MICHAEL TOWNSEND: On April 2, shortly after the market closed for the day, President Trump walked into a crowded Rose Garden ceremony at the White House and began speaking about his plan for tariffs.
I was watching in my office, just a few blocks away from the White House. Like most analysts—as well as investors, corporate executives, members of Congress, and many others—I had been anticipating the president's April 2 comments. Finally, I thought, we'd get some certainty about his plans for tariffs—and, really, that was what everyone had been asking for over the past several weeks. Markets don't like uncertainty. Companies don't like uncertainty. But surely a bit of clarity was coming.
There had been a lot of speculation and reporting in the days leading up to April 2, which the president had dubbed "Liberation Day," about the details of the tariff plan. The general consensus seemed to be that they would be relatively narrow in scope.
Well, no.
As the president was speaking, I found myself struggling to process what I was hearing. The details far surpassed what most analysts were expecting. What the president announced was nothing short of the most sweeping economic experiment undertaken in nearly a century, an attempt to rewrite the entire system of global trade all at once.
The president announced a universal baseline tariff of 10% on all imports, which would begin on April 5. And he unveiled a second set of higher "reciprocal" tariffs on about 90 countries, flipping through a dizzying series of charts that listed the tariff on 185 nations and territories around the globe. The numbers were as high as 50%. There was no distinguishing between friend or foe, no exceptions for certain products.
And I thought to myself, "I don't think this was the clarity the markets were expecting."
Indeed, it triggered a bloodbath on Wall Street. In the two trading days following the April 2 announcement, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 9.26%, the S&P 500® was down 10.53% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq fell 11.44%, into bear market territory, meaning it was down more than 20% from its recent high. It was the worst two-day stretch for the markets since March 2020, when the scope of the COVID pandemic was just beginning to be understood. All in all, the stock market lost an estimated $6.6 trillion in market value in just two days.
Markets have whipsawed this week as well. Monday saw a rare intraday move of more than 8% on rumors that the president might be willing to pause the tariffs. On April 8, the markets opened sharply upwards as the president signaled openness to country-by-country negotiations but, in keeping with the recent gyrations, gave back that gain, and then some, as the trading day progressed.
And then, on April 9, a dramatic U-turn: The president announced a 90-day pause in the reciprocal tariffs on most countries, while preserving the baseline 10% universal tariff and escalating tariffs on imports from China to an unheard-of 125%. Suddenly, the markets were headed in the opposite direction. The S&P 500 was up 9.5%, the Nasdaq more than 12%.
What a roller coaster. For a lot of investors, panic had set in. But as my colleague Liz Ann Sonders reminds us, "Panic is not an investing strategy." But what is the investing strategy when the market can swing so wildly based solely on a few policy pronouncements?
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.
In just a few minutes, I'm going to talk with Stephanie Shadel, a senior wealth advisor here at Charles Schwab, about the questions investors are asking her and the advice she has for navigating this turbulent market environment.
But first, I want to take a few minutes to provide some perspective on the tariff announcements.
As regular listeners of this podcast know, I've been in Washington for nearly 32 years. I don't think it is hyperbolic to say that last week was one of the most consequential intersections of a Washington policy action and a market reaction of my career. The tariff announcement, which came on top of previously announced tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, as well as sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles, launches an economic experiment not seen in nearly a century, one which most economists believe will spark a global trade war and result in higher prices, slower growth, and rising inflation, but which the White House believes will fundamentally reshape the U.S. economy with ultimately positive results. Regardless of which perspective turns out to be correct, the tariff plan is likely to have a profound impact on the global economy, the markets, and the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions in the months ahead.
I've been thinking for days about what's happened and what it means. To a significant degree, this is all unfolding in real time. Ordinary investors, in this case, are just like company CEOs, members of Congress, foreign heads of state—we are all absorbing this news at the same time and with the same amount of information. So here are some quick observations about the tariff announcement.
First, I think it's important to remind everyone that tariffs are paid by U.S. companies that import goods from other countries, and those companies typically pass on that extra cost to consumers in the form of higher prices. The president consistently refers to tariffs as being put "on" foreign countries, as though those countries themselves are paying some sort of fee to the United States. That's not the case. American consumers will ultimately pay the increased cost of importing goods—tariffs are effectively a tax increase. JP Morgan analysts calculated that the effect of the tariffs will be the largest tax increase in this country since 1968.
