Closing Bell - Closing Bell: The Road Ahead for the Fed 7/24/25

Episode Date: July 24, 2025

President Trump expected to head to the Fed this afternoon. We discuss what’s at stake with our Senior Economics Correspondent Steve Liesman. Plus, we discuss how to play the market right now with Trivariate’s Adam Parker, JP Morgan’s Meera Pandit and Wealth Enhancement’s Ayako Yoshioka. And, Alger’s Ankur Crawford  maps out how she is navigating the big tech space right now. 

All right, Kelly, thank you. Welcome to Closing Bell. I'm Scott Wobner live from Post9. Here at the New York Stock Exchange, this Make or Break Hour begins with high intrigue in Washington. Less than one hour from now, President Trump will visit the Federal Reserve Building, the first time in almost 20 years such a trip has taken place. It comes as the President escalates his attacks on Chair Powell's interest rate path.

In the meantime, and we're going to follow that, but let's follow the markets too. They've been mixed throughout today's session. Stocks are reacting to a host of earnings reports, including of course those reports from Alphabet and Tesla. Semi's, they're outperforming on Google's bullish CapEx numbers. IBM though, sharply lower today after the company's outlook fell short of expectations. Airlines are lower after Southwest and American

both cut their outlooks. And Chipotle on track for its worst day since 2017 after cutting its same store sales guidance. It does take us to our talk of the tape the road ahead for the Fed and that battle between the president and the Fed chair senior economics correspondent Steve Leaseman starts us off today in what really is an almost unprecedented move, not fully. We say it's been 20 some years, Steve, and it's going to take place within the next hour or so. What should we take from this, do you think?

Well, certainly, Scott, it's unprecedented in the sense that we do not believe a president has ever visited the Fed to inspect their construction site, which is what's going on. And certainly to highlight an issue about whether or not there was mismanagement or unwarranted cost overruns in the renovation of this building, the Fed insists there have not been, that there were extraordinary circumstances like the need to lift the building to take lead out from underneath it and other issues regarding the water table. But what's really happening, I think, are three things, Scott, is that first of all, the president, I believe, is trying to deflect from other issues going on in Washington that he does not want discussed.

Second, he wants the Fed to lower interest rates, and this is a cudgel to get him to do so. And third, I think, is the Fed is performing its normal role as the potential scapegoat for anything that might go wrong in the economy. And that's really, I think, what the president is highlighting here, which is that if there are issues regarding employment, if there are issues regarding economic growth, the president can point his finger squarely at the Fed. So most people I talk to see this as a pretext.

Obviously, there are some issues regarding this building and whether or not the renovation is over budget, whether or not the expenditures were warranted. But that really has nothing to do with monetary policy and the issue of whether or not the chair should be allowed to finish out his term until May. The notion of the Fed chair being blamed if something goes wrong with the economy is but one reason why some are suggesting like Jeremy Siegel that Powell should just resign because he's in a no-win. Listen to what he told me yesterday. I thought it was actually better for the Fed if Jay Powell stepped down and I'm all for the independents. I've taught monetary policy for half a century, but I think it's a tails.

Powell and the Fed loses and heads, there's no gain. Right, Steve, if Chair Powell and the Fed pull this off, the president takes credit for it anyway. And if something goes wrong, Powell's the one who gets all the blame. So why be bothered? Maybe he should just leave. Well, first of all, it is a very normal role. Sarah Blinder wrote a book about this, that the Fed was created simply so politicians

would have somebody around to blame. And you'll notice after every crisis, there's always calls for reform of the Fed and the shaking of the finger at the Federal Reserve that's a lot of what they do Scott. 99 out of 100 I agree with the professor not on this one Scott. I think if the chair resigns that is a big chunk out of the Fed's independence because it shows that the president can dog a chair out of the feds independence because it shows that the president can uh can dog a chair out of office if he disagrees with policy i think the fed chair has to stay there has to take the what's coming to him uh take the welts and the scars of what's happening i think it's a super human effort uh personally for powell but that's not really what's at stake here what's at stake

is the institution if the president can hound the um president the fed chair out of office that's not really what's at stake here. What's at stake is the institution. If the president can hound the president, the fed chair out of office, that's a huge loss of independence for the Federal Reserve. How do you think about the idea of the president having some sort of word, say, big opinion on what the path of interest rates should be? Maybe he's right. big opinion on what the path of interest rates should be. Maybe he's right. Maybe the president is right that Powell should cut rates

