transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:05] Just three weeks ago, investors were reacting to a negative first quarter of 2026 that saw the S&P 500 decline 4.3% and the NASDAQ dropped nearly 6%. The market was plagued by uncertainty about the war in the Middle East and its ramifications for gas prices, inflation, consumer spending and economic growth. But once the calendar flipped to April, the market went on an absolute heater. The NASDAQ rose on 13 consecutive trading days, its longest streak since 1992. The S&P 500 hit multiple new highs, closing above 7,000 for the first time ever on April 15th. As of the close on April 20th, the S&P 500 was up more than 8% for the month, erasing all of the losses of the first quarter and putting the index solidly in the green year to date. Yet the two-week ceasefire in the war in Iran did not produce a straightforward resolution, and the end game for the war remains unclear. Gas prices are stuck at a national average of just above $4 a gallon. Supply chains remain disrupted by uncertainty about whether the Strait of Hormuz, the critically important shipping lane in the Middle East, is open or closed. So, what's going on here? Welcome to Washington Wise, a podcast for investors from Charles Schwab. I'm your host, Mike Townsend, and on this show, our goal is to cut through the noise and confusion of the nation's capital and help investors figure out what's really worth paying attention to. Coming up in just a few minutes, I'm going to sit down with my colleague, Joe Mazzola, head trading and derivative strategist here at Charles Schwab and one of the sharpest observers of the market I know, to talk about what's driving this market resurgence, whether it is sustainable, and what investors should be watching. But before we get to that conversation, here are three things I'm watching right now in Washington. First, on April 21st, Congress held the long-awaited confirmation hearing for Kevin Warsh, the president's nominee to succeed Jerome Powell as chair of the Federal Reserve, when Powell's term ends in May. As expected, the hearing had its contentious moments, but not really about Warsh's qualifications for the job. As a former Fed governor, he's a known quantity in Washington. Rather, in the wake of the president's relentless calls for the Fed to lower interest rates and his attempts to shape the Fed board with people more to his liking, much of the focus was on the broader question of the central bank's independence. Under repeated questioning from Democrats about how he would respond to the president's calls for him to lower interest rates, Warsh said, The president never asked me to predetermine, commit, fix or decide on any interest rate decision in any of our discussions, nor would I ever agree to do so. Of course, on CNBC just hours before the hearing, the president said he would be disappointed if Warsh does not lower rates. I expect that's something of a preview of what life will be like for Warsh once he's confirmed. Senator Tom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina who sits on the banking committee, has made protecting the Fed's independence a priority and is maintaining his pledge to block a vote on Warsh's confirmation until the criminal investigation into Jerome Powell is resolved. Last week, the president said that he had no intention of telling the Justice Department to back off of its investigation of Powell. So the stalemate continues. Powell said that he will stay on as temporary chair if Warsh is not confirmed by May 15th. Last week, the president threatened to fire Powell if he stayed past that date. But that threat may be an idle one. We're still waiting on a ruling from the Supreme Court over whether the president has the ability to fire a Fed governor after his attempt last year to fire Lisa Cook from the seven-member board. But at oral arguments in January, the court seemed quite skeptical about Cook's firing. Looking for another angle, the White House is also making the argument that the president should be able to elevate a different board member to be temporary chair if he so chooses, rather than keeping Powell in that role. It's possible that too could end up in the courts. I still think there's a possibility that the president could relent on the Powell investigation, clearing the way for Warsh's confirmation. But if not, this will all be coming to a head on May 15th. In the meantime, next week, the Fed will meet for its third monetary policy meeting of the year. Something that feels almost like an afterthought amid all this drama around personnel at the central bank. It's the nearly universal expectation that the Fed will hold rates steady, as it continues to sort through a lot of uncertainty about how the economy will react to the war in Iran. Second, tariffs are back in the headlines, as this week saw the government launch a portal companies can use to apply for refunds for the tariffs they paid, and the Supreme Court has now ruled were unconstitutional. Companies are owed about $166 billion in refunds as a result of the court's decision in February to invalidate the so-called reciprocal tariffs on imports from about 100 countries, as well as tariffs on some imports from Canada, China and Mexico. According