Episode 73: Gamechanger: Post-FOMC & Jobs Data Analysis and Outlook
Steve Brown, CIO for Fixed Income, and Patricia Zobel, Head of Macroeconomic Research and Market Strategy, join Macro Markets to review the tariff-related paradigm shift in trade policy.
This transcript is computer-generated and may contain inaccuracies.
Jay Diamond: Hi everybody. And welcome to Macro Markets with Guggenheim Investments, where we invite leaders from our investment team to offer their analysis of the investment landscape and the economic outlook. I'm Jay Diamond, head of thought leadership for Guggenheim Investments, and I'll be hosting today.
Now we're recording this episode on August 4th, 2025, the Monday after a very eventful week where, as widely expected, the FOMC left the fed funds rate unchanged on Wednesday, but not many expected the weakness that was revealed in the July jobs data, which came out on Friday— although I will mention that our macro and investment team did see it coming. Now, this moment demands a closer look, not just at headline numbers, but at the complex forces that are shaping the economic and market outlook. So here to help us make sense of the crosscurrents and where we might be going and how our portfolios are positioned in this climate of uncertainty, are two of the leaders of our investment team, Steve Brown, our chief investment officer for fixed income, and Patricia Zobel, the head of our Macroeconomic Research and Market Strategy Group.
So welcome back, Steve and Patricia, and thanks for taking the time to chat with us today.
Steve Brown: Thanks for having us.
Patricia Zobel: It's a pleasure to be here, Jay.
Jay Diamond: All right, Patricia, let's start with the FOMC decision. Run us through what the decision was and the rationale behind it.
Patricia Zobel: So as you noted, it was widely expected by us and others that the FOMC would hold rates steady at the last meeting. Ahead of the meeting, most participants had been clear that they would like to see more data before adjusting policy. The chair still viewed policy as modestly restrictive, but he thought that was appropriate given the above target inflation, and he continued to suggest that monetary policy was well positioned to respond when there was greater clarity on the data.
The clear focal point for the FOMC to me, though, was really the labor market. While the chair had noted that slowing payroll gains created risks to unemployment, he suggested that slowing labor supply and slower labor demand together had left conditions solid. Not all committee members agreed, though, and two governors, Bowman and Waller, dissented for easier rates. For markets, the clear takeaway from the day was that at the press conference, the chair really refrained from leaning into a September cut with a long intervening period. He wanted to see the data that would evolve over the labor market and inflation, and he didn't want to lock in a September cut. And so last Friday, we started to see that data come in.
Jay Diamond: So let's talk about the jobs report, which came out on Friday, two days after the decision. It showed a much different picture of the labor market than perhaps the fed was alluding to in its decision, and that we've seen over recent months. So what was in that jobs report and how does it shift the outlook?
Patricia Zobel: So it's just one month's data, but I do think it is going to shift the picture for monetary policy. This payroll report to us opens up the door for a September rate cut. In particular, if the August data confirms the trend. In terms of payrolls, as Steve suggested, we seen growing vulnerabilities in the labor market for some time. So the downward revisions weren't a surprise to us. Other data like ADP had been indicating slower payroll growth, and payroll gains had also become increasingly concentrated in a few categories, like state and local government and health care, suggesting a very narrow base of hiring. Some of these were since even revised down with this recent data release.
Still, the magnitude of the adjustment was a surprise to us, and with 260,000 fewer jobs created, the three month average payroll gain is now just 35,000. And this suggests kind of a stalling labor market. The key metric for labor market health, though, is unemployment and not payroll gains. And that was really where the picture became more nuanced. With much lower immigration, fewer people are in the job market, so even though payroll gains have been low, the unemployment rate only rose one tenth, and it's actually the same as it was last year.
While some on the FOMC have noted this as diminishing the negative signal that they're taking from the report, I would say our own view is that the labor market is still weakening. If you look under the hood, unemployment among new entrants is rising, suggesting the labor market isn't strong enough to absorb new job seekers. And you see that in recent college graduate unemployment rate, which is also rising, particularly for men.
