Odd Lots - Why Savita Subramanian Thinks Stocks Can Keep Going Higher

Episode Date: April 4, 2024

When Savita Subramanian, head of US equity strategy at Bank of America, raised her outlook for stocks at the end of last year, there was a lot of skepticism that equities could go any higher. The S&P 500 had already surged on expectations that the Federal Reserve would start cutting rates in 2024. And investors were very excited about AI. Then, in early March, she increased her year-end target for the S&P 500 even further, going from 5,000 to 5,400. Fast forward to the start of April, and the rally has continued even as markets ratcheted down their expectations for rate cuts this year. Of course, there are questions about whether investors are getting ahead of themselves and whether things are starting to feel a little frothy. In this episode, Subramanian explains why she thinks stocks can go up even further from here, how she's thinking about valuations, and why we shouldn't be too worried just yet about a repeat of the early 2000s internet bubble.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts, Radio News. Hello and welcome to another episode of the All Lots Podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. And I'm Joe Wisenthall. Joe, for all intents and purposes, we're pretty much a record in terms of U.S. stocks. Totally. We're recording this April 2nd.

So we're actually down a little bit today, about a percent. But the story in my mind of the market for 2024 is that we went into this year with all sorts of soft landing. optimism, the Fed is going to cut rates a bunch of times. And then all these sort of rate cut hopes are sort of slowly evaporating, but it's hardly affected the stock market. And so we're basically at record highs despite the fact that that first cut keeps getting pushed out into the future. Yeah. And the question is, are stocks going to start to turn lower? So again, they are lower today? They've been kind of vacillating for the past couple of days. Is this the start of a durable drop? Or are markets basically catching their breath after a torrid rally? And are they going to

continue upward. Is all that excitement over things like AI and tech just going to keep going? And speaking of excitement over AI and tech, you do see some commentary at the moment about bubble territory. So the idea that, well, maybe we're getting a little bit too optimistic or isn't it weird that it was expectations of rate cuts that drove the move upward, but as the rate cuts get priced further out, we're not really seeing that big impact on stocks. Totally. So for a while, as the market was doing this sort of straight lineup, really since the end of October, when rates peaked. Part of this sort of, I don't know, bear crowd or skepticism or people are trying to poke holes in the rally is like, oh, it's all tech. It's all the mag seven, these gigantic tech stocks, etc. What's interesting about

lately is that actually a lot of these high flyers, like Nvidia, they've like sort of been flat for the last month or so. And even that doesn't seem to be holding water. There actually are big rallies in many parts of the market. So the question is like why. I mean, you could say, oh, like, the story maybe made sense. It's like, oh, there's these handful of megagiant. They're capturing all of the gains. And so what these new all-time highs don't really reflect what the broader market is doing. The broader market's doing fine. Yeah. And again, against expectations. It's actually broadening out rather than becoming more narrow, which is the kind of thing that you would be worried about if you are in a bubble or about to enter a bubble. But all right, I am very

pleased to say that we do in fact have the perfect guess to discuss markets and whether or not we are closing in on bubble territory. We're going to be speaking with Savita Subramanian, head of U.S. Equity Strategy at Bank of America. And she recently raised her target for the S&P 500 from 5,000 to 5,400. I think this was done about a month ago. And we're already at like 5,200. Yeah. So, yeah, good call. Savita, welcome. to the show. Hi, it's great to be here. Thanks for having me. It's, I feel kind of bad. I feel like we should have had you on way, way earlier because, you know, you are sort of a stalwart of the cell side research on stocks, and yet we haven't made it happen. Kind of weird. That is weird, but we're, we're correcting

for past mistakes. Yes. Okay. This is good. A good type of correction. All right. S&P 500, pretty much at record highs. What's driving up? Yeah, so it's interesting. When we launched our 2024 Outlook in November with our year-ahead report, and we launched our S&P market call with a 5,000 year-end target. And I remember having to repeat that number. Like people would literally say, did you just say 5,000? Like, it was way too high. And now here we are at 52, whatever, and a couple of of months ago, the market basically breezed right through that 5,000 target. And, you know, there's no perfect way to forecast a point in time target. In fact, I think it's kind of a silly number. But the question that we asked ourselves was, okay, now what? Does the market go higher or lower?

