Speaker 1:
From the New York Stock Exchange at the corner of Wall and Broad streets in New York City, welcome Inside the ICE House. Our podcast from Intercontinental Exchange is your go-to for the latest on markets, leadership, vision, and business. For over 230 years, the NYSE has been the beating heart of global growth. Each week we bring you inspiring stories of innovators, job creators, and the movers and shakers of capitalism here at the NYSE and ISIS exchanges around the world. Now, let's go inside the ICE House. Here's your host, Kristen Scholer.
Kristen Scholer:
As the nation braces for the presidential election, the stakes have never been higher for the U.S. economy. Voters are confronted with starkly different visions from the candidates, each presenting policies that could reshape the economic landscape for years to come. Key issues like trade agreements and tax reforms will be at the forefront of the next administration's agenda, influencing economic growth, job creation, and stability in a rapidly changing global marketplace. Depending on the election results, U.S. trade relations with major partners could undergo a significant transformation. A victory for former President Trump could lead to an increase in tariffs aimed at bolstering American industries, while a win for Vice President Harris could foster a more open approach to international trade. The two candidates have proposed vastly different approaches to tax policy, with former President Trump advocating for tax cuts aimed at stimulating economic activity, while Vice President Harris plans to increase taxes on the highest earners in our country.
These issues, among others, are a few of the many that voters, including our guest today, CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla, will weigh when deciding how to cast their ballots. And now two-time guest Inside the ICE House, Carl last joined us here in the library of the New York Stock Exchange back in 2018 on episode five. Since joining NBCUniversal in 1999, he has covered numerous presidential elections, and with just about a week to go until November 5th Carl joins us inside the ICE House to share insights on the candidate's different policies, and explore how each could impact global markets, global relations, and the U.S. economy. Our conversation with CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla coming up right after this.
Speaker 3:
To prove that there is such a thing as free money. We gave people a little sample of Ibotta.
Speaker 4:
Hi, could I interest you in a sample from Ibotta?
Speaker 5:
What's going on?
Speaker 6:
It's just money?
Speaker 4:
Ibotta is an app that gives you cash back every time you shop.
Speaker 7:
What is it?
Speaker 4:
It's money.
Speaker 8:
So, I can just take this.
Speaker 9:
This is real?
Speaker 10:
This is insane.
Speaker 11:
What's the catch?
Speaker 4:
There's no catch, it's just cash.
Speaker 3:
Get cash back every time you shop with Ibotta.
Kristen Scholer:
Welcome back. Remember to subscribe wherever you listen, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts so that others know where to find us. You can also now find full video episodes on the Inside the ICE House podcast on tv.nysc.com, and on the NYSC YouTube channel. Our longest listeners may remember Carl Quintanilla's first appearance all the way back on episode five Inside the ICE House in February of 2018. Now with the presidential election looming, he joins us once again Inside the ICE House 439 episodes later. Carl is co-anchor of CNBC's Squawk on the Street, and co-anchor of Money Movers, which both broadcast from the New York Stock Exchange. Since joining NBC in 1999, Carl has covered a wide range of stories for both CNBC and NBC news, including the Olympic Games, election cycles, and international military conflicts.
Carl, welcome back Inside the ICE House.
Carl Quintanilla:
It's nice to be back in the house.
Kristen Scholer:
It's great to see you here. All right, well, this election cycle of course marked by President Biden's decision in July to not seek a second term has been unprecedented. Before we talk about the November 5th results, how they might affect the markets and the economy, first I'd like to hear more from you as to how you've processed the unique events that have unfolded in the past four months.
Carl Quintanilla:
Well, every election cycle's different. I mean, I'm thinking back to my first election reporting when I was on the John Kerry trail in '04, and at the time some things were very similar. Foreign policy was a huge issue because of the Iraq war, which we were still embroiled in. Now you have Ukraine and Israel, where we're still exposed to those conflicts in various ways. You had in '04, recent trauma with 9/11 just a few years prior. Today, recent trauma with the pandemic, and inflation has done a lot to damage the American investing and economic psyche. But other things are very different. I mean, the flow of information is night and day. Back then candidates went on network TV, evening news, I was reporting for nightly news, Tom Brokaw was the anchor. That was how a lot of Americans got their information, today look at what we're doing right now, we're in a podcast. Harris and former President Trump are going on podcasts.
Social media worries about deepfakes, worries about misinformation, all those things have sort of disrupted the information flow, which think makes this cycle difficult to price in for Americans, and certainly for investors too.
