MIKE TOWNSEND: 2025 has certainly been the year of the tariff. President Trump came into office in January promising aggressive tariffs on imports from foreign countries with a stated goal of reshaping U.S. trade policy, reducing trade deficits, and boosting manufacturing. He began by imposing tariffs on imports from allies Canada and Mexico back in February and moved on to what he dubbed Liberation Day on April 2, signing an executive order declaring a national emergency over trade deficits and invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which authorized sweeping tariffs on foreign imports. He also signed an executive order raising duties on China, further escalating the trade war between the two countries. But what everyone is paying attention to this week is the new deadline of August 1 for the imposition of what the president calls reciprocal tariffs—country-specific rates on imports from nearly 100 nations around the world. These were originally put in place on April 9 until a market meltdown caused the White House to pull back and delay them to see if trade deals could be negotiated. While few trade agreements have been reached, most notably with Japan and the European Union, it's expected that high tariff rates will go in effect on dozens of countries in the coming days. But for investors and companies, the on again, off again, changing deadlines, they've all made it hard to plan. Since the market tumbled in April, sparking the White House decision to delay the reciprocal tariffs, equity markets have soared more than 25%. Tariffs just don't seem as much of a concern to investors as they were just a few months ago. Is it possible the market is in for another shock?
Welcome to WashingtonWise, 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. On today's episode, I want to take a closer look at tariffs—what's in place now; what's coming next; how they're being used to win trade deals; and what the potential impact is on inflation, the economy, and the markets.
My colleague, Michelle Gibley, director of international research at Schwab, will be joining me shortly to help me navigate the confusing and fast-changing tariff landscape. But before we get to that discussion, here's an update on three issues I'm following in Washington right now.
First off, I want to close the loop on the topic that was the focus of the last episode of WashingtonWise, cryptocurrency. As expected, Congress did indeed pass cryptocurrency legislation for the first time ever.
The Genius Act, which regulates stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency that is pegged to the dollar, is now the law of the land. Among other things, the new law requires stablecoin issuers to hold one-to-one reserves in dollars or other highly liquid assets. The final vote in the House of Representatives was 308 to 122, with 102 Democrats voting in favor of it, a notable display of bipartisanship. The House also passed a second crypto bill known as the Clarity Act, which will create a regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies generally, beyond just stablecoins. The legislation would treat most cryptocurrencies like commodities and give primary regulatory authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, with the SEC in a secondary role. It would create new registration requirements for crypto exchanges, brokers, and dealers and put in place some investor protections. This bill also received strong bipartisan support with 294 votes in favor, including 78 Democrats.
That bill next needs to be considered by the Senate. The Senate Banking Committee chairman introduced his version of the bill last week, and the committee expects to debate and vote on it in September. It's got some differences from the version that passed the House, so that will eventually have to be sorted out. But the bipartisan support for the bill in the House should give it some momentum in the Senate, and passage sometime this fall is a real possibility.
Second, on July 18, the House approved the revised recissions bill that claws back about $9 billion in funding that had already been allocated by Congress. This stemmed from a request by President Trump to withdraw about $8 billion in funding from foreign-aid programs and about $1.1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps to fund public television and National Public Radio.
These kinds of requests from the White House have to be acted upon within 45 days or they expire and can't be renewed. The House passed the request in June, but the Senate had concerns about some of the requested cuts. Senators ended up restoring funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a program started during the George W. Bush administration that is widely credited with saving about 25 million lives worldwide.
That change by the Senate sent the package back to the House for a final vote, which occurred on the 45th and final day before the request would have expired.
But the House passed it in time, and the rest of the funding is now withdrawn. It was the first recisssions bill passed by Congress since 1999.
What will be interesting to watch going forward is how this recissions battle complicates the government funding process. The White House has said it plans to send more recissions requests to withdraw funding for other programs it doesn't like. Recisions requests need only a simple majority in both chambers to pass. They don't need a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate. But the regular government funding process, the annual negotiations over the 12 appropriations bills that fund every government agency and every federal program for the coming fiscal year, those do require 60 votes in the Senate. So that process needs to be more bipartisan. Democrats are worried that if they agree to funding deals to keep the government open and operating this fall, Republicans will just pass recissions bills that withdraw some of that funding, undermining the entire process. It really goes at the heart of the role of Congress in funding the government. This battle will play out in September as Congress deals with the fast-approaching deadline of October 1 to fund the government. Finally, earlier this week, the Federal Reserve held the Fed funds rate steady for the fifth consecutive meeting but signaled that a rate cut could be coming at the September meeting.