because the inflation fear that Powell's talked about on numerous occasions really hasn't come to light from the tariffs. So why just not cut rates? Maybe Trump's right. Well, Scott, let me offer a slightly different answer to the one you might expect here which is that I wonder the extent to which well first of all there has been inflation from the tariffs in in tariffed goods they've shown up there's probably more to

come other things are offsetting it but I don't know the extent to which people have thought about the idea that the idea that Powell is holding the line on interest rate cuts, talking tough about not allowing tariff inflation to morph over or to infect other parts of the index might be helping the inflation situation. If you look at inflation expectations, that's something the Fed tries to have an influence over. They have been well contained. If you had a Fed that was A monetizing the debt and B otherwise caving into the president, you might have a very different situation on inflation expectations. You could also have a difference, a change or some change at all in the actual inflation numbers. So I think that very ironically here,

Powell's tough line could be playing a role in helping the president Get these tariffs into the economy without causing pass-along inflation I don't think the president will acknowledge that and by the way Scott our understanding at this point We are not sure the president will even meet the chair over at the Fed. Yeah, that's the big question I mean it the appearance alone. It's going to be a spectacle when President Trump arrives, of course at the Fed. Yeah, that's the big question. The appearance alone, it's going to be a spectacle when President Trump arrives, of course, at the Fed. Even more so, perhaps, if J-PAL comes out to shake his hand and the two men meet. We'll see because we think it's going to happen sometime after the next hour or so.

We'll talk to you more, Steve, of course. Our senior economics correspondent, our chief Fed watcher is Steve Leesman. Now let's bring in CNBC contributor, Trivariate's Adam Park. It's good to have you here. Thanks for having me. How are you thinking about this? Because the market doesn't like it, obviously. Market doesn't like the constant beat down that the president's been giving the Fed chair,

that suggestion that he was going to fire him unsettled the market for about five minutes. But what do you think? I mean, the president's shown many, many times that after he talks to somebody, that person can influence their opinion. So part of me is that, that policy just talk to him and tell him what his view is of rates and why he's on the path he's on.

And that might actually move the president's prior view a little bit. I think there's a lot of examples and a lot of different sub-parts of being president. He's shown the ability to be influenced by people who sit down and talk to him. So... Do you think power should cut rates? I personally do not. But as you know, I'm not like a rate guy. That's not what I do. But I don't think, I think if he does, the market might not necessarily act great. I think what everyone hopes is that it helps

industrials and housing and other things that have been in recession I think it'll cause a rotation within the stock market and you'll get Homebuilders and retailers, you know ripping and that kind of stuff. Well, isn't that is that a good thing? Like why wouldn't the market react positively to rate cut? Well the same way it didn't always react negatively to the rate hike as you you get toward the end of the rate hike cycle, last time, it was January of 23, you covered your Nvidia Metashorts, which were down 60, 70% in 2022, and they got massively outperformed. But you know they were still hiking. So at some point, you're going to be closer to the end of the accommodation than beginning,

and the market's not going to say, yay. It's going to say, well, wait a minute, maybe things are slowing a little bit. So maybe you'll get a knee-jerk reaction that one day, but underneath it, do you really think there's things that are gonna get stimulated by cutting the front end? I mean, the banks are in amazing condition with great balance sheets. So you don't need to.

Yeah, so they get more. We'll see, yeah, I'm overweight to financials, and I think it's probably the most crowded, long idea I have, but I think the risk word's good. I just don't know if you take what they're really supposed to be doing, which is full employment at stable pricing, and ask yourself with the data, like does it really show they need to?

I'm not sure. Well, but they believe, Powell does, that they're still too restrictive. I mean, he said as much. So X, both of those things that you just said, they're too restrictive from where they were. I guess, the unemployment rate's pretty low. And we don't have to protect this house.

Right, protect the house. So the question is like, how anticipatory are they gonna be this cycle? Look, the two things that matter for equity investing in the medium to long term are changes to perception about growth and changes to perception about rates. If I mark to market where we are, the changes to perception about growth

are higher than they were a few months ago. Bullish.'s yeah, that's bullish and the change perception about rates if they're more dubbish or an and or it I think it's bullish. So like the cocktail I think is risk-ward positive for equities. I'm not surprised They act well sure we want and I agree with Leesman. We want independence We want that we don't want to like pierce that you think it matters as much as we want to believe that it does? I think it does. Look, in the long term, I don't think the president matters. Like, you know, there's all those things like the president takes credit, you know, but probably and blame. It probably doesn't really deserve either. Like economics and interest rates and policy cycles can go, you know, before and after the president's influence.