Because we're kind of where we thought we would be by year end in January. And everything we looked at said higher. So, you know, I can delve into it. But I think where we are now is still we're sort of climbing that wall of worry. We're still in an environment where, I don't know, it's interesting, if you look at the average target for the S&P, I think it's lower than where the market is today, which is unusual because I think the sell side is usually skewed to being more optimistic. When you look at even analysts' earnings expectations, they're still relatively low outside of the so-called, you know, Magnificent Seven or the, you know, the mega-cap tech companies that have been driving the market. So I still think we're in an environment where allocation to stocks is just

starting to increase. Bullishness is just starting to percolate. And as you rightly point out, the market is just starting to broaden out a bit. Let's go back to that initial call that you made for S&P 5,000. What was the reasoning then in terms of like, let's just start with that question? So the reasoning then, and it was basically putting the S&P it around it, I think it was like a 10% a year or thereabouts was the idea was, okay, where are we now versus where we were a couple of years ago? And I think there's a lot of good news that we should be happy about. We should be happy that the Fed has actually moved interest rates from zero to five because now we have a lot of latitude with which to ease our way out of the next crisis. We should also be happy that the

S&P itself is pretty different today than what it was a couple of years ago. And I think, you know, what I find interesting is that the S&P 500 has basically managed out a lot of its own risk over the last couple of years by attrition. So if you look at a lot of the companies that were in the S&P 500 in 2022, you know, when the big surprise was the Fed was about to hike interest rates by the largest amount ever in the fastest period of time, the, you know, the constituents that were bigger weights in the market are now smaller weights and maybe have even drifted out. And in particular, the ones that have drifted out are those with refinancing risk or companies that might not be able to hack it in a 5% rate world. So I almost feel like the beginning of this year was a good start

in terms of the health of the index. We also saw that despite this mega cap tech dominance, these companies, they got expensive, but they didn't get as expensive as we saw, you know, non-profitable tech during the tech bubble of 99, 2000. Moreover, I think what's really exciting from a corporate finance perspective is that when you look at the risks around the S&P 500 based on higher interest rates, one of the things that worried us a couple of years ago was that the S&P itself was a very long duration instrument, i.e. you were buying today for like great growth, but it was way out in the future and you are getting no cash return today. I think a lot of that has resolved itself because many of the less profitable growth companies have either drifted lower in market cap or have become

profitable and are now returning that cash to shareholders. So, you know, when we looked at companies in the big tech sector in early 2023, we started to see really encouraging signs. These big companies, these mega-cap tech companies, basically acknowledge that they're, you know, were too big to grow as quickly as they had in a zero percent interest rate world, and they were also just going to grow a little bit more slowly. And you saw these growth stocks actually cut capacity, cut costs. Meta did the biggest share buyback that we've ever seen in the history of share buybacks. And, you know, these companies were able to lower their duration by pulling earnings earlier in returning cash to shareholders, et cetera. I mean, the unthinkable happened earlier this

year with meta paying a dividend or initiating a dividend. So I think, you know, the idea here is we're at a point where the market actually looks a lot healthier and much better able to navigate a higher rate environment than it did a couple of years ago. So this is really interesting because you hear a lot of people say, well, stocks look expensive at the moment. And I think Bank of America has a bunch of different metrics that you look at. And I think in one of your notes, you said that the S&P 500 is statistically expensive on 19 of 20 metrics. But the argument is that we've gone through this period of adjustment of higher rates and the mix of the index, its composition has shifted such that, well, maybe those valuations are well deserved.