So overall, this report aligns with our expectation that the economy would slow under the weight of policy uncertainty and tariffs, and sets off a rate cut in the fall, which we had been expecting.
Jay Diamond: Now, Steve, what was your take and the market's take on the FOMC decision.
Steve Brown: As was mentioned it was largely expected. And rather than the announcement or even the press release, it was more about whether you'd get any dissents, how many, and then how the chair would react during the press conference. So we zoom out over the last couple of months, you've started to get a little bit more two sided debate on the appropriateness of policy or weakening, if you will, of the chair's grip on the voting board. And so you saw that come out with the two dissents. And so the market reaction initially was was pretty muted, as was expected. But then as we got towards the end of the week and, as was already alluded to, the jobs report and other data that became much more market moving.
Jay Diamond: So let's talk about that market moving nature. The markets reacted strongly and swiftly. Describe to us how the market responded to the magnitude of the revisions and the overall headline numbers.
Steve Brown: I mean, you saw one of the largest moves in yields in the last couple of years. I think it was the largest move for the two year and two years, largest move for the ten year in over a year. So it was quite swift and significant. One part of it we would think would be a bit of a unwinding of shorts.
As Patricia said, we were more expecting this data release and the signs of weakening that it was showing than, say, the market was. But when you take stock of the moves in Treasury yields, for example, which got moved anywhere from 25 basis points to ten basis points lower on the curve, while that is a huge move, I'd actually really just kind of undid the move higher in yields that we had seen throughout the month of July.
So it leaves us with yields back to where they were at the end of June. And then when you look across the curve it leaves yields lower across the curve since the start of the year for every part of the curve except the 30-year. So we think the market is coming along with our view that you'll see multiple rate cuts in fall and that the terminal rate should be closer to 3%. And importantly, a growing acceptance that current policy is too tight. If you look at the fed funds rate versus the two-year yield, that yield differentials approaching now 60, 70 basis points, which is the market's way of saying yields are going to start falling.
Jay Diamond: Just as a follow up, Steve, did you agree with the FOMC decision when it was made a particularly light of the jobs data that came out subsequently?
Steve Brown: It's not necessarily our job to agree or disagree, but we've been highlighting for months now the growing risk of labor market weakness as Patricia outlined and, importantly, the appropriateness of the fed funds rate and how restrictive it is and who it's restricting. So if you think about the impact of fed funds rate, it's more going to impact consumers and small businesses.
We've been talking about a bifurcated economy for a while. Consumers are generally strained. The fed funds rate is more directly impacting consumers than it is, say, large corporations or even the financial markets. So, in short, no, I guess we didn't agree with it. We do think that the economy could use a little bit of an easing of the strain of how restrictive the fed funds rate is.
But we think the fed will start to get there relatively soon.
Jay Diamond: Back to you, Patricia. What's the House view now on the path of monetary policy, both for the next meeting the rest of the year and beyond?
Patricia Zobel: So I think Steve said it well, you know, we've anticipated more easing through 2026 than has been indicated by the committee for some time. And markets are now pricing something closer to what we had on a probability weighted basis. My sense is if the August employment report continues to show a softening labor market, the FOMC is going to ease policy at the next meeting.
Unless inflation expectations rise or you see evidence of broadening inflationary pressures from tariffs, tangible evidence of labor market weakness should justify a rate cut in the fall. There's a lot of data between here in September, though, and that's going to inform the decisions. So we could continue to see surprises and we're open to that.
After that we see easing continuing into 2026. And as Steve said, we have rates settling near 3%. While we don't expect tariff price increases to last through to 2026, we expect prices to rise in 2025, and we expect that to fade and to justify further fed easing.
Jay Diamond: Now my last question on the fed has to do with its independence. Steve, every president has done his share of criticizing fed policy and policymakers, but none, I think, as strenuously as President Trump is. Do you think the market is concerned about the independence of the fed broadly?
Steve Brown: No. I think we got a brief glimpse, at least into the knee jerk reaction: If you were to seek an overt challenge of the independence with replacing the chair, we had that hour or so a couple of weeks ago of market reaction to the initial press report that that was being considered.
