Now, Micron remains one of the clearest beneficiaries of this AI infrastructure boom.

John, to your point, as cloud giants race to secure enough chips and build out larger data centers, memory has become one of the most highly coveted pieces of the stack. Deutsche Bank says demand is still running well ahead of supply, especially in high bandwidth memory, and expects that to last through 2027. Micron has already said that it's sold out of HBM for 2026, and that supply crunch is giving it unusual pricing power.

So after the bell, the focus is really on whether micron can turn that shortage into even stronger pricing, margin expansion, and forward guidance with the stock already up more than 60% this year after tripling in 2025. Yeah, all right, Mack, thanks. Well, let's shift gears here away from the technology stuff and the big economy. looks. A stock we're watching today is Disney, the media giant kicking off a new era with a new CEO in Josh DeMorrow. Let's bring in the expert on Disney, Jim Stewart of the New York Times. Jim is interesting here. This is not an expert in making movies and in a way different from

Iger, but perhaps in manner similar. Yeah, I think it was very reassuring to people, both inside and outside the company, day they all went very smoothly. It was very hotly. Corey Graham is very upbeat. And I think maybe the most significant thing is, this is the first day we've seen tomorrow as CEO. He seems, you know, he seems very confident and comfortable in his own skin, no signs of anxiety,

and especially no signs of any tension with Iger. Because the last time around, we knew that relationship was in trouble on day one. Well, do you think Iger really keeps his hands off the steering wheel? I mean, this is a guy who's had a really hard time staying out of the CEO's seat, no? Well, he's still on. the board till December 31st. So my advice to tomorrow is, you've got to keep him happy for a few more months.

If he wants to participate, fine. But I'm getting the feeling from people inside the company and others, and my sense from him is he wants this to work. He's got to make this work for his own legacy. And he's had a pretty bruising few years back in the leadership seat. I don't think he's going to be intrusive. So far, he's been, you know, keeping a pretty low profile and letting tomorrow take the spotlight. So I think it looks like a new era is finally taking shape there. Jim, how big a test is Demarro going to have on AI? I think back to the previous CEO and really the Scarlett Johansson issues and the trouble with high profile Hollywood and that core group of actors and creatives that you really need

to have on board to be Disney. He sort of lost the script, it seemed there. Is Demo going to have a similar challenge in how he addresses AI at a time when there questions about what happens with Paramount, what happens with costs? Well, you know, absolutely. I mean, AI is a big challenge for everyone, but especially in the entertainment industry. But I think stepping aside from the, you know, the potentially ruffled feathers in the Hollywood community, and that is something to, you know, to take into consideration, AI has a lot of potential benefits

for these companies, and especially Disney. Now, you know, he was talking today about the importance of creativity, the human factor. That's never going to go away there. You know, they still need, I think, human inspiration. But there's a lot of technical stuff there, including drawing, that can be done with technology and with AI coming up. And it could really be a way to improve productivity there. All right. Jim, thank you. Jim on Disney. Now from the mouse house to house houses, higher rates weighing on mortgage refies.

Diana Oleg is here with more. Well, John, mortgage rates last week jumped to the highest level since the end of last year. and that hit refinance demand hard. The average on the 30-year fix went from 6.19% to 6.30% according to the MBA survey. Now, as a result, applications to refi plunge 19% week to week.

It was still 69% higher than the same week one year ago when rates were lower, but that gain is shrinking. Applications for a mortgage to buy a home eked out a 1% gain for the week and were 12% higher than the year before. Mortgage rates did come down to start this week,

according to a separate survey from Mortgage News Daily. but they did pop a tiny bit higher this morning following that hotter than expected PPI report. And the Fed chairman's comments on inflation today did not help either none of this. Great for the all-important spring housing market, which officially begins Friday, John. All right. Diana Oleg, thank you. And now as we head toward the close, about five minutes away, let's bring in Ed Yardini from Yardini Research. Ed, good to see you.

Now, your base case is for a continuing strong environment for stock. But just like Powell was talking about, this situation in the Middle East has pushed a lot of uncertainty into the picture. How are you factoring it in, particularly after the commentary around this decision today? Well, the initial reaction of the market, I would characterize as a tapering tantrum. The markets have been wanting and discounting two rate cuts this year and maybe pushing them out a little bit because of the war. When you listen to Powell, you wouldn't know there's a war going on. I mean, he characterized the economy as doing just fine, which it is, if you look at real GDP. On average, it's been growing on a year-over-year basis around near the 2.5 to 3 percent range, which is fine.

The labor market, which everybody's convinced is weak, he basically characterizes in fairly good shape, with the unemployment rate remaining extremely low. he doesn't think this is stagflation. And so the implication is that what's the rush? The Fed really doesn't have to do much of anything. And I think the market started to realize that also he kind of hinted, didn't he, that he might hang around here just in case Warsh doesn't get nominated. He did more than hint. He said something pretty specific, yeah.

Yeah, I think that really kind of, you know, got everybody like, what? Where did that come from? I mean, basically, it was a tacit tactical move in response to the president's moves against him, basically saying, you know what, maybe Warsh won't get nominated. You know, I've got some friends in Congress. And if you're still coming after me, which is basically coming after the Fed as far as he's concerned, he wants to do what he's, as he said, what's best for the Fed. And from his perspective, it's best if he stays on until he guarantees or increases the likelihood that the Fed will remain independent of Trump. Yeah, I was joking that he's putting his hard hat back on. What do you see as the odds

on a correction here in the market? And how much of one beyond 10% do you think is really potentially in the office? Yeah, well, I've been talking about 10 to 15%. I've been kind of going back and forth as the war has been kind of going back and forth. But I view corrections as buying opportunity, so it wouldn't bother me at all if we got a 10 to maybe 15% correction as a great buying opportunity. I wouldn't be selling here. I'd be using this as an opportunity to buy some. And we can see where the market likes, you know, areas that benefited from the perception

that the Fed's going to lower rates aren't doing too well. And meanwhile, technology and some of the other areas like industrial that don't need to have lower interest rates to do well, they should be good places to pick and choose. Financials have so many different issues right here that I think this is just another problem for them if the Fed's not going to be cutting interest rates this year. Ed, you have a point of view on how long oil can remain at 90 to 100 a barrel, let's say, before that leaks through into other areas? of the economy and these impacts don't stay transitory? Well, I've been pointing out that the economy is remarkably resilient. I've been really since the beginning of the decade. I've been talking about the roaring 2020s.

And actually, I've gotten more and more confidence in that. The economy's been stressed tested by the pandemics, by the lockdowns, by the supply chain disruptions, inflation, the Fed tightening, the tariffs, the funky labor market. And here we are at an all-time record. high in real GDP. And so I think this is another stress test and I think the economy will weather it. I think it could stay here for a while and the economy would still be okay. Before the bell drowns out my question, does this change the landscape and the attractiveness

of international stocks, the situation happening abroad? Or does the move that they've had thus far in 26, you think, get sustained or revived? No, I think they had a great year last year. I think they'll do find this year. And I think that's, that obviously assumes that this war isn't going to last very long and that there were, that oil prices are going to come back down. That's kind of what's weighed on emerging markets, for example, Japan, Korea, they all need availability of oil and cheaper oil. And I think that's going to come. It's, they call these things oil spikes. That's because they go straight up, they come straight down.