to the administration, the process that launched this week is designed to consolidate refunds so that companies get a single payment with interest for all of the tariffs they paid under the now invalidated rules. Court filings show that almost 330,000 importers paid tariffs at least once. As of earlier this month, more than 56,000 had already completed the steps necessary to receive refunds, totaling about $127 billion. That's a lot of money going back to a lot of companies, with some expecting to receive hundreds of millions of dollars. And for thousands of small businesses, the refunds could make a huge difference in weathering this period of higher fuel costs. But while businesses will see some relief, it seems unlikely that consumers who paid higher prices due to tariffs will get any kind of refund. Of course, there is widespread concern about whether the system will work as advertised, or whether it will be quickly overwhelmed by the volume of requests. And there's the possibility that last-minute legal challenges by the administration could delay things. The administration has until early May to challenge the court order that required the refund system. But if it does work as planned, it's a major windfall for companies that will be getting a sudden infusion of cash. It's worth keeping an eye on what companies do with that cash. Whether they invest it, use it to upgrade equipment, or perhaps use it to support lowering prices. And third, there was an interesting hearing on Capitol Hill last week with the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC. Michael Selig became the head of the agency back in December, but he's a one-man show right now. The CFTC, like the SEC, is supposed to be run by a five-member commission, with three members from the party in the White House and two from the party in the minority. But there are currently four vacancies at the CFTC, and no sign that the White House plans to fill those vacancies anytime soon. That means Selig is just running the agency himself. The CFTC has long been kind of a little brother to the larger and more well-known SEC, but the CFTC's profile is growing quickly, as it will be the primary regulator of the cryptocurrency space. But this week's hearing with Selig focused on a different aspect of the CFTC's job that is also very much in the headlines these days, the prediction markets. These are markets where individuals can bet on the outcome of everything from sports, to who's going to win the best actor award at the Oscars, to political developments, like which party will control Congress after the election, or who will be the next cabinet official to be replaced. These markets have been in the headlines recently because of growing concerns about insider trading. Earlier this year, there were several bets placed that the president of Venezuela would be removed from office, just hours before the military action that indeed removed President Maduro. More recently, there have been some suspiciously timed bets on events like whether the US would start a war with Iran, or whether there would be a ceasefire. Even traditional commodities markets have raised suspicions, with a series of highly lucrative bets on the price of oil going up or down. The CFTC is asserting that it has federal jurisdiction over these vetting markets. In fact, the agency recently sued three states—Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois—to stop them from regulating the prediction markets at the state level rather than the federal level. At last week's hearing, Chairman Selig was pressed on the CFTC's efforts to regulate these markets and on what the agency was doing to combat insider trading in particular. Selig said that his agency had a zero tolerance policy for insider trading, and that the CFTC would aggressively go after bad actors in the space. But concern is growing on Capitol Hill. Bipartisan bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to ban members of Congress and their families, as well as a variety of administration officials from the President on down to Assistant Secretaries at Federal Agencies from participating in these markets. It's an issue that has picked up considerable momentum just in the last couple of months. So I'll be keeping my eye on whether Congress moves to make clearer the rules of the road for these fast growing markets. On my deeper dive today, I want to take a closer look at what's going on in the market. Just a few weeks ago, the markets were down. But that all turned around when it looked as if the ceasefire with Iran was going to hold and bring an end to the war. The week of April 13th saw the S&P 500 set record highs, recovering more than 10 percent from its lows set back on March 30th. The NASDAQ rose for 13 consecutive days, going up more than 14 percent during that period. All that happened in spite of the unresolved war in Iran, inflation continuing to tick upwards, and more than a few other signs of weakness in the economy. But now the markets are cooling due to fresh concerns over the next round of negotiations. To help me think it all through, I'm really pleased to welcome back to the podcast, Joe Mazzola, Head Trading & Derivative Strategist here at Charles Schwab. Joe, thanks so much for joining me today.