And you saw, I guess, what would have been expected, if you will, if that were to actually happen: dollars sold off, significantly steeper yield curve, especially long end rates selling off, and then lower risk asset prices. But it wasn't an extreme move. You know I think the market obviously has to discount both near-term potential and medium- and longer-term.
And while this administration obviously has a pretty heavy hand in a lot of parts of markets and governance, including potentially trying to impact the fed, administrations come and go, policies change, the markets are doing their best to discount all of those potential changes.
And things that aren't really up to the fed or are structural in nature, that are particularly important to the bond market are just the overhang of supply, government debt burdens. ou know, the U.S. and many countries around the globe have structural deficit issues, aging populations, generally slowing economies. So these are all the factors that I think are more important in how risk is priced and how assets are priced, rather than kind of the day-to-day or month-to-month of policy setting, which of course matters but isn't necessarily driving all of the price action now.
Jay Diamond: With the departure of Governor Coogler, President Trump has the opportunity to nominate another governor. How do you think the upcoming shift in fed leadership, Patricia, affects the perception of independence?
Patricia Zobel: I think Steve said it really well. The transition to a new chair is going to be important. And certainly President Trump, over the coming months is going to shape the composition of the committee. But how the economy evolves for us is going to be much more meaningful to the policy outlook. The chair is influential, but only one member of the committee, the policy has 19 participants, each of whom come to monetary policy deliberations independently and with the economy undergoing huge shifts right now, I think that's going to be the important point, the deliberations on the committee. Each person is going to bring their best thinking to those issues.
Our sense is that they will be easing rates in coming months, and that will be determined by the incoming data. If the FOMC were to ease rates beyond what is justified by the data, markets would really start to respond poorly. It would start to lift inflation expectations. So I do believe there's a natural feedback loop in markets in terms of the monetary policy decision making. So I don't think one person added to the committee is going to change the outlook tremendously.The real threat to independence is if the chair is removed before his term is up. Other than that, I would say the institution is strong. And as Stephen noted, I think the focal point for markets is going to be on the economy and not, in particular, a person or two on the committee.
Jay Diamond: Patricia, I'd like to start looking ahead for you and for Steve. So please begin with an update on our views of some of the macro issues that will drive the economy and possible fed policy going forward. I'm just going to do a lightning round, if you will. So just to begin, how do you expect tariffs to play out given some of the new announcements?
Patricia Zobel: I think what we're learning is that tariffs won't be a one-time shock. Tariff increases and reversals are going to continue for some time. And this means that the growth drag and price increases will also be drawn out. I would say with regard to tariffs, we're far from the end game on this.
Jay Diamond: All right. How is slower immigration shifting the economy.
Patricia Zobel: I would say it's already reducing growth in the labor force in the near term. This will impact industries that hire more immigrants, for example, construction and food services, and lower labor supply, as we've talked about, will moderate the rise in unemployment. What I would say, and this is speaking to Steve's point before, is that longer term immigration is a key issue.
Without immigrants, the U.S. population is going to start declining in coming years, and that's going to reduce potential growth. So in the near term, slowing immigration is going to slow growth. And in the long term, I think it's a key issue for our country.
Jay Diamond: Now the Big Beautiful bill is going to be a deficit producer as we increase the federal debt. Will this fiscal policy provide an economic boost to us?
Patricia Zobel: I would say yes, it's going to provide a modest boost in 2026, but we expect that to fade thereafter. And that's really because the tax cuts in the bill are really frontloaded. So those are going to lift growth a little bit in 2026. But those sunset over time and so they stop providing support for growth. While the cost savings in terms of lower Medicare payments, SNAP payments, and things like that are going to accelerate in coming years, and those are going to weigh on lower-income consumers that tend to spend most of their income.
So we think that that's going to have a bigger effect in coming years. When I think longer term, the bigger issue is fiscal sustainability. Deficits are going to stay wide under this bill., and that's likely to increase debt to GDP, which in the U.S. is already quite high.