Kristen Scholer:
That's what I want to focus on a bit more here. As a co-anchor at CNBC, in the context of the perplexity that is out there today, how are you finding that investors are interpreting everything that we've seen, and how do you think that might impact investing ahead?
Carl Quintanilla:
I think we've been asking investors all year long, and even back in when the primaries were in full swing, "How are you pricing in the election?" And inevitably the answer was, "Well, we're really not thinking of it right now. It's going to be more of an issue for second half '24," and even the last few months a lot of advisors and strategists will come on and say, "Yeah, we expect some chop." That's the phrase, "We expect some election chop." And then once we move that past that we can get back to CapEx, and earnings, and cash flow analysis. So, I think there's been this attempt to delay it as long as you possibly can because as you say, it's been so unique and so uncertain. Right now you're starting to see some trades develop, you can argue at it a couple of different ways. Stanley Druckenmiller just this week argued that market's pricing in a Trump victory.
If you look at things like small caps, and cyclicals, and Bitcoin, areas that might get deregulated more, might force more M&A, that's very much a Trumpian trade. And Druckenmiller's point was that if you look inside the market of the internals, you're seeing that. Others would argue, "Well, if you're counting on a Trump presidency to withdraw from, say Ukraine, then why is Raytheon at all time highs? Why is Lockheed at all time highs? Why aren't a lot of exporters pulling back in their stock price if in fact we're going to be putting universal tariffs with the risk of retaliatory tariffs from other countries?" So, you can slice and dice it any way you want, but you look at betting markets, you look at certain polls, market, I think people want to blow off a little bit of political steam by making trades, because so much of the actual polling data is within the margin of error. We really don't know what's going to happen.
Kristen Scholer:
Oftentimes, clearly during the debates along the campaign trail, we see many campaign promises from the candidates of course, based on the balance of power those do or do not play out of course, once the candidate is actually elected and assumes office. How does that work from an investing standpoint in terms of people looking at the markets, ingesting these promises, but knowing that sometimes they do not come to fruition, they cannot come to fruition?
Carl Quintanilla:
Yeah, we're in a silly season right now where both sides are making promises, whether that's no tax on tips or social security income on the Trump side, on the Harris side it would be about tax credits for small businesses and building three million homes, things that are difficult to do without, as you say, a sweep, or at least congressional support and backup, which is why the street's really more interested, they're obviously interested in who wins the White House, but they're really interested in if a sweep, either extreme of a sweep, red or blue, that would be market moving to be sure. It also brings up the point of tariffs where you do not need congressional support to implement tariffs.
And that's why the discussion about what tariffs would do to inflation, and the long end of the yield curve, and prices for Americans is such a contentious debate at the moment. We even had the treasury secretary today talking about the risks to long-term economic growth. Do you want to have the American economy wall itself off from the global economy, and what could other countries do in return if we implemented universal or certainly tariffs on Chinese goods? So you're right, taxes are very cloudy, and I think the market's pretty wise to that. You don't see a lot of people making huge bets on taxes alone, because they know that control of the house and senate's going to make a big difference.
Kristen Scholer:
So, among the sophisticated investors that you speak to on CNBC, and of course among your viewer base as well, do you think from an investing standpoint it is tariffs that are the most important?
Carl Quintanilla:
Well, it would be certainly in the early going. I mean, there's other things that can happen gradually, but tariffs could happen on day one. And there's been a ton of analysis on looking at the first Trumpian term where you had say tariffs on laundry equipment, and what happened to the price of a washer dryer from the moment the tariffs were implemented and from the time they went off. And you can see a reaction in prices. Now, a Trump White House would argue that other countries pay that, a more democratic stance would be that it's passed onto the consumer. So, we have been through that ride before.
I remember Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary back in Trump term number one coming on, and he held up a can of Campbell's soup and talked about the minimal tariff that would come, I think it was on aluminum. And his phrase to us was, "Who's going to be bothered by a penny?" Or whatever the cost of that aluminum tariff was. But if Trump wins, we'll be back in that discussion, we'll certainly be back, and it'll have an impact on how investors view global trade, and maybe inflation, and maybe rates.
Kristen Scholer:
Have you seen any economic projections on your show on CNBC as to how trade policy would impact the economy here at home?