Speaker 2:
[10:39] It's great to be here, Mike. Thanks for having me.

Speaker 1:
[10:41] Well, Joe, the rally that dominated the first half of April has been called a relief rally, and I think most investors would agree with that. Personally speaking, it's nice to look at my portfolio and see it's pretty much back where it was before the war and it ran begin. As a trader, you have no doubt seen your share of relief rallies. How about talking us through what triggers them, how long they last, and what can bring them to an end?

Speaker 2:
[11:04] Sure, Mike. Relief rallies like sell-offs. They can start for many reasons. It could be a surprise headline, a shift in the growth outlook or evaluation reset. Markets continuously reprice based on new information, and that changes expectations for future earnings. So in my view, that's the key, right? How investors think events will flow through to earnings. And so when a de-escalation and ceasefire was announced, the market likely treated the risk of an inflation spike and a slower growth as near-term, not something that would materially alter 2026 earnings. I think analysts' expectations are still roughly for about 14% year-over-year earnings growth. That may be optimistic, but for now, those expectations haven't moved.

Speaker 1:
[11:47] And this rally appears to have all the hallmarks of a relief rally, correct?

Speaker 2:
[11:50] Oh, I think you can make a strong case that this has been a relief rally, right? I think both because of what sparked it and then how quickly it moved. Over the first part of April, the S&P was up 10 out of 11 sessions, gaining more than about 10% in that span. So that move reflects optimism around the ceasefire and a belief that the last five weeks of turmoil won't meaningfully affect earnings. But I think a relief rally isn't an all-clear, Mike. And really to gauge whether it has legs, I think we need to watch for broader participation, which, to be honest, is still mixed. So we need more stocks to make new all-time highs. And I think most important, we need to see how stocks react to earnings beats and raises. If good numbers get a muted response or if stocks sell off, I think it likely means that the optimism was already priced in and we may be near a short-term peak.

Speaker 1:
[12:42] Well, you mentioned strong earnings so far being kind of a fuel for the rally. Financial firms in particular have been a highlight in this earnings season to date. Is this kind of earnings growth sustainable or is there something artificial in those numbers? Is there a concern that the second quarter can't live up to the first quarter because the impacts of the war might be a bit delayed in showing up in earnings?

Speaker 2:
[13:05] Well, that's right. Earnings expectations are still lofty for the year. And if you look at full year estimates, they're actually up three percentage points more than they were in January. So early Q1 results, while they've been strong, it's still a small sample size, Mike. We've only had about 10% of the S&P 500 reporting. And out of those, 88% have beaten on earnings and 84% have beaten on revenue, which is well above five year averages. Financials have made up about 40% of their reporting so far. And they're less exposed to higher crude than sectors like industrials or consumer discretionaries. It's those sectors that have seen the recent analyst downgrades. So those are the ones that I'm going to be watching their earnings calls specifically just for commentary on how that's affected their profit margins.

Speaker 1:
[13:55] Well, another headwind for companies is the growing sense that the Fed may not cut interest rates anytime soon. Maybe not at all this year. Just last week, Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammock, who is a voting member at the FOMC this year, said she expects rates will be on hold for a good while and that she sees the current benchmark Fed funds rate of between 3.5% and 3.75% as a good place for monetary policy. Are companies factoring in that possibility of no rate cuts this year?

Speaker 2:
[14:26] I think right now, the Fed's message is that the policy is in a good place. And what that does make is that puts the burden on inflation and growth data to justify any cuts. And I think if you look at the management teams, they've been operating with a higher for longer assumption. And you're seeing that in what equates to a more disciplined CAPEX, maybe outside of course the mega caps. But there's been a focus on balance sheet strength and less reliance on near term rate relief. I think the pressure point, it's the rate sensitive areas. So that's housing, autos, smaller cap financing. That's where expectations may need to reset if cuts don't come. Broadly though, higher over longer isn't a shock anymore. It's increasingly the base case unless the data clearly weakens.

Speaker 1:
[15:13] One of the things that our Schwab experts have been pointing out is that the volatility beneath the surface has been pretty dramatic. For example, the NASDAQ has had a maximum drawdown this year of 13% at the index level. But for the individual members of the index, the average maximum drawdown so far in 2026 has been 34%. How do you think about that kind of volatility in individual stocks as a trader?

Speaker 2:
[15:40] That is such an important point. I think when you look at the fact that the overall markets look calm, you still can have individual stocks swing up and down a lot. Traders watch for that because it can signal that the index like the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ may stay fairly steady while certain companies move much more than usual. If you look at after the ceasefire news occurred, what we saw was more of those big stock by stock moves again as investors rush to adjust their positions. So some of that move may have been too much or too fast and things could cool up. I would say from here, the next big swing will probably depend on two things, new headlines out of Middle East and then what companies report in their earnings.