There is so much misinformation circulating on tariffs, and I continue to get a lot of questions because people just don't understand how tariffs work. Tariffs have long been a part of the trade world. They have their place when used to protect domestic industries from exceptionally cheap imports by bringing the underpriced imports in line with the cost of the domestic product. But when used widely, they can lead to trade wars, increase consumer prices, reduce trade volume, stifle economic growth, and disrupt the supply chain, among other negative impacts.
And even with the president's April 9 decision to ease back on the many of the highest tariffs, the baseline 10% tariffs on all trading partners remain in place. That's why so many economists continue to express concerns about the White House's approach.
Second, one of the most confusing parts of the president's Rose Garden announcement was that series of charts he displayed listing different reciprocal tariff rates for dozens of countries. He said that the White House calculated the tariff rates charged by other countries on U.S. imports, including currency manipulation and other trade barriers, and that the U.S. would implement tariffs representing half that rate. But just glancing at the list, I was immediately confused. Tariffs on imports from the European Union were set at 20%, about what the White House had been signaling in recent weeks. Tariffs on imports from the U.K. were left at the baseline of 10%. But countries in Asia and Africa had some of the highest tariffs: 46% for imports from Vietnam, 36% for Thailand, 32% for Taiwan, which makes about 90% of the world's advanced semiconductors. What was going on here?
Vietnam, for instance, was shown to be charging the U.S. a 90% tariff, so we were responding with a tariff of 46%, or roughly half.
But Vietnam doesn't charge a 90% tariff on U.S. imports. What became quickly apparent was that the figure represented not the tariffs that Vietnam is charging the U.S., but a calculation that divides the trade deficit between the U.S. and Vietnam by the amount of goods the United States imports from Vietnam.
This is an incredibly important thing to understand because it goes to the heart of the president's thinking. The president sees trade deficits as bad. Period. The tariffs imposed on other countries are designed to reduce our trade deficit with that country. Indeed, on April 6, he said that tariffs will remain in place until trade deficits have "disappeared"—a goal that most economists believe to be impossible, given the way global trade works today.
Trade deficits are not necessarily a result of trade policy. Trade deficits are the simple result of a country buying less stuff from us than we buy from them. A tariff isn't going to make that country buy more goods from us—it may force us to buy less goods from them, assuming there is an alternative available.
But some of the biggest trade deficits, on a percentage basis, are with countries that are simply too poor to buy much of anything from the United States. Experts were baffled to see countries like the tiny south African nation of Lesotho at the top of the list, with countries like Myanmar and Botswana also facing steep tariffs. These countries aren't abusing their trade relationship with the United States. They are simply too poor to buy very much from us. Countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have big trade surpluses compared to the U.S. because they are home to factories where U.S. companies manufacture clothing and textiles—which they are sending back to the U.S.
If the goal is truly to make trade deficits disappear, then these tariffs are destined to be on for a long, long time to come. Because many experts believe that achieving trade balance with every country is not a realistic or achievable goal and may not even be a desirable one.
Third observation. I mentioned clothing because that is likely to be one of the places where American shoppers see the most noticeable price increases as a result of these tariffs. The overwhelming majority of apparel and shoes bought by Americans is produced overseas. China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Bangladesh are the largest exporters of clothing to the United States— and, as I noted, they were hit with some of the highest tariffs in the world. While the higher tariffs on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Bangladesh have been paused for now, the tariff on our third-largest trading partner, China, has increased to 125% as part of an escalating tit-for-tat standoff that shows no signs of easing anytime soon.
Other places to watch for price increases in the near future are your grocery store, where fruits, vegetables, nuts, rice and other grains are likely to see price spikes, along with coffee, tea and chocolate. I'm also watching for price increases on cars, appliances and electronics like televisions, stereos, and cell phones. Even with the temporary pause in the tariffs, companies may start to raise prices pre-emptively, since they can't be sure what will happen in 90 days or whether the White House plans will change between now and then.