The meeting came on the heels of President Trump's unusual visit to the Federal Reserve the previous week. The president, along with other White House officials and a couple of senators, toured the Federal Reserve's construction project. The Fed has been renovating two of its historic buildings, but cost overruns have ballooned the price tag to about $2.5 billion. The president and some members of his administration have sought to blame Fed Chair Powell for the cost overruns and raised the possibility that the so-called mismanagement of the project could be used as a pretext to fire the Fed chair. Trump was just the fourth president ever to visit the central bank. Last week saw Trump and Powell standing next to each other wearing hard hats as the president discussed the project. But the president also said that he was not planning to fire Powell nor pressure him into resigning before his term ends in May of 2026.
It was, frankly, kind of a bizarre scene, but it actually turned out to be relatively cordial between the two men. Trump reiterated his desire for the central bank to lower rates, and he may get his wish at the next meeting. But the overall tone of hostility seemed to ebb a bit. And the worry about the president causing a market disruption by firing Powell seems to be moving to the back burner. We know that can change at a moment's notice. But for now, relations between the White House and the Federal Reserve seem to have reached a bit of a truce.
On my deeper dive today, I want to take a look at the latest developments with tariffs and their implications for the economy and the markets, both here in the United States and internationally. President Trump announced August 1 for the implementation of a new round of reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries, but he's also announced several trade deals in recent days, and that deadline could be extended if there's a sense that more deals are on the immediate horizon. The deals that were struck have resulted in lower tariffs than threatened on some countries. It's all moving really fast. So to help me sort it all out, I'm pleased to welcome to the podcast Michelle Gibley, director of international research at the Schwab Center for Financial Research. Michelle has more than 30 years of experience in the industry, including 17 years here at Schwab. She holds the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. Michelle, welcome to WashingtonWise. Thanks so much for joining me today.
MICHELLE GIBLEY: It's great to be here, Mike.
MIKE: Well, Michelle, let's start today with just a quick overview on where things stand, and I'll caveat this by saying that with the speed that things are moving, it's nearly a certainty that there will be additional developments in the couple of days between when we're recording this and when it's made available to listeners. But that said, over the last few weeks, a lot of tariffs have gone into effect, including tariffs on imports from specific countries, like Canada, China, and Mexico, as well as tariffs on specific products, like cars, car parts, aluminum, steel, and there's a new tariff on copper imports that will be implemented in August. We've also had an across-the-board 10% tariff on all imports that has been in place since April. I think that's one that has kind of flown under the radar screen.
But what we're focusing on right now is the so-called reciprocal tariffs. These are the individualized tariff rates on dozens of countries that President Trump first announced in early April. They briefly went into effect on April 9, but the president issued a 90-day pause that afternoon because market reaction was extremely negative in the equity markets, and even more so in the bond market. The 90-day pause expired on July 9, but the president extended that pause to August 1, and we've seen the market really take off since that pause started. Through July 25, the S&P 500® was up 28% since the close on April 8. So now we have a new deadline looming on August 1, and the White House has been busy trying to negotiate trade deals with as many countries as possible before the deadline. They've announced a few.
Michelle, what, to you, have been the most notable developments in terms of these trade deals that have been announced in the last couple of weeks? And are these really trade agreements? Many of them sound more like an agreement to keep talking about maybe forging a true trade deal at some point.