Speaker 1:
[16:23] One of the headlines out of the Middle East, of course, has been oil prices. And the oil prices have been on something of a roller coaster ride since the start of war, sharp drops every time the president says the conflict is near an end, only to spike upwards again when it seems like things may drag out longer. What if the war isn't over soon? I was on a call late last week with a firm that put a 25% chance that the conflict ends in a month, a 35% chance that it lasts until this fall, and a 40% chance that it lasts into 2027, which I think is a great illustration of just how uncertain everyone is about how this will play out. So what if we are talking about a long-term blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran shutting down its ports such that little gets through? I mean, that would impact oil and liquefied natural gas and fertilizer and many other products. And the status of negotiations, to say the least right now, is unclear. In that situation, we're talking about a major impact to the global economy that can't be good for the markets, right?

Speaker 2:
[17:26] You're right, Mike, because not only are we talking about trying to figure out probabilities over the next weeks, months, even potentially years, we're also trying to figure out probabilities over the next headline or the next tweet. Basically, oil is trading less on fundamentals and more on path dependency. So each headline that you get reprices the probability-weighted outcomes, and that's why you're seeing these sharp spikes and pullbacks. I don't like the markets pricing off of one path. It's pricing off a wide range of scenarios. When you say 25% chance that it ends in a month, but a meaningful chance it runs into 2027, well, that's dispersion, right? And that dispersion leads to elevated volatility. And eventually that volatility actually becomes a new asset class. And if we move into that longer duration case where sustained disruption through the Strait of Hormuz, what's that going to do? Well, that's going to lower oil exports. That's going to lead to tighter flows of energy. You mentioned LNG and fertilizer. And that even has more derivative effects for food prices, chemical prices, so on and so forth. So it stops becoming just an oil story. It basically becomes a global supply shock.

Speaker 1:
[18:33] Yeah, I agree. No one knows the timeline here. But I do think there's this growing realization that the dynamics in the Middle East, and particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, aren't going back to the way they were pre-February 28th, anytime soon, and that the impact on oil prices is likely to be felt for potentially months. We know there's been significant damage to oil infrastructure across multiple Middle East countries, and that's going to impact how quickly production can get back to normal. So what do you anticipate the market reaction will be if oil prices settle back at, say, $80 to $90 a barrel, not the high 60s or low 70s where it was before the war?

Speaker 2:
[19:12] I think if crude settles in, say, an $80 to $90 range, like you mentioned, the market treats it less as a shock and more as a persistent headwind. So what does that mean? That means that there's a slow repricing of profit margins, inflation expectations, and market leadership, not exactly panic. If you look at the sector level, this is where it gets interesting because this is what could cause investors to shift where they put their money. You could see energy stocks do well, of course, because higher oil prices can mean higher profits. I think tech is a little bit more of a mixed bag. You're going to have some big tech stocks that may still look like safe places to park their money or safe havens, if you will, but ultimately higher interest rates can weigh on tech stock prices because of their valuations. If you look at industrials and consumer focused companies, they could easily feel a squeeze and more pressure because higher fuel costs and shipping costs squeeze their profits and make their customers spend less. On the financial side, banks could benefit if interest rates stay higher for longer. A lot of that has to do with the yield curve. Eventually, what that does is that helps them earn more on their loans. Now, with material companies, you could also see a boost if prices rise for things like chemicals, fertilizers and metals. But I think, Mike, the bottom line is this 80 to 90 dollar oil likely creates winners and losers and opportunities. But it's not an oil shock. I think you have to be priced a bit above that before we start seeing an oil shock.

Speaker 1:
[20:36] Well, one of the other factors here is that something that I think has helped us rally. We haven't really seen a significant change yet in consumer consumption. But consumer sentiment fell to record lows in March, and that can often be a signal that changes in consumer consumption in consumer spending are coming. And that's where I worry that the market may be overreacting a bit and could be in for reaction in the other direction later this year when the impact of higher inflation and lower spending and consumption starts to really take effect. Am I overthinking that?

Speaker 2:
[21:09] No, I don't think you're overthinking it. I think what you're doing, Mike, is you're naming one of the key tensions in the market, and that's that headline spending has held up, which has supported the rally. But underneath, the picture is diverging, and that's where the idea of the K-shaped economy matters. Recently, I got retail sales data that showed retail sales came in higher than expected, but once you strip out energy prices, the beat wasn't nearly as good. I think what that means is the top half of that K, which is made up of the higher income households with assets and equity exposure and stable wages, they're still resilient. Those are the households that are actually benefiting from market gains from their higher home values, and for often, many of them have already locked in lower borrowing costs. They're still spending on travel and services and higher indiscretionary. It's the bottom half. They're the ones that are feeling the effects of the inflation, because higher energy and higher food prices and ultimately higher borrowing costs, that's squeezing them and they have a growing reliance on credit. I think that's why you're seeing more stress and delinquencies and confidence. Specifically, if you look at the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, what you're seeing is you're seeing a lot of softening even while spending holds up. So I think that it's the gap between the sentiment and spending, and it usually doesn't last. At some point, spending tends to fall alongside that weakening sentiment.