This president happens to be more of a markets person than some of the previous ones and focuses on it a lot and probably has experience in interest rates given the real estate background and the multiple bankruptcies and all that kind of stuff. So he has his own view. When I look at it, I think, I don't know if they really need to cut rates a ton and if they do, there'll be a short-term rotation

in the market followed by back to thinking about the perception of growth. I think the challenge where we are right now is there's a chance we get a growth scare August through October this year, just based on a different thought about the growth rate. But I think the other side of this, 26 and 27, we still have this dream that's kind of hard to break

about productivity from AI. And so none of this, I think, matters in a six month view. You think all of that, the power of AI and this dream, as you call it, supersedes everything. Yeah, I think it does. For the time being, it's just innocent until proven guilty. Were we reminded of that last night with Alphabet

and just how much they're spending? Yeah, they're spending. $85 billion. The two things that if you're bullish on equities, you don't really have a great answer for in the next six months are one, like eventually that spending from those hyperscalers is going to be a problem. Either they get massive return on the investment and things are fine, or their depreciation

goes up, their gross margins go down, their valuation goes down. And we don't know yet and we're still innocent to prove and guilty. The second thing it's hard to sort of triangulate is we run as a as a United States at a wartime deficit and so if we decide not to you know that probably pulls some liquidity out of the system that's fostered risk taking. I don't have a great comeback for that one other than like it hasn't mattered and it's been the case for a while so the market's focused on you know the potential for margin expansion and AI implementation other stuff in the near term. Do I want to lean into the mega cap outperformance story

still, or do you think if the market starts to sense, look, I mean, the prevailing view is that we're going to get rate cuts maybe September the first time. You talked about the broadening of the market, maybe housing stocks do better. Some of the things that have been a little sleepy start to wake up.

Do I anticipate that with my dollars, or do I continue to ride the best horses in the race, figuring that if they don't win the market race, they're gonna place or show it at worst? I mean, Q2, I think the rising tidal of sub boats, I think everything will work, but Q2, the second quarter, was really not, on a relative basis, great for high quality

growth stocks in the mag-7. They appreciated it off the lows when the president said to buy stocks. But it was really like a lower quality junk rally, with a lot more speculation. Well, it kind of still is. It kind of still is, right? What do you make of that? The meme stocks are doing crazy things, and high beta. Was that another record yet again yesterday? Palantir is the valuation is implying something

that's never happened in the history of the world, like a growth rate that's never happened. I think the retail investor is a bigger piece of the pie than it was and can move things in windows that are meaningful and maybe doesn't really care about institutional things. Why? Because they don't have... Most people who run big piles of money on the institutional

side have someone they have to answer to, mainly the person who gave them the money to run. If they do something that is deemed as frivolous, they may lose their assets and their business. If you're a public company, you're running a $100 billion growth fund charged at 50 bips, it's a $500 million business. You're feeding a lot of mouths at the firm. So you gotta be careful. If you're some dude with your million bucks

gambling on Ethereum and ARK or whatever, the Palantir, you're like, all right, so you blew up, but you probably blew up with house's money you didn't have three months ago anyway. So there's a totally different mindset. I think the retail guys feeling pretty good about themselves right now and kind of peaking down the fairway.

I know what I'm doing. I bought some, you know, Fartcoin and some whatever and I'm great. And that'll be a problem eventually, but for now I think it's really hard to deal with if you're trying to buy like kind of top half quality stocks that you think have pretty good fundamentals. Okay, well let's continue the conversation,

expand it and bring in JP Morgan's mirror pendant and wealth enhancements, Ayako Yoshioka. Ladies, it's great to have you. Mira, you first. What do you think about what Mr. Parker said? We've had 12 new all-time highs so far this year, and this pattern is consistent with the past. These all-time highs tend to cluster together.

In fact, 81% of the time, an all-time high occurs within one week of another all-time high. And this momentum can potentially continue. If we look back at the history of all-time highs from 2013 essentially to today, we've seen at least 10 new all-time highs per year and we've seen about 34 on average per year with the exception of 22 and 23. This was a similar environment throughout the 90s so it certainly wasn't just the low interest rate environment we've had. Where it falls down is when there is a meaningful structural challenge or recession.

So I think about the drought of all time highs around the tech wreck, around the financial crisis in 22 and 23 when you had the inflation surge and also the rate hikes. In the absence of a meaningful downward catalyst, which right now we've tasted a lot of risk this year, wars, existential threat to AI, debt ceiling, taxes, tariffs. In the absence of a meaningful downdraft or a recession, we could continue to see some market momentum here. But are you looking for any of those negative catalysts

to show their faces anytime soon? We cannot lose the plot on tariffs. We went from a baseline of 10% to 15%. Maybe we're gonna head to 20%. So that has creeped a little bit higher. That will have an impact over time when we think about inflation and profits. But then we move a little bit further out and we get a little bit of catalyst into the early part of next year to growth when we think about tax cuts. So we have a little bit of fiscal stimulus built in later. That can all help. It doesn't mean that we won't experience pockets of volatility. Could we see a correction or pullback?