MICHELLE: You're correct, Mike. We don't have signed deals, just frameworks for future deals, and frankly, the details on many parts of these so-called deals are scant. I think what is notable is that the worst case outcomes appear to be off the table for now. Large trade partners, such as Japan and the European Union, the EU, they've been able to negotiate frameworks for deals that settle in at 15%. Now, that's lower than the 25% and 30%, respectively, that were threatened in the middle of July. The real surprise was the lowering of those so-called sectoral tariffs. Those are the sector/industry level tariffs on automobiles. They're coming in at 15%, instead of the 25% rate that was announced months ago. The net of this, increasing the initial April across-the-board tariff from 10% to 15%, but then reducing autos from 25% to 15%, those basically offset each other. They're a wash. If we add in the commitments to invest in the U.S. for both the EU and Japan deals, that's quite interesting and creative. However, there's still a lot of unknowns here in terms of composition of investment, how much is new commitments versus investments already planned, and there's some disagreement by parties on both sides on how the investment will work. There's also a lack of details on the timeframe for these investments, and the size of investment is quite large relative to the sides of the economies in both cases. So it's unclear if these investments will actually play out. Markets may cheer the lack of escalation, but businesses could still have a hard time planning in the near-term until the details are forthcoming.
MIKE: Well, earlier in July, President Trump made a lot of headlines when he sent a series of letters to various countries outlining the new tariff rate that will kick in if an agreement isn't reached. As you noted, we've seen some deals, but not many. So are there still other risks yet to come? How do you think the markets might react?
MICHELLE: You know, tariffs are still trending higher, but they're taking a longer implementation time than the initial announcements in April. The April 2 Liberation Day announcement had implementation dates of April 5, so just three days for those 10% across-the-board duties, and then April 9, or just seven days for the reciprocal tariffs. Tariff rates for Chinese goods jumped even higher from April 2 to April 10, and this short lead time for implementation, just a week or two, that was really an immediate shock that did not give companies, consumers, or markets time to prepare.
Since then, companies have had some time to adjust their purchasing and supply chain strategies due to the pauses in the high reciprocal tariffs, first on July 9, as you mentioned, and then again August 1 for all countries except China, which is now paused to August 12. That said, the effective U.S. tariff rate at the end of May was just 8.8%, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. That indicates that the 10% across-the-board rate from April has yet to be fully felt, much less the so-called deals in July. Now, we don't know where tariff rates will settle at, but it's likely higher than the 8.8% at the end of May based on the announcements we've already seen declared this year.
MIKE: Yeah, you mentioned that 10% level hasn't really been felt, but that may not even be where things end up. Some of the recent deals that have been announced have been setting a floor of 15%, rather than 10%. So by the end of the year, that average tariff rate could be quite a bit higher than it is now.
Well, Michelle, at each of my client events over the last several months, I've gone out of my way to remind investors that tariffs are paid by the company that is importing the goods. Even though the characterization of tariffs is always "a tariff on China" or "a tariff on Canada," the reality is that foreign countries don't pay the tariff. U.S. companies do. In anticipation of tariffs, a lot of companies went on kind of a buying spree early in the year, in the first quarter, and they increased their inventory, and that helped to hold the line on price increases. But now many companies are nearing the end of those stockpiles, so when are we likely to see companies start to pass these increases on?
MICHELLE: Yeah, there have been mitigating factors like the pre-buying by businesses to keep the cost basis of their inventories at lower levels, and we also saw consumers buying ahead in anticipation of future price increases. Companies may be absorbing some of the input price increases now due to a lack of pricing power and/or because they're still trying to avoid multiple price hikes while they're still awaiting more clarity about where tariffs will end up. Now, it's unclear if businesses and consumers have shifted purchases to lower-cost finished goods and/or inputs to production, basically substituting the purchases for lower-cost goods, like buying generic or buying lower quality inputs for manufacturing. So those price pressures may be just starting to be felt, and it takes time for tariffs to flow through to inflation.
There have been some interesting things happening, though, as some of the impact is being borne by non-U.S. companies and consumers in isolated cases. And this is because some multinational companies are spreading those cost increases across the globe, rather than just on U.S. prices. Japanese car manufacturers have lowered the price of cars shipped worldwide. However, a majority of the price increases is falling on U.S. companies and consumers, and this is evidenced by a 131% rise in custom duties collected this year through July 23, compared to a year ago. And that's the rate reported by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and that's the duties paid at the port by U.S. importers.
MIKE: What about other countries countering with tariffs of their own? Will that mean U.S. companies maybe can't sell as much? We've already been hearing reports on the moves Canadians are making prior to Canada putting on reciprocal tariffs. So what kinds of steps are you seeing from other countries that are threatening or have already taken in response?