Jay Diamond: And where does all this leave us for growth in 2026.
Patricia Zobel: So bringing it together in terms of the policy shocks that we're seeing, the tariffs and lower immigration are going to drag on growth this year. But we think growth is going to recover in 2026 with fiscal stimulus. So we see growth a little bit sub 1 percent this year rising again to mid-1 percent next year. And we think part of this is and what's protecting us from recession risk is healthy consumer and corporate balance sheets. And that will help moderate these shocks to the economy.
Jay Diamond: Right now, Steve, markets had been on a roller coaster for several months now with yields and spreads volatile, dollar all over the map, stocks are now back at an all-time high. At a high level, how do you and your team manage through all this volatility?
Steve Brown: Yeah, I think Patricia made a great point, first of all, that the markets are the ultimate arbiter for these policy changes. And so policy has evolved with market reaction just as markets have also reacted to policy. So if you think about since the beginning of April and end of March coming into the quarter, we were positioned relatively neutral on most risk metrics.
If you think about credit spreads, credit spreads had been widening, but we're not at anywhere near even average levels long term, let alone more extreme levels. So that told us to be relatively neutral overall on credit risk. We have been playing for a lot of decompression themes within credit, and we think that that's going to continue because we have had call it 12 months of compression themes, meaning relationships between credit spreads narrowing. We think that that could reverse now that we're back to the tights.
So how do we manage through volatility? One, trying to be active and in our approach. So when we think about continuing with credit risk as credit spreads widened significantly in early April, we were adding to credit both on a single-name basis, and then also with some index expressions in places where we could take equity exposure, we were also adding to equity risk.
Our framework for asset allocation tries to take into account relative valuations and then what we're thinking about the future. So while recession risk and economic risk was going up, your compensation for taking that type of risk was increasing as well. And so that made the tradeoff for us make sense.
From a rates perspective, that's kind of been a bigger story, if you will, that rather than credit. While credit widened a decent amount and we're back to the tights, rates have continued to stay relatively volatile. And so there, as we see rates get towards the high end of a range, we've been expecting a range to be maintained for interest rates, particularly in the U.S. and particularly at the ten-year part of the curve.
When we get towards the higher end of the range, we're extending duration either in credit or in mortgages. And then as we get down towards the middle or bottom of the range, we unwind that trade. So it pays to be active. It also pays to be diversified. That's one thing that we've learned throughout time. And then it's come to fruition this year.
Not every asset is going to perform the same in every environment. Not the same hedge is going to work for the same reaction function through time. So having a diversified approach to asset allocation and layering in hedges and then being opportunistic to add is kind of been the playbook for us in this volatile period.
Jay Diamond: Are you expecting for conditions to stay as volatile as they have been, or are some of these volatile circumstances resolved themselves in a way that might make you approach things differently?
Steve Brown: Yeah. What's interesting is that the markets spend a lot of time on projecting policy and policy changes for the better part of the year. Obviously, we have the new administration. We've had all the different ways that the administration has rolled out their policy, and we've made a lot of progress, if you will, on getting some certitude, if you will, on on certain parts of policy, although, as Patricia said, tariffs in particular are likely to be kind of used perpetually.
While we have some idea now of where we think they're going to land, we're still not sure if that will be the case six months from now, a year from now, or two years from now. But now we're at the point where you're starting to get the implementation of policy. So it almost becomes the market, rather than trying to predict what policy will be and then the impact on the markets. Now it's the follow through. What happens to the economy, what happens to the consumer? How does this flow through into corporations and certain industries? Because now we're going to be able to see the data and be able to react. And I'd mentioned decompression already, but that's where we think you're really going to start to see even more bifurcation, potentially at the consumer level or at the corporate level.
We think year to date so far, there's been some discounting of that risk in cyclical sectors, in transports and leisure, you know, and energy, and in homebuilders. Those have kind of been the underperformers if you will. But there's a lot under the hood and we still just haven't had enough time with this new policy to see the impacts.