Sure. But will we see a durable correction or pullback? I think that's the big question. And I don't necessarily see a catalyst for that. Do you agree with that, Aya? Absolutely. It's tough to say when 35% plus of the S&P 500 is tech related and really being bolstered by the AI thematic, it's really difficult to see what really brings it down. And then some of the cyclical areas that could be helped out, again, as you talked about with Adam regarding interest rates coming down, that's just going to help that and broaden that out. So it's really tough to see what really brings us down for a long period of time.

Were you laughing? Were you laughing because there's too much positivity or? I was laughing because I saw the wonderful Ann-Court Crawford over there and I like her and I know she's coming on a little bit, so I was waving and saying hi. Oh, I see. Okay, I'm glad you're paying attention to our conversation here. I'm paying attention to your future guests as well as the current ones. I was multitasking.

No, I agree with that 100%. You know, 58% of the S&P is tech, comms, services, and financials, and I think they're in pretty good shape. And I totally agree that I don't see a big negative catalyst on the horizon. I don't think the tariff risk can really damage the S&P earnings path meaningfully. And so- You don't think it's going to hurt margins? You always talk about margins. I think the median stock probably not, so- You don't think it's gonna hurt margins? You always talk about margins.

I think the median stock probably not, just because I don't think it hurts the big financials very much. I think a lot of the tech stuff is relatively immune to comm services. So there will be select businesses, but not maybe median stock. And so if the Fed balance sheet is expanding

and the median stock has margins go up, the stock market goes up. It's like that simple. So sure, of course we get a growth scare. Any of us would always say that. We're never gonna say we get that. Well, I mean, you could have a correction for any reason at any time.

Yeah, yeah, but are we gonna hit whatever, I mean, there was a lot of numbers, there were good numbers, but the all-time high, of course it's gonna happen in 26 and 27. We're headed higher. Well, you said we could go to 7,000 by the end of this year if all things go right. I said the end of next year, but probably earlier.

You said the end of next year. Yeah, end of next year, but I think it'll be earlier. Because I think at the end of the day- I thought I said the end of next year but probably earlier. You said the end of next year? Yeah, end of next year but I think it'll be earlier because I think at the end of the day. I thought you said the middle of next year and then you even said well hey there's a chance that we could do it at the end of this year. It sounds heroic it's 10 from here. Be a hero. Yeah no it's easy no I'm saying I'm saying it's not as heroic as it sounds is what I should have said. I think the risk reward is skewed to the positive everyone I talked to would love to buy all these high quality names down 10, 15% in August through October gross here to participate in what's probably going to happen in 26 and

27, which means they probably won't go down that much. Do you think there's still a bunch of money that's not participating from the institutional side that provides the fuel for that next fire rally here? We know that there's a lot of cash on the sidelines, period. We've continued to see retail investors deploy money, and you start to see institutional clients and hedge funds indeed catching up. So there is still some money to be had on the sidelines, and I think what's so interesting about this rally too is all of the things

you could have criticized previous rallies about over the last decade plus are not necessarily the case, where you have higher interest rates in the market has been resilient. You have very resilient profits in the face of higher interest rates as well, shrugging off some of these concerns. And for a long time, people said the US is the only market you can invest in.

Now you're seeing major competition from most international markets, lower dollar, and yet you continue to see investors double down on the U.S. So we're certainly not actually seeing the sell America. We're starting to see a little bit of rebalance America, but a lot of investors are actually doubling down. Aya, would you be doubling down? There was a thought that you know American exceptionalism that trade idea in the market talking trade was in question if not finished. Meira suggesting that maybe the death of American exceptionalism was greatly exaggerated. We completely agree with that you know I think what we saw

earlier in the year was just that the valuation differentials between. US and ex US just got to an extreme level and they've narrowed a lot and you know just given the weakness in the dollar that's clearly helped out international stocks but I think when you look underneath the surface and you look at some of the composition of the individual stocks that make up the indices, you can see what's propelling these indexes higher and you're just not getting as much earnings growth outside the US as you are in the US sort of mega cap and tech companies. I don't think valuation matters very much, to be honest with you.