Well, to some extent, it's the question, should we ever be comparing the market multiple to a prior market multiple, right? Because it's a different animal. And I think today, as you said, you know, we're looking at an S&P 500 index that barely resembles the market in 1980 or even 1990. We've gone from a market that was, you know, 70% manufacturing back in the 80s to an index that's 50% asset light growth health care tech innovation. We've gone from a benchmark that had much higher debt to equity ratios 10 years ago to a benchmark that's paid down a lot of its debt and now has fixed rate, you know, kind of long-term less leverage risk and less free financing risk than it has had in prior cycles. I mean, 70% of debt sitting on S&P balance sheets,

is long-term fixed-rate debt versus back in 2007 it was, you know, something like 40%. So it's almost like comparing apples to oranges by saying the market today looks expensive versus the market of 2000 or, you know, 1980 or thereabouts. So I think that's part of the problem. And then the other part of the problem is when you look at the S&P 500, it's made up of a whole bunch of different stocks. We all know this. But right now there is a skew where, you know, the growth kind of.

companies that really benefited from this sort of free capital environment are bigger proportions of the benchmark and are potentially more expensive than the rest of the S&P. So it's kind of like if you peel back the onion and you take out, you know, five of the mega cap companies, the market multiple drops from 20 to 15 or something pretty extreme. So I think there are a lot of problems with just looking at a snapshot multiple and saying, yep, the S&P is at 25 times. and it's historically been at 15 times, you want to sell it. That's not the call we're making. So I will just give my full disclosure here, which is that I am an investor in an S&P 500 index fund. So I want to thank the active managers at S&P who have successfully gotten rid of some of the more rate-sensitive

stocks out of the index. They've de-risk your portfolio for right. Thank you for the excellent active manager of my passive vehicle. You've already raised a number of really interesting. points. But I want to go back to something you said in the first answer about sentiment, because capturing whatever the sentiment is at the moment is an inherently difficult task. You can look at market measures. What's happening with call options? You can do surveys. Bank of America does a survey of fund managers and they talk about their allocation. When you say that like we're just getting into bullishness, it sounds weird when stocks are at all time highs. What are you looking at when you say something like that. And when you say, okay, we're just getting, people are just getting more into stocks now,

what is the data that backs that up? Yeah, there's a lot of data, and you can basically get data to say whatever you wanted to if you isolate your frame of reference to certain subsets. So I guess it's a complicated question, and nobody really ever has a full kind of up-to-date look at what everybody in the world is holding. And also, I mean, for whoever is buying equities, somebody is selling equities. So it's kind of like, why does positioning even matter? So one of the things we look at is sort of who are the arbiters of inflows over the next, like, let's call it, three to six months, right? Individual investors are obviously part of the pie, but then there's the asset owners themselves, the pension funds, the sovereign wealth funds,

like the biggies that kind of engage in asset allocation decisions. And I think what's interesting there is that you would think that asset allocators, would be maxed out on equity exposure today, given how well the asset class has done, how well stocks have done relative to other asset classes. But if you look at the average U.S. pension fund, their exposure to public equity to stocks is actually the lowest we've seen since the late 1990s. And the reason is that a lot of these pension funds have supplanted their exposure to equities with exposure to private equity or alternative asset classes or, you know, kind of less liquid ways to buy growth. And I think that's important because where we are today

is an environment where pension funds have basically supplanted their exposure to active equity, like mutual funds and hedge funds, with an index fund. But they've actually replaced a lot of that equity exposure with other asset classes in this search for growth. And I think that's potentially more problematic for illiquid asset classes like private credit and private equity and asset classes that haven't necessarily been marked to this current environment of a little bit higher rates and inflation than it is for public equities. So that's one measure of positioning. The other measure of positioning that I've followed my entire career at Bank of America and I inherited this from my former boss, Rich Bernstein, who was our strategist at Merrill Lynch

for many, many years. And I think he may have inherited it from somebody before him. It's called the cell site indicator. And it's the reason I always go back to this model is that it has been the most predictive market timing model for the S&P 500 over a 12-month time horizon, more predictive than anything else I've been able to find. And what we do is, in this sell side indicator is we look at our peers and ourselves and we say, how bullish or bearish are we by virtue of one number, which is our recommended allocation to equities in a balanced portfolio. So when you talk to your broker and he or she tells you, we think you should put 60% into stocks and 30% into bonds and 10% into cash, we take that stock allocation, we average it