Carl Quintanilla:
That's a hard one. I haven't seen a ton of it. The bigger discussion is what it would do to the deficit. I mean, you've seen I think two or three studies in the last, say two weeks, one from the responsible budget committee in Washington just looking at what the damage would be to the deficit if either administration ... And then neither of them are good, that's the problem. And that's why you seen yields be a little stubborn at the long end, because there's not a lot of conviction that either side is offering measures that will reduce the deficit or the debt, and some argue that's likely to keep a ceiling on the kind of prosperity that others argue the American economy is capable of. It's a suppressant to our growth right now.
Kristen Scholer:
We've seen some instances during this campaign trail, it's been unique to say the least as we've laid the foundation for of vice President Kamala Harris distancing herself of late from President Biden. What do you think might be the implications there?
Carl Quintanilla:
She certainly hasn't offered a lot of specifics on that front. I know she was asked about it on the Fox interview this week and said that her administration wouldn't be a continuation of his, but Bret Baier pressed her on how, and she hasn't really gotten that granular yet. It's obviously in her interest to put some white space because, and we can go over all the statistics about why the American economy is outperforming every other developed economy, stock markets at all-time highs, American households have $50 trillion more in net worth than they did in 2019, and yet the sentiment, because of inflation, which is such a powerful, powerful psychological inhibitor, is why it's weighed on say, consumer confidence.
So, she has a tough battle right now in trying to take a victory lap on things that this administration has done right, they would argue, and also the things that have been painful. And even you can tell people all day long that their wages are outpacing inflation, and have been going back to 2019, wages are above inflation, but no one feels like that because when you go to the grocery store, you see eggs at three instead of two, and that's a large number.
Kristen Scholer:
We had seen Biden-Harris administration push through trillions of dollars in fiscal stimulus. Now of course, if there was more gridlock in Washington we might not have seen that the past four years. Many people have said to me that investors like gridlock in Washington. I'd be curious to hear from you what gridlock might mean, and whether or not that is the ideal scenario for investors.
Carl Quintanilla:
Well, the street likes gridlock because it takes work to reprice any outcome, and the market's constantly repricing by the second, the future. So, if you were to have something unlike gridlock where it was just a clean sweep, the market would have to rapidly adjust in its pricing, and that's difficult for investors to do, especially large investors who it's not easy to just get in and out of instruments all the time. So, the market very much would prefer slow, steady, incremental, tons of debate, amendments, things that they can game out slowly. So, they don't want anything too sudden, that's the story behind gridlock.
And also take for example Harris, a lot of these fiscal programs that you're referencing, she was the tie-breaking vote. So, very small increments of voting might've made this situation, whether that's good or bad in your view, very different in the last couple of years.
Kristen Scholer:
Has there been much conversation on CNBC as to which president might mean something different for deal activity? For instance, antitrust obviously is a major factor in some of these massive deals that want to go through, including on technology regulation.
Carl Quintanilla:
Yeah, I mean, the straight answer is that the Republican administration and Congress would be, because of confirmations and all of that, would give you agency personnel that would be more forgiving of M&A. So, if there is a Trump trade at the moment, a lot of it might be in regional banks, which had been on a tear last few days because there might be more willingness to let them partner up. This Department of Justice and FTC have been really tough on American companies, especially the giants.
The Times did a piece a couple of days ago looking at how Harris's economic policy has evolved, and part of their argument was that she's been listening to some Wall Street business types, and even some West Coast business leaders, Mark Cuban, Aaron Levy, Reid Hoffman, Reid Hastings, who have all come to her support and maybe are whispering in her ear, "Hey, we would love it if you'd just take an easier stance on antitrust, or crypto," or things like that, that would very much be in a business friendly manner. So, is she listening to that? There's a difference between what you say to a voter and what you say to a donor, and some of the conversations we've heard about among the donors is that she is saying, "I hear you," and whether that means Lina Khan is out at the FTC, we don't know, but that would be a very clear signal that she is putting some white space between her and the White House we have right now.
Kristen Scholer:
Give us more of a sense as to what that could mean for business activity.
Carl Quintanilla:
Oh, I think if you ask any large investment bank or people who were involved in M&A pipelines, they would say the kindling is right there. I mean, it's ready to burn, they just need to get past this date of November 5th, and then pass some of these appointments and confirmations of agency personnel. But I think it could be, I would say some argue it could be explosive if they got any kind of green light, because there has been this pent-up, "Oh, we would do it." It's not about the price, it's not about the strategic fit. It's really about the regulatory friction, not that it wouldn't get done, it's not that people are afraid the deal's not going to get done, but that it's likely to get challenged. And then do you go to court, and how much of a payment is there if the deal blows up? How much are you willing to put into the legal process and all that uncertainty? Investors hate that.