I think she's right, there was a valuation differential, but I don't think the catalyst was that. The catalyst was perception about tariffs impacting US companies more and where they were in their rate path in Europe versus here. I totally agree with both folks here that US is superior. The reason is because of all the main themes that grow above global GDP for the next five years the US stocks just over indexed those themes way more and so ultimately they'll participate. The reason valuation doesn't matter is because let's say we agree some companies will benefit from AI

directly we know semis, infrastructure, etc. Some probably benefit on productivity they'll cut cost, predict customer behavior, but what about the ones that are impregnable to it? Maybe they just get multiple expansion because we know their 2030 estimates are a little bit more relatively cheap. We need toilet paper, we need water, we need aggregates, we need waste management, whatever. And so those stocks get more expensive. All the old school people say, oh, it's expensive. But what they're missing is that they're expensive for a reason, that their estimates are more

cheap in five or six years. And the stocks that get cheaper, they're not like this under-appreciated opportunity that none of the smart people see and no computers see. They're cheaper because on average, they're probably more likely to be disrupted by AI. They're just, you know, you got a tax business, like it's probably screwed, I can stick it in a check. So I think that the short-term moves in valuation

actually aren't something that you want to bet on mean reversion, they're probably just gonna keep continuing. And so I'm not really sure you want to buy a cheap market or cheap stocks. The US should be more expensive, It's more awesome, period. Well, that's going to be controversial for some. What do you think?

You're seeing a lot of catalysts in the market. So evaluation is a piece of how we would evaluate a portfolio and you're always looking for relative valuation opportunities. But when you think about a lot of the catalysts we have afoot in a variety of sectors, we have choice for the first time in years. We had two years where the MAG-7 stole the show. And if you look at the best 50 stocks through the first time in years. We had two years where the Mag-7 stole the show,

and if you look at the best 50 stocks through the first half of the year, only one of them is a Mag-7. Now 17 others are tech, which means there are other stories in tech besides just these seven companies. And then you look beyond that, you see industrials as the best performer.

It's not just stuff linked to AI, although that's a piece of it. No, industrials, financials, they've all been around recognized. Aerospace, HVAC, transport, so many different stories there. Same thing with financials. Insulation from tariffs, but also deregulation. Utilities around power generation and that need for the long term.

So there are multi-year catalysts here afoot. Some of them policy related, some of them not. It just depends if you're trying to beat the S&P 500 as an institutional manager or if you're just an individual who's trying to make some money. If you're trying to beat the S&P 500 as an institutional manager, or if you're just an individual who's trying to make some money. If you're trying to beat the S&P 500, you're going to own loads of the Mag-7 and other big companies, because look, Nvidia's four trillion cap.

If it goes up 10%, that's 400 billion. There's only like what, 15 other stocks or 20 other stocks that are even 400 billion in aggregate. So if you're trying to beat the index, you're going to own a lot of those. If you're just saying, make me the most amount of money, sure, there's tons of other stuff that can go up way more, and disinformation security, or polyfunctional robots

or what, you know, both quantum cryptography. There's tons of cool tech stuff underneath, but of course you're beating the S&P, you got to own Nvidia. I mean, of course. We're going to leave it there. Adam, thanks. Merit, thanks.

I will talk to you. Good to see everyone. Yeah. All right, let's send it now to Pippa Stevens for a look at the stocks moving into the close. Hey Pippa. Hey Scott. So Dow Inc is the second worst performer in the S&P today

after the company cut its dividend in half with Q2 results also missing analyst expectations. The chemical manufacturer's CEO said they are grappling with tariff uncertainties and that the lower dividend would improve near-term flexibility. And Chipotle is in the red after cutting its same store sales forecast after traffic declined for a second straight quarter with the company also posting weaker than expected revenue. The company did say sales trends are turning around and starting in June customers began returning thanks in part to promotions.

Still that stock pacing for its worst day in nearly eight years down here 13.5 percent. Scott? All right Pippa thank you. We're just getting started here. Up next, Aldra Zonker Crawford. Adam already teased her appearance on this program, and now she will be sitting in his chair. She'll join us next. Welcome back. Alphabet's stunning spending on AI giving a big boost to chip names like NVIDIA and Broadcom today, only underscoring what the so-called hyperscalers are willing to pay in the ongoing arms race.

Anka Crawford is Alger's executive vice president and portfolio manager, owns many of the names in this conversation, and that's why she joins us now. It's nice to see you. Good to see you too. Okay, so you recently doubled your position in Alphabet. You were dramatically underweight. Are you still underweight?

It's still underweight, but close to the benchmark. Okay, what was your take from the quarter? I think everything actually turned out better than we had expected. Search, YouTube, CapEx spending, GCP was good, CapEx spending got taken up, and for the right reason, because demand was greater than supplies, so they have to add more capacity.