together across the entire Wall Street, bulge bracket firms. And we look at what that average. allocation is. And it has waxed and waned between something like 40% and 70%. It's been all over the place over the last 30 or 40 years. But what we found is that when it's at very bearish or bullish extremes, you should do the opposite of what we're all telling you to do. And I think what's interesting is that we're not at a bullish extreme. We're at a point where your average market strategist is recommending that you put about 55% of your assets into equity. which is kind of surprising, given that we've seen dramatic outperformance of equities relative to other asset classes over the last couple of years, surprise gains in the S&P versus other indices. It's a little bit surprising to see that there is still this very tepid allocation to stocks.

I mean, the benchmark for years has been 60% stocks, and we're still shy of that. So it's not to say that folks out there are bearish and under the table and hiding and putting all their money in cash. gold and under the mattress. But I think we're at a point where we're far from that euphoric level on equities that typically heralds the end of a bull market. How much of the rise in stocks is an interest rate story going back to the beginning of this discussion? Because part of the idea here is that, all right, well, the Fed might cut interest rates, but the reason it would be cutting interest rates is because economic growth is deteriorating, like maybe not substantially, but it's weakening a little bit. And so it's trying to get ahead of a

potential recession or something like that. Is that perhaps why there's some reticence on the cell side to jump into stocks wholeheartedly at this point? You mean because of the fact that we're likely moving into a lower growth environment? Yes, exactly. Yeah, I think that is really the underpinning, of this caution. And I mean, if you think about it, since the beginning of 2022, we had economists bracing us for this recession that was going to happen, and it was going to be in two quarters, and it kept getting kind of pushed out. So we've been in this environment where we've been sort of waiting for this recession that hasn't happened. And it's hard to really pound the table on equities if you're expecting an economic recession, right?

This is the wall of worry, basically. The wall of worry, yeah. And then I think on top of that, we've had healthy, attractive returns in the risk-free rate. So, you know, the Tina argument is now sort of debunked because you can get great returns in, you know, in money market accounts. And you don't have to take any risk. So I think that that's the other problem with allocating too aggressively to stocks.

But, you know, what's interesting is that if you go back over time and you look at allocations during periods when cash yields were this high, allocation to stocks were actually higher than where they are today. I think we're just in an environment where we're also surprised that you can actually make any money off of bonds and cash after getting nothing for a decade, that it's almost made those asset classes that much more attractive or surprisingly attractive. And I think there's very little acknowledgement that rates can actually continue to move higher rather than come down. So if you're bearish on stocks because you can get better yield in cash, I get it. But if the Fed is about to start cutting interest rates and most of the assets sitting on balance sheets of

individual investors are in money market funds and retiree accounts where they're looking for investments they can live off of. My sense is that as we start to see short rates come down, if that happens this year, they'll be forced to look for other areas of higher yield, which basically pushes them a little bit higher up the risk spectrum back into good old-fashioned equity income or utilities and financials and even real estate companies. So I think those are some of the considerations that we're thinking about in terms of what is keeping investors on the sidelines when it comes to equities, but what could push them back into equities? So I want to press a little bit further on this idea of maybe it's not a contradiction,

but that stocks have been fine even with the rate move up and even with the higher for longer becoming consensus. So I take your point that over long periods of time or medium periods of time, the S&P 500 is just not as rate sensitive as it might have been times in the past when companies had more debt, had more assets, had more rollover risk. What about, though, just the last two months? Yeah. We're just like, if someone asks you, why haven't stocks gone down over the last two months after

we keep getting these warmer than expected inflation prints, after we keep that rate cut, expectation keeps getting pushed out. This week, we saw the odds of a June cut is now fallen below 50%. Talk about that ongoing resilience. I mean, I think it's really thinking about why the Fed's not cutting. And it's the idea that the Fed's not cutting because the economy. is still running too hot, right? And again, I think that's not a bad environment for stocks, right? I mean, so far, we've sort of seen this proof of concept, if you will. So when you think