Speaker 1:
[22:31] Another piece of this puzzle, Joe, the dollar. In 2025, the dollar declined by about 9%. It appreciated a bit this year, but it's been falling again as this recent market rally took hold. A depreciating dollar can, on the one hand, boost exports, which can support economic growth, but on the other hand, it can contribute to inflation by increasing import costs. And of course, we have tariffs, which are further increasing the cost of imports. How concerned are you about this pattern and what impact can it have on equities?

Speaker 2:
[23:01] The real key is context, Mike. So if you look over the last 20 years, the dollar index has averaged in the low 90s, around 90 to 92. Even after this pullback, we're still closer to the high 90s. And so really, the dollar is softer at the margin, but it's still historically strong. This isn't really a weak dollar regime, it's just a less strong one. And we're not seeing a broad fear of debasement trade. There's no sharp dollar slide, there's no outsized rush into hard assets like commodities and gold, and there's no more disorderly moving global rates and currency prices. That tells me that this looks more like cyclical than a loss of confidence. So for now, I don't view dollar volatility as a major headwind for equities.

Speaker 1:
[23:45] Joe, I want to switch gears a bit. I've got three kind of specific areas, all of which are in the news right now that I want to ask you about. So first up, last week, the SEC made a change to a rule for day traders, ending a requirement about how much capital a trader had to hold in their account. Now, this is a rule that had been in place since 2001 in the wake of the blow up of the.com trading boom. Day trading, of course, it's not for everyone, but I think this change is important because it says something about how ordinary investors can invest. Can you give us a quick explanation of what happened and why it matters?

Speaker 2:
[24:18] Yeah, sure. The rule you're talking about is the Pattern Day Trader or PDT rule, and that was put in place to protect smaller investors from the risk of day trading. That's trades where an investor buys and sells a position in the same day. Well, this rule limited investors with less than 25,000 in their accounts to just three day trades over the course of five business days. Now, the new rule drops the account minimum and that limit on day trades. So instead, now brokerages will be able to use real-time monitoring of accounts to calculate if investors have the funds to cover their positions. The rule change is designed to increase market access for smaller retail investors. I think the rationale is really modernization. With commission-free trading, fractional shares and better risk tools, regulators are updating how risk is managed without shutting smaller investors out. Now, there is a concern that this will open the door for less experienced traders to make riskier trades, but there are still guardrails in place.

Speaker 1:
[25:14] Second topic, Joe. There's a ton of interest in a couple of big IPOs that are on the horizon. OpenAI and SpaceX, maybe Anthropic and Stripe further down the road. Here's the angle I'm curious about. Indexes like the NASDAQ 100 are revising their rules to basically fast track the entry of these mega IPO stocks into the index. The NASDAQ rule says that these kinds of stocks need to be added 15 days after they go public. But in order to do so, the index will have to rapidly rebalance its portfolio so that they can acquire shares of the newly public company. And at the same time, they'll have to sell significant chunks of the companies that are already in the index. Of course, that includes a lot of big names, Apple, Microsoft, et cetera. Could that cause the prices of those stocks to fall? And if so, is that just a temporary glitch that those stocks will sort themselves out and get back to their price pretty quickly? And is there an opportunity for investors to buy the dip in there?

Speaker 2:
[26:12] Well, let's talk about the mechanics of how this works. So basically, the NASDAQ shortened the on-ramp for mega IPOs into the NASDAQ 100 from roughly three months to just 15 days. But that's for stocks with a market cap of a threshold of around 100 billion. These are big companies. So it doesn't mean that the index has to kick out an existing stock. The NASDAQ said it can temporarily run above 100 names, but passive funds, they still have to buy shares of any new company coming into the exchange. So they'll typically fund those purchases by trimming very liquid mega caps like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. So could that create some pressure on companies currently in the NASDAQ? Yeah, it could, but it's usually modest, right? Because these are deep liquid names. And because the rebalance is telegraphed, I think that's the key, a lot of the flow gets anticipated and priced in ahead of the effective date. So if there is a buy-the-dip opportunity, Mike, it tends to be small and brief. And in my mind, the bigger risk is on the IPO side. Because a 15-day fast track compresses price discovery, and it can force passive buying before valuations have fully settled. Basically, private companies could be going public without receiving the same type of regulatory scrutiny, which could raise risk for investors.