What I think is interesting about Alphabet at this moment in time is that everyone had written them off as an AI loser. Yeah, maybe including you. Including me. But things are moving so fast in this world of AI that companies have the ability to leapfrog and come back in the game, especially a company like Google. You look at Gemini 2.5,

it's one of the better models on the market right now. AI Overviews, it's a nice onboarding of AI for the general population. Like all of us use Perplexity or ChatGPTE or Grok. The average person really lives on Google and that AI Overviews is an incredibly convenient onboarding. So they don't have to go find Perplexity. So you think the sell-off,

I call it the Eddie Q sell-off, right, the day that he suggested that for the first time ever Google searches were down on their search engine. That was way overdone. Can you make that statement or are you still concerned about where their role is relative to the large language models that are getting some market share that they once had? Look, I think there's three issues that plagued Google. The DOJ, search, and whether or not they're an AI player. Did you rank those in order of importance?

No, not necessarily. It was search. That would be search, DOJ, or AI, and then the DOJ. OK. In that order. We'll know about the DOJ soon. I think they're becoming a player and proving that they can cross this chasm And maybe they're a little slow But they can catch up and search is still an existential question for them and how they're going to have to deal with search and protect that business

Not sure you see 85 billion dollars that they're spending Is it make you love Nvidia even more? Yes, it's your biggest position it is it is that they're spending, does it make you love NVIDIA even more? Yes. It's your biggest position. It is. It is. I think what is very clear is that if you look at the amount of usage of AI, it's just exponential.

I mean, I looked at my own usage a month ago, and it's a 30-fold increase in the last eight months of number of tokens that I've used in just ChatGPT. And if you look at where we are in terms of adoption rates of AI, we're just starting with the general population. So, if we think about what's about to happen in terms of usage and the compute needed, we're at the very early stages. You made me think of something as you're just saying that.

How, as a portfolio manager, do you look at your own usage of searches and queries and whatever, and try not to make too big of an assumption that what you're doing, others are doing? You said in your own words the general population is still using Google Search. But your own words, the general population, right, is still using Google search, but your own influences can influence the way you see certain stocks.

Can you talk to me about that? Sure, I mean, I- Because you reference it as a key data point. It's like, look, I'm using XYZ search large language model more so than I ever have. So that has to be coming from somewhere. Yeah so I think look human behavior is all similar whether it's whether it's me or whether it's the general population it's just maybe lagged. I mean we are so tech focused in in our industry that you know

we're always trying to use what's best. I was an early adopter of perplexity. I don't use perplexity at all anymore. Right, so is that an early indicator for where perplexity is going? I don't know. Would you use it more if Apple bought it? No, I think Apple should buy OpenAI. But.

Oh. Well, that'll take a mountain. Well, really, I mean, if they pay, I don't know, $800 billion for it, it's 25% of their market cap. It's not so much about mountain to cross the chasm. You don't own Apple though, right? It's incredibly underweight. What would make you raise it?

If they did something like that? Yeah. Only open AI? Well, I think, you know think the market would cheer them buying or partnering with any of the LLMs, but what they really need to do is something a little bit more radical. I mean, what Meta is doing with all of the hires

that they're making, that's a radical shift. This is a time for companies to start thinking radically and not incrementally. So you don't care if they're spending a ton. You believe in the dream? I believe in the dream. Well, we'll leave it there. See if the dream comes true. Anka Crawford, thank you. All right. We're just getting some news related to Sarepta. Angelica Peebles joins us now with more. What do we know? Hey Scott, Sarepta Sharers are

rebounding a little bit this afternoon and that's after Endpoints is reporting that speaking to a senior FDA official, unidentified FDA official, that they are saying that Surrupta could make a change to the dosing or manufacturing of their gene therapy, Alevodus. Remember the FDA asked Surrupta to stop shipping that gene therapy just a few days ago and all they would have to do is change the dosing of the manufacturing and test it on the next 10 to 12 boys and show that the liver related issues were improved. Now, earlier Endpoints had a headline saying

that the FDA wanted to see a new study from Sarepta so that obviously would take a long time, was the thinking, and that could be expensive. And now they're saying that it actually might not be as Big of a barrier as originally thought and so that might be why you're seeing some of that recovery. Just look at the stock It's been all over the place. It is still down today, but less down than it was earlier Scott All right, Angelica. Thank you for the update Angelica Peebles up next right here at post 9, is Ed Yardeni. S&P and NASDAQ hitting fresh intraday highs today, so how far can this record-setting rally run? Joining me now at Post 9 is Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research. Nice to see you.