So, if you were to remove that piece and assuming everything else was equal, pricing, strategic fit, willingness to sell among the sellers, yeah, next year could be very, very interesting. And of course, coming off a low base, you'd be looking at huge percentage increases in M&A volume, dollar volume and deal volume.
Kristen Scholer:
We've heard former president Obama say that on the Democratic side in past election cycles, the candidates need to be more moderate if they are going to gain a large voter base of support. You've been reporting on the markets, and certainly election cycles for decades now. Do you agree with that, and do you think that we have seen that from Kamala Harris this election cycle?
Carl Quintanilla:
I think you could argue that yes, given her history that she's not a Scranton type Biden Democrat, she's more of a pragmatist California Democrat. That's certainly one image that's been used to describe her, that she's not maybe as pro-union as the president is right now, and maybe that's why she has not been able to secure endorsements from the firefighters in Michigan. And the Teamsters have been a little recalcitrant, unlike the UAW, which is behind her. But I think you could argue that she's maybe a little bit less pro-labor in that, and then there's a new-fashion Democrat. I also think what's really interesting regarding moderation and political views is after COVID you had a lot of people move out of blue cities and states when they realized they could work from anywhere, and they moved out of New York to Florida, they moved out of California to Arizona, they moved to Utah, they moved to Wyoming, they moved to Tennessee.
I mean, we've done a couple of specials about the Nashville economy and some other select cities in the Midwest where I like to call it the purpling of America, where it's less harsh red and blue, and a little bit of a mix. And a lot of them are swing states. Arizona is a great example of one where you had a lot of Californians move in. Is that going to alter the calculus? You're probably better off being a little more moderate than going hard left or right if you're really zeroing in on that slice of independent voters, who may in fact be new to the state.
Kristen Scholer:
We know that election years typically are positive years for the markets. The historical data certainly shows that, the economy seems to be humming along, third quarter GDP coming in at 3%. To what extent do you think that tax cuts, if those are enacted after the election, could boost the economy alongside the expectation that interest rates or borrowing costs will be coming down?
Carl Quintanilla:
You mean on the corporate side, you think?
Kristen Scholer:
Yes.
Carl Quintanilla:
Yeah. I mean, taxes are always so hard because we had tax cuts, we had the Tax Cut and Jobs Act under President Trump, and everybody would do these hockey stick charts of corporate earnings just going to the moon. And they did well, but then there's always the effective tax rate which companies pay, which is much different than the actual rate. I think the market would be interested in tax cuts or a lower overall tax rate for companies, but it's not the only thing. I mean, if you think about everything we just talked about, harsh regulation out of DOJ, harsh regulation out of FTC, a president who was not a particular fan of capital markets in general, you would never see Biden doing an event at the New York Stock Exchange. It's just not who he is, it's not the image he was looking to portray, and yet this bull market's going into three years.
I mean, to me that's the most amazing comment on the power of American corporates is they are so good, they are so smart, they have such good information, they have such smart people that basically they're going to weather all kinds of storms. I mean, will there be overshoots? Sure. Will regional banks find themselves in a mess because they mismanaged the yield curve like we saw in the spring of last year? Absolutely. But in general, they're like a house that's built to withstand a cat 5 hurricane. The rain comes, wind comes, floods come, and you'd be a fool to argue that American companies are not the best companies on the planet, especially now when we're seeing some real hiccups come out of Europe. I mean, it's a nice argument on the margin, but I don't think that corporate tax cuts will be material to eat S&P earnings next year, maybe by 1%. I think 1% or 2% is I think what Goldman's been after. It'd be helpful, but it's not a make or break.
Kristen Scholer:
I see here a highlight of Vice President Harris's tax policy does include raising the child tax credit to $6,000. Have any guests on your show spoken to what that would mean for American families and thus potentially the economy?
Carl Quintanilla:
It hasn't been a focus, certainly in my part of the day where it's mostly about earnings. We talk a lot of consumer, and we talk about how much rising prices have weighed on the consumer mindset. Part of that is child care, and a lot of that came from a weird hiccup in labor supply out of COVID where schools, a lot of moms, moms I'm saying because I happen to know this territory very well with my wife, had left their jobs, childcare was an issue, and the cost of childcare rose a lot. So, I think that's Harris's way of trying to answer for that. Her argument is your cost of childcare should only be a certain percentage of your income. So, that tax credit is certainly aimed at that, and it gets right to the demographics that both sides are trying to win over. Women, certainly Latinos, African-Americans, it's all of these interests among a subset of the American electorate where these issues are really potent, and you can see why both campaigns are putting so much money and effort in trying to address them. That's just one example.