MICHELLE: So far, most countries are not retaliating, with the exception of Canada. There was a concern that the EU would retaliate if it didn't get a deal, but they have a deal now. That said, if countries retaliate by introducing tariffs of their own, those tariffs would likely be felt mostly by the country originating the tariff since tariffs are on importers, not exporters.
MIKE: How soon do you think this becomes an actual trade war? Maybe we're already in one, just no one is calling it that?
MICHELLE: In my opinion, the definition of a trade war is when escalation happens, when tariffs continue to ratchet higher as each side increases tariffs in response to the other country raising rates, and this appears to be largely off the table. Although Canada could still be a risk, given President Trump's continued verbal attacks on the country, and its willingness to retaliate.
MIKE: Yeah, we did see this briefly with China, where we had that kind of back and forth, which ultimately ended up for a brief time with the U.S. having a 145% tariff on Chinese imports. I think both countries sort of backed off. We've settled back down at around 30%, so we'll see how that plays out in other countries.
One of the things I hear often, Michelle, from investors, is that they're kind of skeptical that these tariffs will really go into effect. And I've also been getting a lot of questions about whether the courts could intervene at some point. Back in May, the Court of International Trade ruled that most of the tariffs are unconstitutional. That ruling was almost immediately paused by the Court of Appeals. The next big hearing in that appeals case is scheduled for July 31, and a decision could come as soon as September. Of course, whatever the outcome is, the case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court. But this case is about the mechanism that the president used to impose tariffs, not really about tariffs themselves, right?
MICHELLE: Other countries appear to be coming to terms with the idea of higher tariffs, and a desire to get things settled to give businesses and consumers more certainty. Remember that uncertainty itself can hurt economic growth if businesses and consumers avoid purchase, investment, and hiring decisions. So it appears more likely that tariffs are on the rise this year, but again, those worst case scenarios may be avoided.
Mike, you and I have talked about this court ruling on the legality of using emergency authorization of tariffs. It remains outstanding, but really the outcome may not matter. Although we don't have the actual language in these so-called deals, countries may be making deals that supersede the use of emergency authorization for instituting tariffs. The outcome of the trade court cases will be months in the future, potentially not till the middle of next year if it goes to the Supreme Court, which is likely. Even if the emergency provision doesn't hold, there are other tools the administration can use to put in tariffs, such as the Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, that would be putting in place 10 to 15% tariffs, but for no longer than 150 days, or the administration can also use sectoral tariffs—they can expand them to other sectors. That said, the longer the deals are in place, the more they may settle in as the new normal.
MIKE: Yeah, we are seeing those sectoral tariffs go through kind of the regular tariff process. So the recent announcement of tariffs on copper imports, that went through a process that included a public comment period and a period of analysis. That's kind of how tariffs are typically put in place. And now pharmaceuticals and semiconductors are in that queue, and they may be the next ones that we hear on sectoral tariffs.
But Michelle, I want to shift to the market impact. After the big shock to the market in April, the market really hasn't reacted at all to tariff announcements. Why do you think the market has been ignoring the impact of tariffs?
MICHELLE: Well, I think there are multiple reasons for this. If we think about global growth earlier this year, it likely benefited from front-loading of exports to the U.S. ahead of tariffs. Additionally, while the U.S. is the largest economy in the world, for many countries, goods exports to the U.S. are a small percentage of their overall GDP. An example of this is China. It might be surprising that exports to the U.S. was only 2.3% of its GDP last year. There are some exceptions, though, where seven countries' goods exports to the U.S. are more than 10% of their respective GDP. These countries are Vietnam, Mexico and Canada, Ireland, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Thailand. Vietnam has the largest goods export exposure to the U.S., and that's nearly 30% of its GDP.
For Vietnam, a trade deal with the U.S., which they have one now for a 20% tariff on its goods, may feel like a relative win. Even with a 20% tariff, manufacturing in Vietnam may still be cost-effective versus the headache of moving manufacturing to the U.S. and developing supply chains in the U.S. Now, Vietnam does have a 40% tariff on the transshipment of goods from China through Vietnam. Transshipment is the rerouting of goods made in China through Vietnam before heading to the U.S. to avoid paying the higher China tariff rate. If they do undergo additional manufacturing in Vietnam before heading to the U.S., that would avoid the higher 40% rate. Now, while the risk is that Vietnam may lose some business and experience a slowdown in growth due to the higher tariff rates, it's likely to avoid a recession.