So trying to project that at the issuer level and then positioning accordingly is really kind of more of what we're expecting now going forward, in addition to the regular way, kind of market-level volatility.
Jay Diamond:
Are there any other indicators or market tells or themes that you and your team are going to be focused on in the months ahead?
Steve Brown: Yeah, I mean, I think it got a lot of attention right after April. But the tick data looking at foreign flows, I mean flows and technicals are really driving all markets right now. Whether you think about the U.S. equity markets, which have basically follow the trend that they're on till the trend breaks and then they move. Fixed income’s more gradual, if you will, movement in flows.
And as I said, kind of more range bound when it comes to yields and an investable spread. So looking at any changes to demand both for credit and then for rate products and Treasurys. So the tick data that gets released once a month will be important. You know, retail flows in the U.S. and institutional flows in our franchise remain positive and strong.
So that continues to be a relatively strong technical environment for us. While you're starting to see some issuance pick up, so gross issuance is quite absorbable, particularly in credit. So keeping an eye on flows and technicals and then watching things like swaps spreads, funding markets, you know kind of the risk of the disintermediation rearing its ugly head, if you will, is something that doesn't get a lot of day to day notice. But in times of stress, like in early April, can become a much broader question that needs to be answered.
Jay Diamond: Now, Patricia, same question for you. You've mentioned a lot of things here, but in your work with Steve and Anne Walsh, our CIO, and the rest of the investment team, what are some of the themes that you and your team are particularly focused on over the next couple of months?
Patricia Zobel: So, you know, as we have been for recent months, we're right now focused on understanding the impact of policy shifts on the economy so that we can share our best perspective with Anne and Steve on rates and credit conditions. From a fundamental perspective. For us, that means examining the policy changes closely. For example, tariff impacts by country and products, looking at economic models and historical precedent to assess the what could be the potential impact and following the economic data close. And in particular on that last part, it's really looking deeply into the data to understand the emerging trends, not just the headline numbers are important for us.
From there, we translate that into fundamentally driven forecasts with probability ranges, and we provide that is just one input to the decision making process. I think for right now, we're thinking carefully about the rate path and how it will respond to the evolving economic situation. But we're also thinking about what Steve said, which is term premium and things like Treasury issuance and foreign flows that could affect term premiums.
In terms of credit, we're thinking a lot about the fundamentally driven factors, but also some of the technical factors that Steve spoke about. Taking it all together, I think right now, the most important impact to our fundamentally driven outlook for rates and credit is really around the policy shifts that are happening this year. There are large shocks hitting the economy. There's a lot of uncertainty, but we're trying to take that on board and look deeply into it to make sure that we're giving them our best insights.
Jay Diamond
Okay, Steve, I have a lightning round for you now, but given everything that we've talked about, how are you and your team approaching the execution of portfolio strategy? And I'm going to mention a couple of things. So first of all, the overall risk appetite?
Steve Brown: Leads us where we've been mostly are pretty much neutral, layering and hedges for a decompression theme. Prioritizing quality ideally short spread duration where possible and prioritizing income. You know, so it's not a departure from anything we've been doing year to date. But with spreads now back towards the tights, taking off some of those tactical ads that we made in April, and getting more of a neutral stance again.
Jay Diamond: And how do you expect credit performance to play out from here?
Steve Brown: Yeah, this is going to be key. As I briefly alluded to, we're not getting much read through on earnings so far this quarter. I mean, everything's relatively okay. But as you now start to see significant tariff impact, both by industry and by country, you're going to get more dispersion. And in certain industries that matters more than others.
So, frankly, we're gonna have to probably wait until October to get a better data on the read through now the policy is implemented. But we're saying no more than usual. When we get to credit committee, our threshold is quite high for inclusion into our portfolios, owing to the micro and macro risks. And then when we think about implementation and allocation at the strategy level, when spreads are tight, you know, you can be more selective because definitionally, if everything starts to kind of look the same, you can be more selective.
So we're worried about market complacency, risk, frankly, when it comes to underwriting, and really trying to be mindful of that risk in our portfolio.
Jay Diamond: What's your appetite for duration risk right now and what drives this appetite?