My pleasure. I mean, this thing just keeps going and going and going. Is it gonna continue to go? It's a slow motion melt up. It doesn't feel that slow anymore. Well, you know, day by day basis, but it's adding up to substantial gains clearly. And I think the market is coming around

to a view I've had for a while, that the economy is resilient and it may not get a recession anytime soon. Maybe so, but it may get a slowdown. Well, it may get a slowdown, but not a recession. Bear markets are caused by recessions. Corrections are anticipating recessions that don't happen. I don't think recession expectations

are particularly high right now. I think the market is fairly confident that the consumer is going to continue to spend and I agree with that. And capital spending has become less interest rate sensitive and it's clearly driven by the technology sector which I think continues to drive. When people say the market is expensive at 22 times, your reaction to that is what? My reaction is, how long do you think this expansion is going to last? If you think it's going to last through the end of the decade, which I think it will, I'm not promising that there won't

never be a recession again. But let's face it, the economy has demonstrated for the past three and a half years that it's remarkably resilient. It's put up with a pandemic. It's put up with a rebound in inflation, the tightening of monetary policy, Russia invading Ukraine and here we are.

Well, we flooded the zone with so much money at some point. It is what it is though. I mean, we did and the money is still and there's still an enormous amount of money out there. And by the way, one of the reasons that consumers continue to spend is baby boomers. People of my generation have accumulated $80 trillion of net worth. And I'm not retiring, I'm still working for a living, but my friends are retiring and they're spending money.

And meanwhile, their stock portfolios are going up, so they're happy. What concerns you of anything? Because you don't sound too concerned about anything. No, I'm always concerned. You have to be concerned about things. About what? Clearly. anything. No I'm always concerned they have to be concerned about things. But what? Clearly, well I mean tariffs are still not a done deal and there we'll see what happens with the tariff situation I guess on August 1st and we'll see what

the economic implications are. I think there may be some pickup in inflation over the next few months and I think you know there clearly is this issue between the Trump administration and the Fed I think that could give, there clearly is this issue between the Trump administration and the Fed. I think that could give us some... Well, I'll say. Yeah. Well, how much are you concerned about that?

I mean, we're going to get this, you know, as we said, almost unprecedented visit today from the president to the Federal Reserve Building, whether... Yeah. Oh, you think it's extraordinary. Tell me more. Well, it's extraordinary because it definitely signals that the administration on a daily basis wants to eliminate the Fed's independence. And people like Warsh have indicated that they think the Fed should be cooperating with

the Treasury and that there should be an alliance between the two of them. But I think a lot of us would disagree with that. And we saw what happened when there was a rumor or just a discussion for like a nanosecond that Trump was going to fire Powell. The stock market took a dive and bond yields went up. I mean, at the end of last year, we saw the Fed lowering rates and I said that didn't make any sense and I predicted bond yields would go up. They went up 100 basis points.

Do you think they should cut this year? I still think that they're none and done. I mean that's been my position since the beginning of the year and so far so good, but the year's not over. I think a lot of people are thinking about September, but I think we're going to get somewhat hotter inflation numbers. Look at initial claims. Initial claims might be indicating that the labor market might actually be strengthening.

And the reason for that is if everybody just went through this agita about the tariffs and we got through that with the market being at a record high. I know, but you just said that you think we're gonna get some hotter inflation numbers. Yeah moderate this means that I my thinking on tariffs and inflation is that they're not going to increase inflation they're going to keep inflation from going down. In other words inflation is going to be suddenly stuck around 3% instead of going down to 2%. That's kind of the way I'm looking at the impact of tariffs. 3% is the new 2%? I mean is that it? Well the Fed doesn't think so.

I mean, the Fed's still sticking to 2%. I mean, as far as the administration is concerned, 3% is no big deal and they should be lowering interest rates. But by the way, if they do lower interest rates and the slow motion meltdown will become a very rapid meltup. It will become a very rapid meltup. Well, then you're going to be using the word euphoria again. Euphoria, absolutely.

Yeah, yeah, I mean, the good news is earnings are actually doing quite well. Earnings expectations are rightly improving and they're better than expected. We'll leave it there, Ed, thank you. Thank you. That's Ed Yardeni. Up next, we track the biggest movers into the close. Let's go back to Pippa for that. What do you see?