Additionally, the largest part of the economic hit from higher tariffs could be this year. Next year may improve from a lower base. Take, for example, the case of Mexico and Canada, which have the second and third highest export exposures in their GDP to the U.S., at 27% and 18%, respectively. So far, many goods are exempt from tariffs if they're covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement—that's the USMCA, the successor to NAFTA. U.S. tariffs were implemented in March, and both countries' economies are expected to have contracted in the second quarter, but economic activity could improve in future quarters, according to the Bloomberg Consensus of Economists. Stock markets in Mexico and Canada, they're up over 20% this year in dollar terms, as markets are looking toward the future.
Global growth in aggregate is also expected to slow in 2025 before accelerating next year. While the impacts at the individual industry and company levels could vary, global growth in 2026, as a whole, could be revitalized if trade and trade uncertainty recedes because we have trade deals. Once there is more certainty, businesses may be better able to make hiring and investment decisions. The removal of uncertainty could boost growth.
MIKE: So we have a big date coming up on August 1, when a new round of tariffs is set to go into effect. Are you at all concerned that the market is underestimating the potential impact of these tariffs?
MICHELLE: On the economic side of things, it's likely that the impact of higher tariffs is delayed, not averted. We just haven't felt it yet. Prices in the U.S. could rise, but inflation may fall overseas if Chinese goods initially destined for the U.S. end up in their markets. Global growth is likely to slow in coming quarters. That said, we don't believe a global recession is likely.
In terms of markets, volatility could return if a large trade partner like Canada has difficulty getting a deal and escalation returns, or if those semiconductor or pharmaceutical tariffs that you mentioned take effect sooner or are higher than expected. However, because markets are forward-looking, a sell-off in stocks could be limited once investors begin to look out to 2026, when growth is expected to improve. So investors might want to take a longer-term view, rather than trying to trade all of these tariff announcements.
MIKE: What's the impact if I own international stocks or funds? I mean, what happens if consumers stop buying these foreign goods? Does that mean that the revenue of international companies will be impacted? Will they be able to find other buyers?
MICHELLE: You know, Mike, countries overseas are not sitting still. They're seeking to diversify away from the U.S. and do more trade with each other. I find it very interesting to hear how many trade deals have either been announced or are underway this year. In fact, there's so many that I won't list them here, but if you're interested, they are outlined in my article published on July 28.
One thing that may be helping international companies is that they are shifting exports originally destined for the U.S. to other countries. So Chinese exports to the 10 countries that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, it rose 17% in June. At the same time, exports to the U.S. fell 16% in the same month. But redirecting shipments isn't a perfect solution. Should a rush of goods diverted from the U.S. to smaller markets arrive all at once, the extra competition could put downward pressure on prices received by exporters. Also, due to the large size of the U.S. market, more trade between countries outside of the U.S. is unlikely to provide a complete offset.
MIKE: Yeah, that article that you mentioned that you just published, we'll make sure that we have a link to it in the show notes, but I like that it pointed out how many different countries are being active in working with each other given the U.S. stance. So you talk about the U.K. and India making a free-trade deal, Mexico and Brazil working to deepen their trade ties, and lots of other examples of that.
You mentioned earlier that stock markets in Mexico and Canada are up a lot this year. What about China, given its major role and being kind of a target in this trade dispute?
MICHELLE: It might surprise investors that EM stocks have outperformed, despite a trade dispute that disproportionately targets China. It's the largest weight in the MSCI Emerging Market Index, but it compares to similar circumstances in President Trump's first term. During the first year of his first term, emerging markets outperformed all four quarters, and that was despite U.S. tariffs and trade policy uncertainty. A potential reason for this outperformance is that sentiment toward emerging markets may have been low to start, but global growth held up better than expected, and the U.S. dollar fell, very similar to this time.