Steve Brown: I briefly mentioned it, but on the ten-year we're thinking the yield range is about 100 basis points—about plus or minus 50 bips from where we are today. So we're we're quite literally in the middle of the range. Curve shape is probably where it's a little more interesting. As Patricia mentioned, we do expect yield curve to continue to steepen a bit from here.
But at some point we're going to want to get back to more of a barbell approach to duration. So for now, we've had a steepening bias on some more duration in the belly of the curve, in the front of the curve. If short-term rates follow the path that we expect them to, as Patricia said, maybe get down to the low threes some point next year, depending on term premium, where yields are further out the curve, that would likely cause us to move more of our duration back out the curve. That is ultimately to a bit of a balance, if you will, to the market risk that's ongoing of where can duration demand come from, who can absorb supply.
You're also going to have the Treasury start to issue more likely at the front of the curve. So these market forces, as Patricia mentioned, are going to impact pricing. But for now, we still like duration here. We still like to be tactically a little bit long with the position for a steeper yield curve but are thinking about when to mute that or exit it and get back to a barbell.
Jay Diamond: And what kind of liquidity buffer are you holding right now and what might change that?
Steve Brown: Liquidity buffers are a little bit above average owing to the combo of macro and market risk, and then tighter valuations. So if you saw markets reprice, we'd likely use that as we did in April, to add to credit risk. But right now it's a little bit higher than normal.
Jay Diamond: And where are you finding value right now by sector or industry? And what are you avoiding?
Steve Brown Fortunately, it's a good time to be an active manager and, and an active allocator within credit. So a lot of the overweight that we've had for the year remain within securitized products. For example, we've talked about this on episodes in the past, but even just production coupon Agency RMBS, where you can monetize selling rate volatility and get a high level of income. In credit performance, we're looking ideally for stability and mark-to-market, and then high levels of income, and that's a good place to get that. Away from Agency MBS, other parts of the securitized markets: ABS, including commercial ABS, senior CLOs, those all remain over-weights for us. Within corporate credit, we've had a tilt towards more defensive tilt, if you will, in IG to utilities and financials--both have strong tailwinds from a fundamental perspective.
As I said earlier, not a ton of net new issuance, so technicals remain strong within IG. We’re even finding some value munis. Munis, it's kind of underperformed on the year, both taxables and tax exempts relative to IG. So in our investment grade strategies working in allocation there. And then for below investment grade, you know generally a preference for call private versus public where you have a little bit more control over documentation covenants, etc.
And then within the public markets, a bit of a tilt towards high yield. As I said earlier, we think duration’s generally a good thing. So with short term rates starting to fall again, you know, while that's a tailwind, if you will, for loan issuers, but is going to decrease the yield a bit at the margin for lenders. So we like that, trade off a bit. But overall it's important to be active in each of those categories owing to the ongoing dispersion and potential for more.
You know, where are we avoiding, still, despite a little bit lower rates, I'm still not very constructive on CRE, especially within conduit CMBS. Conduit CMBS is kind of back to the tights and spreads. And so we don't love the risk trade off there. So aren't aren't allocating much.
And then just kind of generic beta in any sector. Ultimately we think there's a credit spread floor that you should maintain when thinking about credit allocations. And so when you break through some of the flaws, frankly, it becomes, what's the point for an incremental 50, 100 basis points of spread for an asset? At that point you might as well own Treasurys or agency mortgages. So just not chasing really tight credit because in that environment there's there's really quite literally very limited upside only from a incremental amount of ongoing carry, and in certain parts of the credit markets right now. That's that's our opinion there.
Jay Diamond: Thank you for unpacking. So many thanks, Steve and Patricia. And again on a very busy day. Listen, before I let you go, Steve, what's the main takeaway? If there was one main takeaway that you would like to leave our listeners with today.
Steve Brown
It might sound cliche and it's something we've been saying for the better part of two years now, but investable yields are still high and yields drive longer-term performance. They're highly correlated. So you can put together diversified strategies of both high-grade credit, kind of more flexible credit. And you can get a yield of anywhere from, say, five if you're really defensive, really short duration to 8% if you're taking a little bit more credit risk.