Hey Scott, well two IPOs today going in opposite directions. The latest action from McGraw Hill and Accelerant. Coming up next on Close U-Bow. Let's get back to Pippa now for the stocks she's watching. What's at the top of your list right now? Well, we're watching a pair of debuts on the NYSEE today, starting with McGraw-Hale here, falling below its IPO price of $17 per share, pricing below the low end of its range, with the company raising about $415 million in its offering. The EdTech name had been owned by Private Equity since 2013. Accelerant, though, surging 28% in its first day of trading, trading well above the $21

offer price, which was upsized. The insurance company now valued at $6.4 billion, with those shares up 31%. Scott? Pippa, thank you very much for that. Pippa Stevens coming up. We'll tell you what's behind some serious weakness in the airlines today. The bell's coming right back after this. Alright, coming up next, we'll run you through what to watch for when Intel reports in overtime. That's in the market zone, which is next.

All right, we're now in the closing bell market zone. We're just minutes away now from President Trump arriving at the Federal Reserve. Eamon Jabras will have more on that in just a moment. Phil LeBeau is watching the airlines. Christine is looking ahead to Intel. But Eamon, we're going to start with you because the president just posted on social that he's on his way or he's about ready to head over there and he's bringing a lot of backup with him too.

Yeah, he's bringing a large group with him him Scott. The president posting this on social media just a short time ago he says getting ready to head over to the fed to look at their now 3.1 billion dollar plus construction project also present will be fed chair Jerome Powell, Senator Tim Scott, Senator Tom Tillis, OMB director Russ Vogt, chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bill Pulte, my appointees to the National Capital Planning Commission, James Blair and Will Scharf, and various other construction professionals. So we know that the reporters have been loaded into the motorcade, a very short motorcade from here at the White House over to the Fed.

I do that drive every day in traffic. It's going to be a lot shorter for the President with no traffic, just a minute or two to get over there from here. And we expect to see the president on camera live as reporters get into position to capture those images of the president. And the big question all day today, Scott, has been whether or not we're going to see a handshake between J-Powell and Donald Trump. And it looks like from the president's post here, he is expecting to see Powell in person, and we would expect that the pool cameras will catch that moment on camera. That's a fraught moment for Jay Powell. After all of the criticism the

president has unloaded on him in recent weeks and months, calling him every manner of insults, saying he's too late on interest rates, he's simply wrong, doesn't understand the economy, Powell insisting on the fed's independence. Now Trump really focused on this cost overrun at the Federal Reserve headquarters building and take a look at some of these pictures that were shot earlier today by reporters. There you see the iconic Fed building under construction. It is a huge multi-billion dollar project. It has cost a lot more money and taken a lot more time than a lot of people thought back when

they began this process years ago. And the president's focused on that. His allies have said Powell must resign. They've accused Powell of lying about cost overruns here and suggested that this might be a for cause reason why the president might be able to fire Jay Powell. The president said he doesn't want to fire Powell. He'll be out of office soon enough anyway. So all of that drama will be behind the moment where we do

or do not see that handshake between the two men coming up in just a couple minutes time. I mean, the only person who's arguably been as, if not more critical of Powell than the president, Bill Poulty. I mean, the fact that he's going to, he's been on social every week Blasting Powell too. So that that's gonna be fascinating just to see the interaction that takes place

In that way, too. Yeah, I mean Poulsey has been you know, really really aggressive I would say on social media toward Powell really putting a stamp on that issue And then of course the president's also bringing will sharp's now he has appointed as the head of the National Capital Planning Commission. That's interesting because Will Scharf if you see the president signing executive orders on a regular basis the guy standing next to him who's handing the president the executive orders that's Will Scharf right he's a very close aide to the president the president's now put him in charge of the National Capital Planning Commission which of course oversees all these historic

renovations in the historic capital core and that's an agency that will have a lot of influence over exactly how the Fed continues to do this project or doesn't continue to do it. It's good to be you know it's it's not unprecedented obviously because presidents have passed have gone to the building, but it's been about 20 years. Yeah, and the last time was for the swearing in ceremony, right? George W. Bush went there for Ben Bernanke's swearing in, right?

That was a very different subtext than what we have here, which is, you know, open hostility between the White House and the Fed. The White House demanding that the Fed come to heel, the Fed chair resisting that demand. I mean these are as high stakes as it gets, you know in global finance. And we're gonna see it encapsulated in this walk around. We expect to see the President,

you know touring the construction site. We do expect the President to make remarks on site. And so we'll hear from him. All right, we'll see it all unfold in a matter of maybe maybe seconds and not minutes. Eamon thank you that's Eamon Javer. Bell is ringing us out in what has been a mixed picture today. The S&P NAS higher extending their record gains. Dow and the Russell will be in the red but I'll put it in overtime now.