Taxes, tariffs, and the issues that matter most to voters

Brian Levitt:

Welcome to the Greater Possibilities podcast from Invesco, where we put concerns into context and the opportunities into focus. I'm Brian Levitt.

Jodi Phillips:

And I'm Jody Phillips. And today, our guest is Andy Blocker, Invesco's Global Head of Public Policy. Andy's had a long career at the intersection of politics and business.

Brian Levitt:

Andy is here and we are recording this 24 days out from the election.

Jodi Phillips:

24, that's pretty very precise. How many hours, Brian?

Brian Levitt:

Too many. I think I actually looked it up, I had a feeling you were going to ask me that. It's something like 14 hours as we're presenting it right now. I can't, obviously it doesn't make sense to give you a minute, so they're rolling as we speak.

Jodi Phillips:

Well, that's right. So this is our recording day. Of course, by the time the audience hears it, we'll be that much closer to the election, but, Brian-

Brian Levitt:

Mercifully.

Jodi Phillips:

It was about a year ago that you developed your presentation, People Care About Elections, Markets Don't. So, how many times have you given that presentation to investors since you came up with that?

Brian Levitt:

Oh, a lot. It's like an out-of-body experience at this point, but it's popular. People want to hear it for obvious reasons.

Jodi Phillips:

That's right.

Brian Levitt:

That was a good presentation title actually, Jody, I think you were the one who suggested that.

Jodi Phillips:

I did, you remember.

Brian Levitt:

I do, I do.

Jodi Phillips:

Yeah. Well, look, honestly, it was time to freshen up your old headline. Hating the government is not an investment strategy, but we needed to freshen it up a little bit.

Brian Levitt:

I actually liked that one. I actually still say it occasionally.

Jodi Phillips:

Do you? Old time's sake, I guess.

Brian Levitt:

Was there something not PC about that or you just ready to move on?

Jodi Phillips:

No, not at all. We're just moving away from hating, I guess. But look, here's the important thing though, is when you're giving this presentation in front of crowds of investors, what are you hearing from them?

Brian Levitt:

Yeah, I mean, I hear a lot of things. I think a lot of people do appreciate the presentation, us saying that markets aren't going to care as much as you believe and giving a historical perspective for that. But I'm hearing everything from, the US is becoming a Banana Republic, to World War III is near. There's just a lot of concerns out there and I try to help people get over those concerns.

Jodi Phillips:

How? It sounds like you're talking to some pretty pessimistic groups. I'm glad you're doing that, but what's your tactic?

Brian Levitt:

Well, I mean I mostly listen and then I do try to just use facts to steer the conversation back to the right direction. I mean, for example, it's pretty hard to call the US a Banana Republic when you've got GDP where it is. You've got the unemployment rate historically low. You've got oil production historically high. The stock market at all time high. So it's fortunately, I think a lot of the data's on our side when we try to push back against these concerns.

Jodi Phillips:

So you're just bring in the facts. I keep thinking, Brian, about one specific fact that you had mentioned in late August. You tweeted that it had been 957 market days since Joe Biden won in 2020, and on that day, the S&P 500 was up 66%. And then you looked at the 957 market days after Trump won in 2016, and the S&P 500 was up 65%, so.

Brian Levitt:

Amazing, right?

Jodi Phillips:

It was, yeah.

Brian Levitt:

Amazing.

Jodi Phillips:

Very precise.

Brian Levitt:

I do love that chart and it couldn't have worked out any better for the point that I'm always making. And yeah, it's not quite as good as it was at 957 days when they were exactly the same. Right now Biden's is 71, Trump's is mid-60s. Not that I'm trying to say one is better for the other, better than the other for markets. Just to say that people were so worried about it and they basically got to the exact same point.

Jodi Phillips:

Yeah, absolutely. So, so much for Trump's claim that the markets would go to zero if Biden won.

Brian Levitt:

Right, you remember that? Yeah.

Jodi Phillips:

I do.

Brian Levitt:

401k will go to 0, and not to make this too one-sided, I think Hillary Clinton said that we would all go bankrupt if Trump won. He would treat the economy like one of his casinos, so that didn't work out well either.

Jodi Phillips:

No, they were both equally wrong. But I guess hyperbole gets people to the polls, right?

Brian Levitt:

It does.

Jodi Phillips:

Or does it? I don't know. Maybe it drives them away, but that's why Andy's here to help explain all of this to us. So, let's bring Andy on to discuss the race and the issues that are on investors' minds. So welcome, Andy.