Kristen Scholer:
Has anything stuck out to you in the debates that we've seen so far that have changed the needle for the economy and or either candidate?
Carl Quintanilla:
Out of the debates? I don't think the debates were policy heavy in general. I think that's because so much of the discussion right now is that views are really hardened, the percentage of undecideds is really small, and so both campaigns end up relying on emotional arguments and events. "Oh, he said something really crazy about her race," or, "Look at how she allegedly used a teleprompter at an event." It's almost simplistic, marginal events that they think will tap into a voter's psychology. At this point really, do we know anybody who's undecided? "But if I just knew more about her corporate tax policy." No, that's not happening.
I mean, that's how I see the race right now. It's late in the race, both sides, barring Biden's departure, have had time to put out their policy proposals as specific or not specific as they're going to get. So, it's a hyper-emotional cycle, and at this point telling me more about even tariffs, tariffs are, as we said, a big issue, but I don't know if it's going to move the needle on a voter. It might be more about whether or not you think either one is crazy, and sadly that's where we are.
Kristen Scholer:
You were talking earlier about the trauma that Americans have gone through, and I agree, certainly the pandemic for many Americans, many around the world was a traumatic event how that unfolded, and the aftermath of that. Inflation then could have been its own traumatic event that many American families are still grappling with, even though we have seen that inflation rate move closer to the fed's long-term 2% target. Now fed chair Jerome Powell has forecast that more rate cuts will be on the horizon. I'm curious with the economy growing as quickly as it is, if those rate cuts might be in question, and what a Trump presidency or a Harris presidency might mean, knowing that the fed is still an independent body.
Carl Quintanilla:
Yeah, I think it's generally accepted that rates would be higher under a Trump presidency because of tariffs, and what many economists would argue would be hawkish pricing on goods, at least on the goods side. So there's that. At the beginning of the year we were counting on six fed cuts this year, we didn't get that, markets at record highs. So I mean, in fact the whole hiking cycle, the bull market has just gotten stronger and stronger. So, we have this discussion a lot on air, "Oh, the market's going to be so disappointed if we don't get the fed cuts." No, the market will be disappointed if the growth slows down to a large degree, and with Atlanta fed today at three four for Q3, that is not a slowdown.
And if it means fewer cuts, I think the market would be just fine with that. I think we're having discussions now about what if they skip? What they skip a meeting? Which was not the consensus in August. I think the market would be, "You know what? We get it. The job growth didn't slow down that much, consumers, super powerful, gas prices are where they were a decade ago. What's wrong with that picture? If you want to pass on a hike or a cut, that's fine with us."
Kristen Scholer:
An economist recently mentioned to me that given what we've seen with these devastating storms, hurricanes Milton and Helene, in addition to striking workers, notably at Boeing for instance, that this upcoming jobs report that we would get just a few days before the presidential election might be politicized. Based on your wealth of knowledge here, do you think that that could move the needle election day, knowing that that report might be lower or even negative given people out of work amid the strike and the devastating hurricanes?
Carl Quintanilla:
I guess it's possible. Right now on the street everyone is writing, "The next few data sets will be noisy because of the storms." And I think at this point, we've had fed chair Powell for a while now, and if there's one thing that he's tried to condition the street for, that is it's not about any particular data point, or jobs print, or fed meeting, it's about the trend. And I mean, it would have to be a crazy, nonfarm payroll number I think, to call that overall thesis into question. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we get a negative jobs print for the month, although I do remember it has been a year now that we've had these calls for recession really heat up. And I remember hearing some investment bank research desks last year say, "Oh, we're going to have negative jobs prints by summer '24."
And of course that never happened, didn't come close to happening. So yeah, the storms are going to have an impact. Just like Hurricane Beryl back when we were on the bees, this hurricane season did a weird thing with jobless claims in Texas, and there was a five-minute debate about, "oh, is the job market really that week or does it have something to do with the fact that millions of people were without power for two weeks?" So the streets, I always give the street a ton of credit. It's very good at tuning out the noise, and obviously people price things wrong, but street's been pretty ... If you look back at the last couple of years in this bull market, and everything that's been thrown at it from Ukraine, to inflation, to the election, it's kept its eye on the ball. And that really is a testament and a tribute to American capital markets. No global capital markets structure has that kind of intelligence in my view.