about the last couple of years, I, along with many, was expecting to see margins getting hit harder by the fact that we went from, you know, negative inflation to 9% and then to 5, and, you know, now we're a little bit lower. But it's kind of remarkable that margins remained relatively intact and healthy during that entire period of massive volatility around costs of everything, labor inputs, you know, lumber. Everything saw a lot more volatility around costs than what we were expecting and what we thought margins could actually withstand. So I think that proof of concept that you can have the corporate sector, navigate that environment, you know, still be able to price in many areas of the economy. The consumer hasn't slowed down meaningfully. I mean, there's been pockets of

a slowdown, but in fact, the average U.S. consumer is potentially benefiting a bit from higher short rates by that spread between their assets and liabilities. I mean, I think all of this, we've had two years of seeing the fallout of a massive move in short rates, and it hasn't necessarily derailed a lot of the equity market. It's certainly derailed parts of the spectrum. It's derailed, you know, commercial real estate. It's derailed parts of the private markets and the less liquid areas. But we haven't necessarily seen it play through to, you know, your average cash rich company sitting on the S&P 500. Small caps haven't done particularly well, but I think they're perhaps a bit more refinancing or credit sensitive than large caps. But I do think that,

you know, we've had enough time to see that corporates can actually handle 5% cash yields. Some companies are benefiting. Some consumers are benefiting. Consumers aren't necessarily slowing down. We're still all gainfully employed for the most part. We haven't seen massive layoffs. We're still in a very tight labor market, in fact, in many areas of the economy. So I think those are some of the the reasons that the market is remaining where it is, then I think the other kind of, I guess, harder to prove or harder to bear out in the data reason is that we are seeing some seeds sewn for potentially a very strong productivity cycle. And I think that is the bullcase from here, and we need to really all be paying attention to how that's materializing. But, you know,

I said earlier, we should be happy that the Fed has gotten us off of ground zero on interest rates. And the truth is we're now at a point where there's a lot more certainty around earnings than there was a couple of years ago. A couple of years ago, a lot of companies were generating earnings growth per share earnings growth by borrowing money to buyback stocks. That's not a great high-quality source of earnings growth. And then even before that, we had globalization driving a lot of the earnings for the S&P. And you had cost arbitrage, tax arbitrage, basically global arbitrage. you know, if something was expensive in the U.S., you could move somewhere else. And that was just this frictionless, great story for earnings for, you know, for 20 years. But that is also risky.

And we're now starting to see that because, you know, we're no longer friends with everybody. And, you know, this whole globalization story seems like it's at least hit pause, if not reverse. So I think today we're also at a point where we can be a little bit more, what's the word, confident about companies' abilities to continue to generate earnings, given that all of these easy, kind of lower-quality maneuvers are behind us. They've reversed, and we've still seen companies able to adapt. So I think that's another part of this story that's, you know, companies are now focusing on productivity. They're spending money on AI. We'll see if it works or not. But, you know, there is this promise that a lot of the more labor-intensive companies in the S&P 500 can become labor-light very quickly.

And we've seen this happen. I mean, I think what's remarkable is, like, when you look at certain business models, they have vaporized overnight. Like, the idea of a call center has basically gone away after gendered of AI was put out there. We've seen, you know, the need for Python programming completely evaporate because you can get, you know, can get AI to write your code for you. So it's kind of an interesting, very fast-moving theme that's already disrupted some industries and has the potential to really make a lot of these service sectors like IT services, financial services, legal services, that much more efficient. One thing I always wondered, if you are a stock strategist looking at something like the

S&P 500 and you think we are on the verge or in the early stage, of a big secular trend. So for instance, the internet in the late 1990s, early 2000s, or the AI revolution right now. How do you start incorporating something like that into your forecast? Yeah. It feels like it could be so transformative and there's no historical parallel or not a perfect one. Yes, it's hard. I mean, we've been trying to think about, you know, well, there's a few angles.