Brian Levitt:

Andy Blocker.

Andy Blocker:

How's it going guys?

Brian Levitt:

How are you?

Andy Blocker:

I'm great. I could just sit here and listen to you guys all day. I mean, I don't think-

Brian Levitt:

Well, that's nice of you.

Andy Blocker:

... I could add much to this conversation.

Jodi Phillips:

All you have to do is subscribe to the Greater Possibilities podcast and you can do just that.

Look, so Andy, we want to focus on the issues of course, but I have to ask the obligatory horse race question. So, is this race as close as it looks?

Andy Blocker:

Well, being in Washington, you know my answer. So the answer's clear, it's yes and no. I mean, so on one level it is.

Brian Levitt:

Yes and no, oh.

Andy Blocker:

Yes and no.

Jodi Phillips:

Settled it.

Andy Blocker:

I mean I have to hedge myself, I have to hedge myself.

Brian Levitt:

Crystal clear, crystal clear.

Andy Blocker:

So look, I think... Exactly. We're the government, we're here to help, right?

So look, I think it is, it's historically one of the closest races we've seen according to polling. I mean, usually at some point in the election, at least one candidate's up five percentage points or more, and that hasn't happened at all. And not only is it not widened out to five point lead, it's neck and neck, not just nationally, it's neck and neck in all these swing states. You do the RealClearPolitics average is like one point or less than one point, or it's tied. And I'm doing my map, which kind of changes, based on, I use RealClearPolitics as okay, if you look to seven states today and RealClearPolitics is right, where is it going to be? And two weeks ago, Kamala was winning because she won Pennsylvania. Last week, Trump was winning because he won Pennsylvania, and this week Pennsylvania's a tie, so.

Brian Levitt:

So then why do you say yes or no?

Andy Blocker:

Well, I say yeah, so it's both yes and no. So I think the no part is, that's if you trust the polls, right?

Brian Levitt:

Right, right.

Andy Blocker:

So they've under-counted Trump multiple times, '16 and '20, and polls recently have under-counted Democratic turnout after Roe v. Wade. So I think-

Brian Levitt:

Yeah, 2022.

Andy Blocker:

Yeah, and the question is, have they adjusted and accounted more for Trump or are they still under-counting him? And then what's this abortion effect going to be?

So, and the other thing is, look, I don't think there are really that many, if any, truly undecideds. I think there's some people who haven't decided but are leaning strongly and just waiting for something to happen or something that's going to give them something to move one way or the other. But I think, and a lot of people think, that this election in the last two weeks is going to turn one way or the other. It may not show in the state by state winning by 100,000 or 200,000 votes. It might still be by 10 or 20, that's all it takes. But I think these seven swing states, I think six of seven of them are going to turn one way or the other. And so while-

Brian Levitt:

Oh, wow.

Andy Blocker:

... it may be close, while it may be close, electorally, I think there's going to be a trend happening.

Brian Levitt:

Was that you who made that big bet on Polymarket that drove Trump's odds to like 58% from 46%? Were you the one that put the billion dollars into that market or that wasn't you?

Andy Blocker:

I am not a betting man.

Brian Levitt:

Okay, okay.

Andy Blocker:

And if I were, I would be a lot poorer.

Brian Levitt:

So Andy, if we think about the most likely outcomes, do you consider the House of Representatives a fait accompli for the Dems, and the Senate a fait accompli for the Republicans? And does that mean either way, whether it's Trump or Harris, we end up with a divided government?

Andy Blocker:

So I don't think it's a fait accompli, but I think that's the prevailing wisdom, is that based on the numbers that the House will go Democratic, mostly. There's a lot of different factors, a lot of redistricting, a lot of different things. But it basically comes down to, there's more seats that the Republicans are trying to hold onto that Biden won in 2020-

Brian Levitt:

Got it.

Andy Blocker:

... than there are seats that Democrats are defending that the Trump won in 2020. So, I think it all comes back to that there's redistricting in New York, California, and Alabama, all this, North Carolina. But, so that's the base case but I think in the House, the presidential election really, really impacts who wins the House. So if Trump wins the presidency, I think he could pull the House with him. And if Kamala-

Brian Levitt:

Oh, a clean sweep.

Andy Blocker:

Yeah, yeah. So the two scenarios. The two major scenarios are, Trump sweep or Kamala dividing government with the House and not the Senate, because the Senate seemed really hard for the Democrats to keep right now.

Brian Levitt:

With Joe Manchin retiring, Jon Tester in Montana.