And that's not even accounting for what you can get in the private markets, which is still high singles low doubles. So investable yields are still really attractive and that's leading to technical flows, and ongoing demand. We're fortunate as a franchise and would like to thank all of you who've partnered with us, to be a recipient of some of the flows.
And then, you know, in almost validation of those points, year to date performance is strong, and then you still have an ongoing yield. So it's not like the trade’s behind you. The trade is still here and in front of us.
So it's a really interesting time to be an investor.
Jay Diamond: Well thank you so much, Steve. Patricia, any final thoughts from you.
Patricia Zobel: Know, I think Steve said it. Well, you know, we came into this year expecting policy volatility. And it has lived up to our expectations. We're not expecting that to die down anytime soon. But as Steve noted that can create opportunities for active managers. From my perspective it's about following developments closely. But it was great to be here to talk with you and Steve, and it was great for all of our listeners who were able to join today.
Jay Diamond: Well, thank you again for your time, Steve and Patricia, and I hope you'll come back and visit us again soon. And thanks to all of you who have joined us for our podcast today. If you like what you are hearing, please rate us five stars. If you have any questions for Steve or Patricia or any of our other podcast guests, please send them to MacroMarkets@Guggenheim investments.com, and we'll do our best to answer them on a future episode or offline. I'm Jay Diamond, and we look forward to gathering again for the next episode of Macro Markets with Guggenheim Investments. And in the meantime, for more of our thought leadership, including our Quarterly Macro Themes and our Fixed-Income Sector Views, please visit GuggenheimInvestments.com/perspectives.
So long.
Important Notices and Disclosures
Investing involves risks, including the possible loss of principal. Stock markets can be volatile. Investments in securities of small and medium capitalization companies may involve greater risk of loss and more abrupt fluctuations in market price than investments in larger companies. The market value of fixed-income securities will change in response to interest rate changes in market conditions, among other things, investments in fixed-income instruments are subject to the possibility that interest rates could rise, causing their value to decline.
High yield securities present more liquidity and credit risk than investment grade bonds, and may be subject to greater volatility. Structured credit, including asset backed securities or ABS, mortgage backed securities and closer complex investments, are not suitable for all investors. Investors in structured credit generally receive payments that apart interest in part return of principal. These payments may vary based on the rate loans are repaid.
Some structured credit investments may have structures that make their reaction to interest rates and other factors difficult to predict, making their prices volatile and subject to liquidity and valuation risk. Close bear similar risks to investing in loans directly, including credit risk, interest rate risk, counterparty risk, and prepayment risk. Loans are often below investment grade, may be unrated, and typically offer a fixed or floating interest rate.
Private debt investments are generally considered illiquid and not quoted on any exchange, thus they're difficult to value. The process of value investments for which reliable market quotations are not available is based on inherent uncertainties and may not be accurate. Further, the level of discretion used by an investment manager to value private debt securities could lead to conflicts of interest.
This podcast is distributed or presented for informational or educational purposes only, and should not be considered a recommendation of any particular security strategy or investment product, or is investing advice of any kind. This material is not provided in a fiduciary capacity, may not be relied upon for or in connection with the making of investment decisions, and does not constitute a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities.
The content contained herein is not intended to be and should not be construed as legal or tax advice and or a legal opinion. Always consult a financial, tax and or legal professional regarding your specific situation. This podcast contains opinions of the author or speaker, but not necessarily those of Guggenheim Partners or its subsidiaries. The opinions contained herein are subject to change without notice.
Forward looking statements, estimates, and certain information contained herein are based upon proprietary and nonproprietary research and other sources. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but are not assured as to accuracy. No part of this material may be reproduced or referred to in any form without express. Written permission of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. There is neither representation nor warranty as to the current accuracy of, nor liability for decisions based on such information.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Guggenheim investments represents the investment management businesses of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. Securities are distributed by Guggenheim Funds Distributors, LLC.