One is the revenue angle, which is already in play, and that's the idea of the CAPEX takers. So if you have some theme, be it the PC revolution or industrial automation, there's a company that benefits. And if you look at robotics companies or, you know, Nvidia or chipmakers, those are the CAPX takers, and we've seen those stocks do tremendously well. If you think about the next leg, which is probably a longer leg, it's the first movers in industries that buy the stuff and get it right. So, you know, it's basically the first company that buys the right chips and implements them successfully to replace a big chunk of their expensive workforce. and that company could see margin expansion and bump up in their multiple. I would argue that margin expansion might be short-lived if the process can be replicated across the industry.

So I think we move from the CAPEX takers to the first movers to the process being commoditized and priced in across the industry. But at the end of the day, when you look at the companies that have used these tools to transform themselves, the entire sector should trade at a lower risk premium because those earnings are potentially stickier and easier to predict than they would be if you had to worry about this very cost-intensive and risky labor force. Like, people are risky. Processes are less risky. So I think that's the sort of the evolution of this, the way I see it. And then what we did was we looked at prior cycles. Like we looked at the 1980s and 90s to see.

you know, how automation benefited companies. And what was interesting to see is that over that entire time period within sectors, the peers that became labor light versus the peers that didn't become more efficient, the labor-like companies outperformed their labor-intensive peers. So our view is, okay, we've got this opportunity for big chunks of the S&P 500 to become less labor-intensive. And based on our performance data, labor-intensive, labor-intensive, intensity and improvements in that metric have actually translated into alpha. So long kind of convoluted argument for how you track this. But I think right now all anybody's focused on are the CAPX takers and the chip makers and

the tech companies. Maybe now we've moved on to power and grid. But I think at some point, we're going to start acknowledging that there are these industries that are likely to be transformed. There are some industries that are going to go away, other industries that are going to pop up. You know, like any tech revolution, this is going to take away some jobs, but it's also going to create jobs. And we're seeing that real time with Python. I mean, you know, it's interesting. If you talk to a graduate in an engineering program, well, I don't know, maybe it's different now,

but, you know, maybe six months ago I was talking to some recent grads in a program that I'm affiliated with. And they were saying that, you know, the software and the coders were not getting jobs, but the hardware folks were getting jobs. So that was just a big, big transatlantic. right away that was disrupting jobs but creating like tightness and jobs in other sectors. And I think that's just what we have to kind of think about and try to anticipate it in the smart way. So we're listening to our fundamental analysts on every sector. And what's fascinating to me is when we have calls on AI and its use cases, it's not just tech analysts that participate in these calls. It's healthcare analysts, insurance analysts, you know, really old economy business.

where there are potential transformative measures in place. I mentioned before investing in an S&P 500 index fund, and in the investment industry, there's always this preaching of diversification. And you mentioned that, you know, right now maybe people are at 55 percent or people are in various alternatives or from time to time. They're like, go international, buy international stocks or rotate to small caps or whatever. But for the last 15 years, more or less, we really all should have just had all of our money. in QQQ and outside of, no, for real, right? Like, that's like we've almost been punished for being the good diversifiers that we're

supposed to be. And we really shouldn't have. What changes that? What kind of regime shift would you want to see such that it's not always just like this sort of inexorable sucking of value towards a handful of leading edge technology? Yeah, it's such a good point. I mean, I suppose I would argue we're seeing that now. And maybe by now, I mean, you know, March, but not any time earlier than that. But it's really the idea that we are starting to see earnings broaden out beyond just these thematic stories. So, you know, it felt like last year we were just jumping from theme to theme. So it was, you know, AI was doing well and financials were doing poorly. Then it was GLP1 and, you know, kind of anti-obesity. And, you know, it's different theme.