Andy Blocker:

Exactly. Now look, all these things, just like with this House, it could turn based on whether or not Trump wins and pulling the House with him. I mean, there's this slow moving feeling, or maybe it's hopeful feeling among Democrats that they can do something in Texas or Florida. So, but then on the other side, there's some of the latest polling show that maybe a few state seats you thought were safe, maybe Wisconsin or others, may not be as safe as you thought for the Democrats. So look, this can move either way here, but I think two weeks out, talk to me then and I'll actually tell you what I think will happen. But then when we're two weeks out, you're going to ask me, I'll say, "Well, give me another week."

Brian Levitt:

So we're still not putting our money on Polymarket?

Andy Blocker:

No, not at all.

Brian Levitt:

We'll leave that to Elon Musk or whoever else just drove that market.

Andy Blocker:

Exactly.

Jodi Phillips:

Well Andy, we'll bring you back in January so we can talk about 2028, because you know how we like to do this.

Brian Levitt:

Oh, god, oh my.

Jodi Phillips:

Get the early view.

Brian Levitt:

Please, no.

Jodi Phillips:

Andy, we established at the top that the investors Brian's been talking to lately seem to maybe have a little bit of a pessimistic view of things. What do you hear from clients? I know you do a ton of traveling across the US, across the world. What are you hearing as being the most important issue that people are really focused on?

Andy Blocker:

So it's a combination. So when I'm talking to clients, I'm usually talking to either institutional retail clients, depends on where in the world they're from. So if I'm talking to retail US clients, I think it's the economy, it's... And what I mean by that, it's like taxes, tax policy, and who's going to be better for the economy. That's the number one thing people are... And they obviously want to know, yes, they do know, okay, they do listen to Brian and they're usually well school by the time I get to them that people may care about the elections but markets don't. so on the macro basis, yes, stay invested, but it's not about whether you're invested, it's about where you're invested. So they want to kind of know different industries, what's going on.

Internationally, they want to know geopolitics, and tariffs, and foreign policy. Realignment of allies, if it's Trump versus what Kamala might do, vis-a-vis, strengthening our current alliances. So those are it. And then just population generally, the top issues are economy, or should I say affordability, immigration, abortion, democracy. Those are the top four when you talk on the general population side.

Brian Levitt:

Andy, I remember, so you bring up taxes. I remember, I think it was around 2010, the big concern was the fiscal cliff that the Bush era tax cuts were not going to be extended, we were going to go over a fiscal cliff. There was a lot of fear about it. And if I remember correctly, the Obama Administration extended it and then extended the Bush era tax cuts, and then I believe in the American Taxpayer Relief Act, something like 82% ended up being extended. Do you think Kamala Harris, if she were to win the election, would be of a similar mind to what the Obama Administration was in the early 2010s? And does Congress have anything to do with it, or does the expiration just come down to what the President decides?

Andy Blocker:

So the baseline is just, I know you asked about Kamala, but for Trump, he's going to extend to all the tax cuts and he's going to try to get the corporate tax cut, which is permanent at 21% down to 15, so that's what he'll do. Kamala has already said that she wants to extend all the tax cuts for individuals if you make under $400,000, but she wants to let them snap back to the higher rates for those who make over $400,000. And for corporations, she wants it to go from 21 to 28. So she's already said that.

Now, can she do that? I mean, I think reality shows, if I just go to the corporate tax cut, tax rate, most studies show that 25% is the actual optimal rate for actually bringing in income without hurting businesses. So I think if you actually, if she had all of Congress, which is not our base case, if she had House and Senate, there'd be some Democratic Senators who'd be like, "Okay, 25 is enough. Okay, we're not trying to go all the way back up to 28." And I think they'll either do some, keep some of the tax cut for the wealthy or they'll do SALT, bring SALT back, which is expensive. So there's all kinds of variations on that, but our base case is that she would have split government and that she'd have to negotiate with Republicans in the Senate.

So I think it's going to be closer, but somewhere between the $5 trillion of extending all of the tax cuts versus I think her is like $1 trillion. So somewhere between of the cost will be there, because she'd have to negotiate it out. She'll have a lot of leverage because if you do nothing, all tax cuts go up and so all the tax cuts revert. And so Republicans would want to deal with that, but then again, she won't have all the leverage because she doesn't want to raise taxes on those on the lower end, because she promised not to. So it'll be pretty brutal, hand-to-hand combat in those negotiations.