Fourth, one of the president's main goals here is not just to get other countries to lower trade barriers and buy more American goods, it's to get more manufacturing back to the United State—to make more stuff that Americans buy right here in the U.S. But that's an enormous undertaking—it's likely to take years and require billions of dollars in investment to build factories, hire and train new workers, revamp supply chains. And it's not even clear that it makes economic sense for companies. The reason things are manufactured in Vietnam and other countries is that labor costs are significantly lower than they are here.
Fifth, this week's wild ride has underscored how difficult it is to predict what the White House will do next. For days, administration officials said that the tariffs were not a tool for negotiation—but also touted that more than 70 countries had called the White House to offer concessions or start negotiations. For days, the White House indicated that the president would not be influenced by the markets, with the president himself saying that "sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something."
But market performance itself has always been a big driver of Trump's policy decisions. The stock market is a key barometer for Trump of how things are going generally in the economy, and it's long been thought that he would not want to do anything to knock the stock market too far off track. In speaking to reporters on April 9 about his decision to pause many of the tariffs, the president acknowledged that the market looked "pretty glum" for a few days. Even with the strong response to the tariff pause, the S&P 500 was down at the close of trading on April 9 by more than 11 percent from its all-time high on February 19.
It's also clear that the Fed is as uncertain as investors and isn't likely to cut rates anytime soon. Fed Chair Jerome Powell gave a speech on April 4 in which he said that the "tariff increases will be significantly higher than expected … the same is likely true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth." Powell cautioned that the Fed was in no rush but preferred to wait and see what the economic impact will be before adjusting monetary policy. He said it was "too soon to say what will be the appropriate path for monetary policy. … We've taken a step back, and we're watching to see what the policies turn out to be and the ways in which they will affect the economy, and then we'll be able to act." President Trump was not thrilled with that perspective, sending out a message in all caps on his social media feed that said, "CUT INTEREST RATES, JEROME."
The Fed's next meeting is May 6 and 7. On the CME's FedWatch tool, which tracks trader sentiment about the direction of Fed policy, the odds of a rate cut at the May meeting went from 10% on April 2 to 55% on April 8 to 14% on April 9—another sign of just how uncertain investors are about what will happen in the days and weeks ahead.
So, as an investor, where does that leave us?
This is where I want to bring in Stephanie Shadel, senior wealth advisor at Charles Schwab. Over the past week, Stephanie and her colleagues have really been on the front lines, fielding lots of calls and emails from very anxious investors. Stephanie, thanks so much for joining me today on very short notice.
STEPHANIE SHADEL: Of course. It's great to be here, Mike.
MIKE: Well, Stephanie, obviously it's been a pretty crazy week for the markets, but while recent days have been dramatic, the markets have been on a downward trajectory for six or seven weeks now, really since mid-February. With the markets on such a wild ride, what is the number one question that you've been getting?
STEPHANIE: Well, not surprisingly, "I'm really nervous. I don't like what's happening in Washington. Should we sell out?" And that's where in my role, I'm here to emphasize it's not a good idea to sell out, not a good idea to act on emotion, but instead stick to your plan. If you don't have a plan, now is just as good a time as any to get a plan. And the plan is so significant because it outlines all of your objectives, all of your assets, your future spending, your future income, and then we're able to project those stats out to over your longevity and really stress test it. What if interest rates are higher or lower? What if inflation is higher or lower? What are the rate-of-return assumptions? What if there's other larger healthcare expenses? And that financial plan takes into consideration good years, bad years, we stress test it, we vary inflation assumptions, rate of return assumptions, we throw in a whole bunch of 2008, dot-com-bubble/2000 type of scenarios to really factor in worsening returns or those real dire capitulation type of moments. And selling out is typically not the best course of action because it could really impact your long-term plan. It could negatively impact your ability to meet your objectives.
MIKE: Well, when investors are talking about selling out, that's an immediate reaction to a precipitous drop in the market. Investors obviously get nervous, and they've been nervous here in the last several days. Just this week we saw the markets plunge into or near bear territory and then bounce back on the delay of tariffs. But that doesn't mean there won't be more tariff concerns—especially with the high tariff in effect on imports from China right now, and possibly with other countries when the 90-day pause is over. And that could lead to more market gyrations.