different months, you know, this month there's a lot of interest in power and utilities has actually outperformed on some of those themes. So I think that where we're starting to see that idea that diversification is important is when you look at just within the S&P 500, which is what I know best, we have seen this sort of broadening of the market occurs. So in March, I think something like 60% of S&P companies outperform the index versus less than 50% in prior months, you know, going back to December. So we're at a point where we are starting to see the average stock outperform the index rather than the index outperform the average stock. And I think that's a change. And that is actually more normal than unusual. So historically, we've seen the breadth of the S&P 500 remain a little bit

higher than 50% rather than below 50%. And I think that's something we can point to as a sign that diversification is starting to pay off again. But, you know, I think one of the reasons that diversification didn't pay off over the last 20 years or 15 years was that you had one single buyer of U.S. Treasury bonds. And that was the Fed. And the Fed was pouring trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars into U.S. treasuries. That's not a diversified investor. That's one theme, one asset class, and one big, huge, monstrous buyer. And I think if that environment is behind us, we go back to a more diverse set of buyers

buying different types of things. Similar question, I suppose, but what would give you pause at this point? What would make you nervous? Well, I guess what makes me nervous is, you know, every earning season we're listening for layoffs because I think the linchpin of consumption is, not necessarily rates or the cost to borrow. It's really just having a job, right? I mean,

if you have income and you have the ability to pay off your mortgage, you're not going to walk away from your house. When you lose your job and you have no option to pay off your mortgage, that's when you start to see things really deteriorate. So I think one kind of bull case for the U.S. consumer that we've been highlighting is, you know, we're going to be. still in a pretty tight labor market. I mean, we had this massive resignation during COVID. We had an aging population. We have fewer workers in manufacturing. Meanwhile, there's this huge reshoring initiative brewing where, you know, companies are moving plant property and equipment back to the U.S. from other parts of the world. So I think that tightness in the manufacturing complex and the

feed-through to small businesses in those regions has been positive. But if that starts to slow down, that would be a negative. And broadspread job losses, I think, would be what we'd worry about to sort of end the consumption story. You know, I also worry about the debt burden carried by the U.S. government, but I think that's a harder problem to model into your equity market forecast. Right. I mean, this is like your question earlier on AI and how do you model these things into your outlook. I think it's hard to know how the debt to GDP burden. of the U.S. government resolves itself. Does this mean that the U.S. sovereign, you know, 10-year treasuries are more risky? Does this mean that the dollar is at risk of losing its

reserve currency status? Definitely not today because there's no alternative. But I think those are the more kind of problematic longer-term risks that make me less polyanaish about the world than I might be. Again, though, when I think about those risks, I don't know if they manifest themselves in the S&P 500 and in the public equity markets. I think they're more impactful to private equity, illiquid assets, real estate, you know, just basically bonds. And then just sort of the idea of the U.S. as a high-quality sovereign, I think, is the other kind of part of this that is harder to really fathom at this point. You know, you mentioned that companies cutting cost layoffs and changing their cash management. I sort of came to.

away from that whole period of like U.S. company operators are really good. Layoffs aren't good, especially mass layoffs, but the speed with which companies sort of pivoted as like many companies demonstrated a pretty serious sort of like management competence. Just sort of like a few minutes left. Like it sort of goes in hand in hand with people have jobs. They're probably going to spend it. That'll keep support up. What are you seeing in terms of just sort of how EPS earnings per share or corporate earnings are tracking versus where you would have thought at the beginning of the year or six months ago or at the end of October when this rally really took off. Yeah, yeah, it's a great point.

So we've seen margins hang in there. They've actually expanded a little. The big surprise, like I always feel like kind of surprised when I look at the data, even though I know it, is that we had an earnings recession last year, right? We had companies and the overall S&P 500 had a couple of quarters of negative earnings growth. and that recession is now behind us, and we're seeing companies recover. I suppose when I look at earnings trends, I mean, one reason that I think the market could start to broaden out even more than just a month or two is that when you look at just the

differential between high growth tech companies and the rest of the S&P 500, that differential starts to narrow. Last year, the only companies that were making money were the Magnificent Seven, so it kind of made sense that they just crushed it. This year, we're starting to see that differential between growth trends narrow. We're forecasting about 10% earnings growth this year, which is roughly in line with where I think bottom up consensus is. Maybe bottom up consensus is a little bit higher. We're basically forecasting a broad-based recovery across sectors that we've already seen. So it's the idea that we've already seen cost cutting, and now maybe we see that operating leverage from