Jodi Phillips:

What about the cap gains tax, that unrealized cap gains tax on the ultra wealthy? I think it's like, what, over 100 million in assets? Is what Harris talking about something that could happen, given hand-to-hand combat, or is it more of a political talking point?

Brian Levitt:

And let's be clear, that Jody's asking specifically for the Phillips family because of their 100 million in assets.

Jodi Phillips:

I'm very concerned. Yes, yes, 100 million.

Brian Levitt:

You're asking for a friend, Jody?

Jodi Phillips:

Yeah, well, once I got to 101, I started really caring about this.

Andy Blocker:

Well, no, I mean, look, this is important I think. Well, for all the tax cut proposals or tax increased proposals is important. So one of the themes I've had, just like Brian has this theme about people care about elections, markets don't. My big thing is, politics trumps policy. Right? And so you have to look at the politics of these things and from a standpoint of what's popular, what's not. Right? And so for that specifically, people, it's popular to raise taxes on the wealthy. Right? Because most people aren't wealthy. Now, they don't want you to kill them because everyone in America, good thing Americans, we all think, hey, we have a chance to be wealthy someday.

Brian Levitt:

It's coming, it's coming.

Andy Blocker:

So we don't want to really go after them, but.

Brian Levitt:

We will all be hanging out with the Phillips family soon.

Jodi Phillips:

Yes, yes.

Andy Blocker:

Yeah, yeah, and so I think on this specifically, this is a tough one. I think there's some issues with this. I think there's some constitutionality issues with it and there's some political issues with it. So, people are fine with everyone having to pay their fair share, but then how you do that may have issues. Because with this particular program you might have it where if it's unrealized cap gains, it's like, well, what if your cap gains are in the land you own and you not... How do you pay it? Right? There's lots of technicalities to deal with here, and so I don't really see that as something happening for a number of reasons. I don't think all the Democrats are behind that. And there's a practicality issue and there's a constitutionality issue, but it's out there and so it'll be discussed.

Brian Levitt:

And [inaudible 00:17:38] asked a lot of questions about tariffs. And I think back to my first day at university, and the professor in the class said, "Every good economy needs to evolve. You shipped parts of things to other parts of the world, or you shipped other things that used to do at other parts of the world, countries that have comparative advantages, and that's how everybody gets wealthier." And so I've stuck to that theory or I've believed in that. And so when I answer questions about tariffs, it's really, if you're protecting industry or you're increasing the cost of bringing goods into the country, you're just going to get a less optimal economic outcome but it doesn't necessarily mean that you're derailing the economy or derailing the markets. I personally think clarity matters the most, right? Just let me know what the rules are. How do you like my answer and what have you been saying to people?

Andy Blocker:

No, I mean, I think that's as always, I mean, that's an intelligent answer. I think my big thing on tariffs is, yeah, these are choices, right? And so we may choose for national security reasons or for other reasons to say, "I want to protect XYZ industry," and you're saying, "I'm willing to have a higher cost in that industry because I want to be able to have it built at home or I want to save these jobs in this industry." Those are choices.

The interesting thing on tariffs and some of the proposals out there right now is, Trump did a... They actually tried to when they first, when they raised the tariffs on China, they were trying to raise tariffs on those that would have the least impact on the US. Right? [inaudible 00:19:29], but if you're coming and saying you're doing it across the board 60%, that's hard to do. Right? So the question is, do they say, "Okay, 60, oh, but we're going to go in and try to parse it." It gets hard when you go to 60% and then you have the 10% across every country in the world, that gets hard too. So I think across the board tariffs, that's tough, but if you're targeted, you can actually get away with it.

Brian Levitt:

And do you think it will be targeted or you think that it'll be across the board?

Andy Blocker:

So, okay, I'll tell you how I think it will be targeted. It will be targeted vis-a-vis, country by country. So the countries that give Trump what he wants, they'll get a deal on the tariffs, right? Those who don't, they'll go in and I think with Lighthizer there, I think there will be some effort at targeting them, but it's kind of hard, right? So you have to... and that's going to, we'll see what Trump's thinking at that point, and that's the volatility moment.

Remember last time when he did it? Things kind of leveled off after about six months, once we figured out from the time [inaudible 00:20:47], but once a change he made, it created a lot of waves in the market as people were trying to figure things out. And I think that's what's going to happen here, except it's going to be whatever, every country in the world and those larger economies that impact us, right? Starting with China and then going to others. That's going to be the part, it's going to be the realignment and the rejiggering of our trade relations with other countries.