Historically, emerging-market stocks have been viewed as tied to the increased use of commodities. However, the sector composition of the MSCI Emerging Market Index has changed over time. Commodities, as represented by energy and materials, have fallen over the past 20 years from a combined 25% weight to roughly 10% now. During the same time, the weight of the information technology sector has grown from 17% to 24%. That's despite the reclassification of internet-related companies into the communication services and consumer discretionary sectors in late 2018. If we include those companies, the weight in tech and internet-related companies rises to 37% as of the end of June. That's a pretty large weight. As a result, emerging-market returns are now less dependent on the commodity cycle. Tech and internet companies are also major influences on three of the largest four country weights within the MSCI EM Index.
MIKE: So given all that, what's your overall perspective on international investing right now? Are international markets still outperforming the U.S., and does that leave investors under-allocated still after years of the U.S. outperforming international?
MICHELLE: This is a great question, Mike. The outperformance of U.S. stocks for the most part of the past 15 years, and we've heard this term, U.S. exceptionalism, resulted in many investors likely giving little consideration to the international exposure in their portfolios. An example of this is the change in weights in the broad indexes. The weight of non-U.S. countries in the broader MSCI All Country World Index has been cut in half from around 40% at the end of 2009, when the U.S. outperformance began, to around 20% in November 2024. This shift also likely occurred in many investor portfolios, which are probably underweight international relative to longer-term strategic targets. So it might be a good time to talk to your financial consultant to review your allocation.
MIKE: Well, earlier in July, you posted another article on schwab.com, where you address the benefits of emerging market diversification. And I found that really interesting because when we talk about emerging markets, we do tend to lump them all together, but you're saying we definitely shouldn't do that. When it comes to emerging markets right now, where should we be looking for opportunities?
MICHELLE: There are different drivers for different countries, but diversification always seems to be the best answer, and emerging markets are no different. I get a lot of questions about China and India, but in my recent emerging-market article, I did call out four countries that right now constitute three quarters of the MSCI EM Index as of the end of June. These countries are China, Taiwan, India, and South Korea.
If we look at China, its economy likely benefited from tariff front-loading in the first half of this year, but growth is likely to slow in the second half. Tech and internet-related companies are roughly half of the MSCI China Index, making consumer sentiment and spending an important driver. Perversely, the more China is targeted by tariffs, the more its stocks could respond positively on the prospect of new stimulus by the Chinese government.
Taiwan, which we don't talk about as much, it's the second largest weight in EM Index at 19%. Its stock market is a play on technology, with TSMC, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, representing 54% of the Taiwan index, and tech overall is 80% of the index.
South Korea has some really interesting things going on. Its stock market is also tied to technology, a 41% weight in the MSCI Korea Index, mostly in two tech names. But South Korea has an improving corporate governance story, similar to reforms in Japan in recent years. And the government's corporate value-up reforms could make Korean businesses more friendly to outside shareholders and reduce the valuation discount these primarily family-owned conglomerates typically receive relative to global peers.
Lastly, India is mostly a domestic consumption story, as it's nearly 70% of its GDP. India's Central Bank only started cutting rates in March, and combined with lower inflation this year, could start to turn around growth and stabilize earnings forecasts. Renewed economic growth could also support the financials and consumer discretionary sectors. Those are the two largest weights in the MSCI India Index, which combined represent 42% of the index as of the end of June.
So taking this all together, emerging markets could continue to do well if the demand for technology remains strong globally, if domestic consumption in India and China reaccelerate, and if the U.S. dollar continues to weaken.
MIKE: Well, Michelle, this has been a great discussion. I really appreciate your perspective on the fast-changing situation with tariffs, and also your take on international investing opportunities. We'll post a link to your two great recent articles in the show notes, and I just want to thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me today.
MICHELLE: Oh, it was my pleasure, Mike.
MIKE: That's Michelle Gibley, director of international research here at Schwab. As I said, you can follow Michelle's commentary on tariffs and other international developments at schwab.com/learn.
Well, that's all for this week's episode of WashingtonWise. With Congress in recess until September, we're also going to take a bit of a break. We'll be back with a new episode on September 11, when we'll take a look at what's on the policy agenda for the fall and how it might affect the markets and your portfolio. 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 I'd really appreciate it if you would 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 WashingtonWise, a podcast for investors. Wherever you are, stay safe, stay healthy, enjoy the rest of your summer, and keep investing wisely.