I expect you're also hearing a lot of big picture type questions from people who are worried about whether they'll be able to achieve their longer-term financial goals, whether that's retirement or purchasing a home, maybe paying for college.
So what are you telling people who are basically just wondering, "Am I going to be OK financially?"
STEPHANIE: This is kind of how the conversation goes, right? "Should we sell out?" And then "Am I going to be OK?" And so the last week I've been updating financial plans for clients, reassessing risk tolerance, and reviewing their time horizon, liquidity events. Do we need money now, in 10 years, in 20 years? And really focus on their objectives and where they are currently and whether we're trying to maintain that current lifestyle or we're saving for purchasing a home or for retirement. And how really remaining objective and focusing on that plan is the best way to get there. I think that gives clients a lot of peace of mind because, again, we factor in these negative outcomes, just as much as we factor in the positive ones. And we can even assume worsening conditions, right? What if inflation is 4% going forward versus what we have in a normal inflationary environment? So there's a lot of different ways we can stress test and really quantify the client's concerns as it relates to the financial plan.
MIKE: I do think we're in a period right now where politics and policy decisions are having a much more direct effect on the market, maybe to a degree that we don't see very often at all. And that, of course, brings a lot of emotion into play. We both know those emotions are a terrible mix with investing decisions. How are you helping clients keep their emotions in check, particularly when this president and his actions tend to elicit very extreme reactions in both directions?
STEPHANIE: Very extreme. And I'd say that's kind of been the conversation for some time now. And since really Trump came to the political stage and trying to keep folks calm.
But managing emotion is the hardest part of investing, especially when we're seeing these severe market movements, and we're inundated with so much information minute by minute. So it feels like everything is happening all at once. And you're kind of paralyzed as to what do I do now? All of these different things are outside of our control. So it's really frustrating and debilitating at times. But that's where my role is to really listen to the client and understand where these emotions are coming from. What's going on behind the scenes, right?
There could be something else that is driving a more extreme reaction. But as part of my role, I bring that objectivity to the table and focus on facts, provide education and historical references, and well, to your point, normally politics is a non-event for the market, and that's not what's happening right now. So it's kind of new for a lot of us.
This is where we really have to focus on what are we trying to accomplish together? How do you feel about risk? Do we need to change the risk? Will that help alleviate some of the lack of control or the strong emotions we're feeling? And a lot of times we don't know our true risk tolerance or how we feel about risk until we've gone through some extreme market moves and just extremes in general.
MIKE: Well finally Stephanie, I expect you're getting a lot of questions from investors who want to make specific moves in their portfolio. Maybe they just want to hedge and take a step away from the volatility. How do you respond to those kinds of questions?
STEPHANIE: Our best way to hedge is staying diversified and having a little bit of all these different types of asset classes. Thirty years ago we didn't have as much access to different types of asset classes like real estate investment trusts or looking at non-traditional bonds or commodities, right? So we have all these different tools that we can use to hedge against risk where each piece of the portfolio is going to be more or less sensitive to various financial metric data or GDP or corporate earnings or inflation or interest rates or what have you. And I think what we've seen year-to-date is how important diversification is because it's working.
International was up for the year up until a couple days ago. U.S. is down for the year, but gold is up. We're seeing more defensive areas of the market hold up very nicely. And bonds are up for the year.
As we've all heard, diversification is the only free lunch in town. That's your best hedge. Have a financial plan, get invested, diversify, and stay invested. And then of course updating the financial plan as needed.
MIKE: Stephanie, that's great advice and I think really important reminder of how critical it is to have a financial plan and to keep it updated and to keep revisiting it—and if you don't have a financial plan, to go ahead and talk to a Schwab financial consultant about getting one. Stephanie, I can imagine clients really appreciate talking to you. You have this kind of calm in the eye of the storm demeanor that I expect is very, very reassuring to clients.
Thanks so much for making time to join me today. I really appreciate it.
STEPHANIE: This is great. Appreciate the time and opportunity to share how my clients are feeling. And, really, this podcast is a great way to address some of these concerns that we're all feeling and leverage the expertise of Schwab.
MIKE: Well, that's Stephanie Schadel, a senior wealth advisor here at Charles Schwab.