Brian Levitt:

Did you make your purchase ahead of time for your New York Yankees jersey that you get on one of these Chinese internet sites? Are you doing that ahead so you don't have to pay the tariff on it?

Andy Blocker:

I've got my Jeter jersey in the closet for a while.

Brian Levitt:

You have it, okay.

Andy Blocker:

I mean, now if I'm going to buy a Judge jersey, I've got to get that. I got to get on that.

Brian Levitt:

You got to get it done quickly, yeah.

Andy Blocker:

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jodi Phillips:

So Andy, when you were going through your list of topics that people ask you about earlier, I don't recall you mentioning specifically the Fed, the Federal Reserve, and maybe you did and I missed it, but I am definitely curious about whether the independence of the Fed is something to be concerned about or not.

Andy Blocker:

So I want to be careful with this one.

Brian Levitt:

No, it's the greater possibility. We're not careful here.

Andy Blocker:

You can have a lot of fun with this one, but look, I've met Jerome Powell and I think he's a credible person.

Brian Levitt:

Show off.

Andy Blocker:

No, I mean, no, no, I'm not showing off. I'm just saying, from what I've seen of him and having met him, I don't think he's ultimately totally swayed. Right?

So first of all, let's go to the Fed independence, the direct question. That would take an act of Congress to actually get rid of the current independence of the Fed. So that's number one. Number two, every president tries to influence the Fed. Doesn't matter how they do it, they'll just make statements like, "It'd be great if we had lower interest rates, whatever." Trump is the most aggressive of that crew. Okay?

And so all I'll say is this, I believe that Powell has been data-driven, data-pendent, right? Whatever term you want to use, and I think it will continue to be that way. But as in baseball, we all know that tie goes to the runner. Going back to politics trumping policy, I don't think politics dictates Fed policy, but if you're telling me the data can go either way and you've got Trump breathing down your neck, you're not going to be influenced to go the direction Trump wants to go. So I mean, that's if it's truly a jump ball, as far as the data allowing you to go either way.

A lot of times the data's not there, the data supports going in one direction or the other, and I think the Fed will continue to make that case. But I think in that rare instance where there's flexibility and the Federal Reserve Board is split, I think those are instances where it could make an impact, but I think those are rare. I think most of the time there's usually consensus and because the data is saying one thing or the other and they go that direction. So I'm like, 1% of the time there won't be. It's still independence, it's that they're making an independent decision but if we're acting like they're not influenced by the world around them, I mean, I don't believe in that.

Brian Levitt:

And the key issue, of course, would be the bond market, right?

Andy Blocker:

Absolutely.

Brian Levitt:

Yeah, so as long as the bond market believes in the Fed independence, if it comes down to a jump ball or tie goes to the runner, whatever mixed metaphors we want to use here, as long as they're all sports related. Yeah, as long as the bond market feels comfortable with it.

So speaking of which, let's talk about the financial sector. What are you hearing as the most important issues or what are you focused on for asset management or the financial sector? Are there issues that are dependent on the outcome of this selection that could meaningfully impact the way we do business or the way our clients do business?

Andy Blocker:

That's a great question. So, how do I answer this? From a macro basis, I think Trump is much more deregulatory and there won't be this onslaught of new regulations from some of our primary regulators. So I think that would be true. Specific issues, I think, look, I mean, what are the areas that could impact our industry? I mean crypto, technology, all these impact how we may do business, how we have to adjust, what we have to offer our clients, what we have the ability to offer our clients. So in that respect, we're watching very closely.

The interesting thing is though, there isn't an intersection between the populist side of Trump-Vance, mostly Vance, and the potential Harris-Walz ticket, or at least some of the Democratic Party, about big being bad. Right? And so being anti-big corporations, being anti-merger, being all that stuff, so that's something to watch. I think every company's watching that. So, anyway.

Jodi Phillips:

So Andy, you mentioned geopolitics. I'll leave this kind of a broad question so we can address whatever geopolitical issue might be at the forefront your mind. But what are your thoughts when you get those kind of questions, how are you addressing them?

Andy Blocker:

So, we start off with politics trumping policy, right? And so let me go across the globe, let me start with China. Right? So what we've seen in China is that when Trump got into office in 2017, what, 47% of the American people had a negative view of China, when he left office, 76% had a negative view of China. Today it's 81% have a negative view of China.

Jodi Phillips:

Wow.