Speaker 1:
[27:26] Well, that's going to be an interesting one, just given the investor interest in those big IPOs. Last one. I know you are keenly aware of the explosion of interest in the prediction markets. Our colleagues Lizanne Saunders and Kevin Gordon recently wrote a really important article about how the lines between investing and gambling are getting increasingly blurry, and how important it is that investors understand and recognize why they're different. Here in Washington, there's a lot of controversy around the increasing number of betting markets that are taking bets on political events, from the removal of the president of Venezuela, to the start of the war in Iran, to which party will be in control of Congress after November's elections. The controversy is about whether there is insider trading going on. The Washington regulator of the derivatives markets, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or CFTC, is saying that these markets are a type of derivative, and that they are therefore under the CFTC's jurisdiction, and can't be regulated by individual states. You're a derivatives expert, Joe. How are you thinking about this growing phenomenon in these prediction markets?

Speaker 2:
[28:30] I think we have to start by acknowledging that there are different types of prediction markets, right? You can make predictions on major events like elections or predictions on upcoming macroeconomic events, such as a jobs report or inflation numbers. And then, Mike, of course, you have sports betting or gambling, which is by most accounts makes up a vast majority of the prediction market volume. So, there are certainly a number of regulatory issues to consider. I think the fact that the CFTC, the members of Congress and state officials are all looking at these issues, it's a positive sign. On the scenarios that you raised, the bigger issue isn't classification, it's enforcement. Insider trading rules technically apply, but gaps in jurisdiction, transparency and oversight create a gray area where informed participants may have an edge. And I think that's the key distinction. These markets can look like investing on the surface, but without consistent regulatory integrity, they may offer additional unforeseen risk for many investors. Overall, we do worry, as do many experts, that too many investors, particularly young ones, are complaining gambling with investing. It's important that people understand that a quick hit from betting on a game or an event isn't the same as long term investing for the future.

Speaker 1:
[29:45] Yeah, it's great perspective on that. This is a really fast growing area that's very interesting and certainly getting a lot of attention here in Washington. Joe, I want to bring it back to the state of the markets and let's end the conversation with this. How should our listeners be thinking about this market right now? Can this recent rally continue, maybe turn into a sustainable uptrend? Or are there just too many perils out there? For the longer term investor, where are the opportunities right now?

Speaker 2:
[30:11] Well, sure, Mike, there's definitely a lot of headline risk out there, but I think the rally can extend if three things hold up. Earnings need to beat expectations, guidance needs to stay constructive, and I think the mega caps need to continue to lead. Stabilizing geopolitical backdrop does help by keeping inflation and growth shocks contained, but if that happens, investors will likely refocus on whether AI is translating into measurable results, meaning better productivity, lower costs, and ultimately wider margins, similar to what they were doing prior to the beginning of the conflict. But I think for longer durability, we also need better breadth, right? We need more participation beyond the mega caps, especially from some of the lagging cyclicals and industrials. But the setup is still headline sensitive, so I think traders should stay nimble. And if you're a longer term investor, you can take advantage of some of these pullbacks in the market to look to buy some high quality businesses with durable cash flows and clear margin improvements at better prices.

Speaker 1:
[31:11] Well, those are great thoughts to end with. I've really enjoyed this conversation, Joe. Thanks so much for taking the time to speak with me today.

Speaker 2:
[31:18] Thanks for having me, Mike.

Speaker 1:
[31:19] That's Joe Mazzola, head trading and derivative strategist here at Charles Schwab. You can find Joe's latest commentary at schwab.com/learn. Well, that's all for this week's episode of Washington Wise. We'll be back in two weeks with a new episode. Take a moment now to follow the show in your listening app, so you get an alert when that episode drops and you don't miss any future episodes. And don't forget to leave us a rating or a review. Those really help new listeners discover the show. For important disclosures, see the show notes or schwab.com/washingtonwise, where you can also find a transcript. I'm Mike Townsend and this has been Washington Wise, a podcast for investors. Wherever you are, stay safe, stay healthy and keep investing wisely.