The tariff announcement wasn't the only big policy news last week. In the wee hours of the morning on April 5, the Senate passed a new version of its budget resolution, a critical step in the Republican effort to enact the massive tax cut and spending cuts package that is at the heart of the president's legislative agenda.
Here's a quick reminder of what I'm talking about here. The Republicans want to use a parliamentary process known as "budget reconciliation" to enact sweeping tax legislation. It's the same process they used back in 2017 to pass a major tax cut during the first year of Trump's first presidency. And it's the process by which Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan in 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.
Both parties use this process when they have full control of Washington because they can use it to pass a budget bill by only a simple majority in the both the House and the Senate. Crucially, it cannot be filibustered in the Senate, so it can be passed with just 51 votes.
The first step in that process is that each chamber has to pass an identical budget resolution. It's a framework that outlines the target amount of tax cuts and spending cuts but does not include any details beyond the top-level numbers. The House passed its version in February—it calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, and a $4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.
Last weekend, the Senate passed an amended version of that outline. The new version calls for extending all of the expiring 2017 tax cuts plus an additional $1.5 trillion in tax cuts beyond that. It contains a $5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. In an atmosphere in which cutting government spending is a daily focus of the administration, it increases defense spending by $150 billion and border security spending by $175 billion. And, strangely, it calls for a minimum of just $4 billion in spending cuts. That's billion, with a B. The House version calls for a minimum of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. There's a big gap between $4 billion and $1.5 trillion.
Basically, what the Senate is doing here is punting the decisions on spending cuts and not locking itself into any particular target. Republican leaders say that the spending cuts will be much larger once the details are figured out at the next stage of the legislative process.
But there's an even bigger controversy looming. Senate Republicans have decided that extending the expiring 2017 tax cuts—which include lower individual income tax rates, a higher standard deduction, a larger amount that can be inherited without triggering the estate tax, and dozens more provisions—won't cost the government a penny.
That's because the Senate is using what has become known as a "current policy baseline." Their argument is that the 2017 tax cuts are current policy, and their bill keeps the current policy going—so there is no change to that policy. And, therefore, they don't need to count extending those tax cuts as costing the government any revenue.
Historically, however, Congress has used a different metric, known as the "current law baseline." What that means is that current law calls for those tax cuts to expire at the end of the year. Beginning in 2026, they would revert to where they were prior to 2017. Budget projections, therefore, are assuming that those tax rates will go up next year, increasing revenue to the government.
So the bottom line is that the Republicans are trying to use a bit of budget sleight of hand here, to make extending the tax cuts look like they cost nothing and have no budget impact.
It was widely assumed that the Senate parliamentarian, an unelected official in the chamber whose job is to make sure the Senate is following its own rules, would be the person making the decision about whether the Republicans could use this tactic. And indeed, she has been meeting with senators and their staffs for weeks now, listening to the arguments about whether this does or does not comply with the Senate budget rules.
In the last week or two, however, Republicans decided to simply go around the parliamentarian and declare that the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, currently Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, has the sole authority to make this decision. I expect the parliamentarian will be called on by Democrats to rule on this question at some point later this year, but it sure feels like the Republicans are poised to ignore her ruling.
So here's where we are right now: The House has passed its budget resolution. The Senate has amended that, which means it goes back to the House. Once the House passes it, then that unlocks the budget reconciliation process, and both chambers can begin working on filling in all the details, each specific tax cut, each spending cut. If the House doesn't pass it, or if it changes it in any way, it will have to go back to the Senate for another vote. But House Republican leaders were confident earlier this week that they can get the Senate-passed resolution across the finish line.
And then the real work begins. It's likely to take weeks to sort through all the different tax cuts and all the spending cuts that members of both the House and Senate will want to add to the bill. In the Senate alone, there are reportedly more than 200 tax proposals that have been circulated as senators seek support for their specific idea.
There are a lot of steps to go, and I expect that the tax-and-spending bill will go sideways, at least temporarily, a few more times along the way. Last week's Senate action certainly doesn't tell us when or even if the final bill will pass. But it's once step closer now.
One other thought on this legislation. As I mentioned, both the House and Senate included a substantial debt ceiling increase in their blueprint—it's $5 trillion in the Senate, $4 trillion in the House version. The goal is to raise the debt ceiling by enough to ensure that Congress won't have to think about the issue again until after the midterm elections in November 2026. But the key here is timing.