demand coming back from, you know, parts of the economy starting to pick up again. We're seeing a shift from service spending to good spending. So that's positive for the S&P 500 and consumer stocks. Those are some of the areas that we're looking at from an earnings perspective. All right, Savita, I'm so glad we finally had you on all lots. Thank you so much for coming on. Thank you for having me. It's great to be here. Joe, I'm so glad we could do that episode finally because Savita has nailed the upwards trend in the S&P 500 at a time. when a lot of people were still very nervous about the outlook for stocks. The one thing that had me thinking, and I think we spoke about this before, but like the one recession path that I kind

of worry about is the idea of like, I guess, lofty EPS expectations kind of coming back to haunt the market in the sense that companies had pricing power in recent years. They raise their prices. that help pad margins, but if inflation is starting to go down or if consumers are starting to push back or if there is pressure on household balance sheets or whatever, then maybe one of the levers they pull is on the job front. And then we get layoffs and then we see consumer power start to go down. And then we see profit margins start to go down. And that would be bad. I'm not saying we're there yet, but that's the one kind of path that I worry about. Totally. That makes a ton of sense to me. And also just this idea that, like, you know, there's this on the service puzzle, why haven't stocks affected by higher

rates? Yeah. Well, rates are high because demand is strong and the economy continues to grow at a robust clip. And if people continue to jobs, they'll continue to spend. And if they continue to spend, then earnings hold up. And then you don't necessarily need those higher rates. So it's interesting that already this year, you know, rather than the scenario that you

described, which seems very plausible to me. So far, at least, we're seeing the opposite, that broadening out of effect. Yeah, it's a virtuous cycle at the moment. It could go in the other direction, but for now it seems to be feeding on itself in a positive manner. The one other thing I thought was really good to emphasize is that index composition change. And the idea that like, okay, you could look at historical PEs and comparing contrast with the 1980s or the early 2000s during the tech bubble or whatever. But there are actual changes in the S&P 500 that might make that comparison less useful. And especially that point about, companies terming out their balance sheets and the duration changes that we've seen. I think if you had a good handle on the degree to which companies had actually refinanced their balance sheets over the past couple of years, you probably would have nailed a lot of the resilience that we've seen in markets. Totally.

I think it's really important. This idea of like sort of earnings durability quality. And so you can imagine that a company that has to hold a lot of inventory or a company that has to from time to time engage in huge capital expenditure. cycles like, yeah, you probably don't want to pay as much for those earnings as you do a company that doesn't have to manage those risks the same way. And so I think like I'm always a little bit scared of like, oh, here's why the index is not, it doesn't matter. And that these like, you know, percentiles, the 95th is not as scary. But it does make sense that there are certain types of

earnings streams that the nature of the business model is such where you can be confident that they'll be more durable than another type of company. This has gone back to being a value bashing show, I guess. Can I just say the one other thing I really like is that, you know, it is really hard to measure, as Savita said, like how much allocation different types of investors have to stocks at any given moment. That's why there's all these surveys. I love that the one measure that seems to have some historical validity is to just measure

the analysts themselves. And when the analysts are really bullish or super bullish, that's maybe time to sell like that. You just do the survey. Look at what people are recommending and see how out of whack they are. I'm looking at the sell side indicator that Savita mentioned right now. And it is kind of crazy how much bullishness there was in, say, like, 2001. Yeah.

It seems to work. Anyway, shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. All right. This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway. And I'm Joe Wisenthall.

You can follow me at the stalwart. follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armin, Dashel Bennett at Dashbot and Kel Brooks at Kel Brooks. Thank you to our producer, Moses Ondom. For more Oddlots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash Oddlots, where we have transcripts, a blog, and a newsletter. And you can chat with fellow listeners 24-7 in the Discord. Discord.org.org.

We have a markets room where people talk about stocks all day. Go check it out. And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we take a look at what's going on with stocks, then please leave us. a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is connect your Bloomberg account with Apple Podcasts. Thanks for listening.