Kristen Scholer:
Of course, we'll see how the balance of power shakes out in D.C., but cabinet appointees can make news in and of themselves, be effective spokespeople for the given administration. In your following and covering of election cycles over the past decades, do you think that cabinet appointees could be effective here in helping the administration get its point across insofar that it would impact the economy? Any particular cabinet members in elections past or presidential cycles past that you've witnessed have had an impact?
Carl Quintanilla:
I guess I would turn it around and say, can you name any cabinet official in the last 15 or 20 years who you think back and you think, "Wow, that was one powerful cabinet official"? And the answer is probably not. Because I mean, they are, especially in a Trump case I would argue, beholden to the executive. He leads the charge and no one speaks out of turn. But even under the Biden, I mean, maybe Buttigieg has been a good vocal surrogate for the last couple of years, and he's had some transportation stuff to deal with. Labor has had some strikes, and there's been the ports and supply chain stuff. But I really think the power of cabinet officials is probably overstated over the long term. It's probably, maybe DOJ FTC like to our earlier discussion about antitrust, that's probably where you see the most. They always say, "Personnel is policy," and that's where you do see that play out the most. But for the most part, I think the cabinet is the president's team, and what matters is what the president thinks.
Kristen Scholer:
If former President Trump loses the election, how is your network, how are your viewers, your guests preparing for that to unfold? Do you think we will have an answer on election day, and do you think the former president would accept that?
Carl Quintanilla:
I don't know. I doubt we'll have an answer. We were talking about this the other day how this last election we didn't know until I think Saturday, when we had several important races called on election night, famously when Fox called Arizona, everybody talks about that one. But I doubt we would know for a few days, just because of how early voting and counting has evolved over the years. I have no opinion on what happens after all of this. Obviously, courts will have months to handle and process any kind of objections, which we fully expect. And it was funny, because it was in 2020 when we were still doing the shows from home. I don't think we were back here yet, where we were looking at reports out of, I remember one out of JP Morgan gaming out will attorney general Barr impound election machines?
Like really off the wall stuff that was unnerving, but we've been through that. And so, I think lot of the street's policy infrastructure will be warming that up, offering scenario A, B and C. But anybody who comes on here and tells you what their response is going to be from either side on a win or a loss, I'd be skeptical.
Kristen Scholer:
I just want to go back in conclusion here to talk about among the interviews that you do, the reporting that you do, and clearly the anchoring that you do on a daily basis, what do you think are the top issues to voters this election cycle?
Carl Quintanilla:
It's always the economy. I mean, I think just because people live it every day. It's very personal, it affects people you love, incredibly powerful. The argument about democracy some say is a political loser, people don't really think about it that much on a day-to-day basis. I think for a certain part of the electorate, January 6th was very upsetting, and that his inaction that day, we saw this on the Univision town hall last night, still is stuck in people's minds. What happened that day? How do we make sure it doesn't happen again? That was so unlike us as a country, given our history, but I don't think there's any way you can ever replace money. And I think it's actually one of the reasons why people always say, "Why'd you become a financial journalist?" And my first internship was at the Wall Street Journal when I was in college, and the thing I learned right away is that money is so ... It explains every human emotion.
It explains greed, insecurity, anger, fear, it's got so much of humanity, of human psychology wrapped up in it. It's what makes markets so interesting, what makes our jobs so interesting. And I think in the end, it's what drives election cycles. It really is about people, because it's scarcity, you don't want to have scarcity when it comes to your money. That must go back to some deep, deep thing in our ancestors brains that we've retained, that you need to take care of your stuff. And I think that's why it'd be hard to topple the economy as issue number one.
Kristen Scholer:
It's so good to get your take Carl, of course on the economy, on this political race, and we'll see what unfolds as we get closer and closer to election day.
Carl Quintanilla:
Buckle up.
Kristen Scholer:
Buckle up indeed. Carl, thank you so much for joining us Inside the ICE House.
Speaker 1:
That's our conversation for this week. Remember to rate, review and subscribe wherever you listen, and follow us on X at ICEHousePodcast. From the New York Stock Exchange, we'll talk to you again next week Inside the ICE House. Information contained in this podcast was obtained in part from publicly available sources and not independently verified. Neither ICE nor its affiliates make any representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information, and do not sponsor, approve or endorse any of the content herein, all of which is presented solely for informational and educational purposes. Nothing herein constitutes an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy any security, or a recommendation of any security or trading practice. Some portions of the preceding conversation may have been edited for the purpose of length or clarity.