Everyone in Washington has their eye on what's known as the "X date"—that's the date when Treasury will run out of money to pay the country's bills, the date when the United States would default on its debts for the first time in history.
But that date is a moving target. There is so much money moving in and out of the government's coffers every day. And we're in the final week of tax season, when there is typically a flood of tax payments that give the government a temporary boost in cash on hand. But tax payments are reportedly lagging behind last year's pace, and refunds are up, which could mean less cash coming in than usual. And that's made predicting the X date very difficult.
Late last month, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released its latest analysis, saying it was likely that the X date would fall in August or September. But the analysts noted that "if the government's borrowing needs are significantly greater than CBO projects, the Treasury's resources could be exhausted by late May." Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last week that the X date could come as soon as June.
So why does this matter? Well right now, Congress has tied a debt ceiling increase to that big tax-and-spending bill. But my view is that it is going to take a few months to agree to all the specifics and then get that bill passed by both the House and Senate. Republican leaders want to pass the bill by Memorial Day. I think it could take much longer—passing it by August 1 seems like a more realistic goal. And that means it's possible that we hit the default date before that bill has been passed into law. In that case, Congress may have to separate the debt ceiling increase from the rest of the bill and pass it on its own. Or they may have to pass a short-term increase to buy themselves another few weeks. Debt ceiling votes are always hard on Capitol Hill, and having to vote for one twice in a just a few weeks is likely to be politically challenging. The markets already have enough going on to cause extraordinary volatility—adding a debt ceiling drama to that mix would not be good.
Finally, there was also some big election news last week. There were two special elections held in Florida on April 1 to fill two vacant seats in the House of Representatives. The vacancies were caused by the resignations of former Congressman Matt Gaetz, who was briefly the president's choice for attorney general, and the resignation of Congressman Mike Waltz, who is now the president's national security advisor.
As expected, the Republican nominee won both seats. But the winners significantly underperformed compared to how President Trump performed in those districts last November. In Florida 1st Congressional District, formerly Gaetz's district, Jimmy Patronis, the state's chief financial officer, was elected. He won by 15 points in a district that Trump captured by 37 points last fall.
And in the 6th district, formerly home to Waltz, state senator Randy Fine defeated his Democratic opponent by 14 points—in a district that Trump won by 30 last fall.
Both Patronis and Fine took the oath of office on April 2. And that's important because it boosts the Republicans' margin in the House a bit. The count is now 220 Republicans and 213 Democrats. There are two vacancies as the result of the deaths of two Democratic congressmen in March. But those seats won't be filled until special elections are held this fall, so the current margin will be in place for a while. And that margin could be really important when it comes to passing the massive tax-and-spending bill this summer.
Let me conclude with this. The reason that I do what I do, the reason that I have a podcast at all, is because I have more than 30 years of experience in Washington. I know how Washington works. I know the ins and outs of how Congress functions. I know how the sausage is made, and I know who to ask about how the sausage is being made. I use that experience to try to demystify Washington a bit, so that investors better understand how the policy and political dynamics in the nation's capital affect the markets and their portfolios.
But I must confess, I am in uncharted waters now. Since January 20, everything I know about how Washington works has been turned on its head. I've seen how the DOGE has been dismantling parts of the federal government, pulling things apart first and asking questions later and sometimes being forced to try to put the pieces back together again by the courts. I've seen the controversial tariff announcements.
Most analysts I have talked to in the past few days, whether they be focused on Washington specifically or are more traditional market analysts, have said the same thing to me—that this time things feel different. That the models they've used for years aren't working. That the historical charts they rely on are no longer useful.
So I, like most analysts, don't have all the answers, at a time when investors really, really want answers. What I can promise you is that I'll keep working hard to try to figure it out. That I'll keep relying on the expertise and thoughts of my talented colleagues here at Schwab, and that I'll do my very best to be as clear with you as I can about what I think and why I think it. And we'll keep pushing through this together.
That's all for this week's episode of WashingtonWise. We'll be back with a new episode in two weeks.
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 be so grateful 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, and keep investing wisely.