Andy Blocker:

So we knew going into 2020, no matter who's going to win that election, the politics would dictate you cannot be seen as soft on China. And what we've seen in the Biden Administration, I think even Trump mentioned in the debate against Harris said, "Look, you haven't even removed the tariffs I put in. You're complaining about them, but you haven't removed them." Yeah, there was no room to remove them. In fact, they've added targeted tariffs on specific industries, either to protect jobs or because they were national security issues.

So from that perspective, they may be different in their methods, like Trump being more volatile with true social or tweeting something and being more bilateral, mano-a-mano taking on China, US, one-on-one. And where Biden or Harris would be more measured, predictable in their policies, and also being more multilateral working with allies. They're going in the same direction, and so there will be tension with China. The key is to keep the lines of communication open. Then there's the 60% tariff. You're going to have to deal with that. Day one, you're going to deal with that with Donald Trump. And that negotiation is going to be very important. A lot of Trump's folks have said the 60% is an opening bid. Okay, well, where do we end up on that? So that's China.

When you look, Russia, Ukraine, couple things there. Number one, NATO, we're not getting out of NATO. Okay? So you need a super majority of the Congress to get out of NATO, so that's not happening, so. However, and a lot of our allies and members of NATO, I think we started 2014, only three countries were meeting their 2% of GDP requirement for being members of NATO for defense spending. Now 23, this year. So they've made progress, and yeah, some of it's the rhetoric from Trump saying, "Hey, you're not paying your bills, you're delinquent. I'm not going to protect you." But some of it is Russia invading Ukraine, that nothing brings to mind like they're being a threat on your border. Okay?

So, and with respect to the main risks around Russia-Ukraine on the election, they're kind of in the same ballpark. I think we all agree at some point here, next year or the year after, we're going to have to work towards a negotiated settlement here. And the question is, is Ukraine negotiating from a position of strength with Kamala Harris fully backing them, or a position of weakness, where Trump has been pretty clear that he's not enthralled with this war? So that could impact. And there's also tail risk of, we can talk about that, but I don't want to spend time on that. What are the extreme options that could happen?

And then you go to the Middle East, how does that change? I mean, clearly Netanyahu prefers a Trump presidency. He feels like Trump would be much more behind him, being able to do the things he wants to do, whether it's with Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran. And then, but no policy has been articulated at all. All Trump has said is, "One, we need to fully support Israel, and if it were me, this wouldn't be a problem." So, what does that mean? We don't know. Right?

So there's a lot of different things geopolitically, from a trade perspective, from a farm policy perspective. But I think the key is that with Trump, there will be volatility in the beginning, the normal change of administration. But then in addition to that, given all the different ways in which he would, not just with terrorists, but also with realigning our alliances across the globe, that realignment takes time and creates volatility.

Brian Levitt:

And yet Jodi, I come back to the point that economy is resilient and the Fed's lowering rates. So as long as, I mean, these geopolitical events are going to be with us. As long as those two things don't change, perhaps we still have a good backdrop for markets, even as investors worry themselves with those events.

Okay, so I just looked, we're 24 days, I think we're now 11 hours, 24 days, 11 hours away-

Jodi Phillips:

That's right, that's right.

Brian Levitt:

... from the election, so.

Jodi Phillips:

That's right. All right, Brian, I think we've asked everything we can at this point in time. It's just going to, we're all going to just see how this ends up.

Brian Levitt:

See what happens.

Jodi Phillips:

And get Andy back on as soon as possible afterwards to explain what to watch for when everything settles, so.

Brian Levitt:

And who's running in '28.

Jodi Phillips:

Oh yeah, that's the first question for sure.

Brian Levitt:

JD Vance vs. Tim Walz.

Jodi Phillips:

Yeah. Brian, while you were in economics class, I just took journalism classes, so all I know how to do is ask questions. So that's my role in all this, but Brian, where can our listeners find more commentary from you about the election or whatever else?

Brian Levitt:

Yeah, thanks for asking. Visit Invesco.com/BrianLevitt to read my latest commentaries. And of course you can always follow me on LinkedIn and on X at Brian Levitt.

Jodi Phillips:

Yes. And while you're on LinkedIn, be sure to follow Andy Blocker as well. And then you can get such resources as the new Investor's Guide to the Election that I saw featured on Andy's LinkedIn, as well as multiple, multiple media appearances where Andy gives the latest insights into what's going on in the world. So Andy, really appreciate you with everything you've got going on right now, making the time to come here and talk to us.

Andy Blocker:

Thanks, great to be with you.

Brian Levitt:

Thanks, Andy.