Select Language

Search

Insights

No match found

Services

No match found

Industries

No match found

People

No match found

Insights

No match found

Services

No match found

People

No match found

Industries

No match found

Too Far, Too Fast? - Views from the North

FICC Podcasts Podcasts November 30, 2023
FICC Podcasts Podcasts November 30, 2023
  •  Minute Read Clock/
  • ListenListen/ StopStop/
  • Text Bigger | Text Smaller Text

 

In this episode, Jeff Oland, part of BMO’s Government of Canada bond trading team, joins me to discuss next week’s Bank of Canada policy announcement, the December index extensions, what to look for in 2024, and his favourite trade ideas.

As always, all feedback welcome.


Follow us on Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcasts and Spotify or your preferred podcast provider.


About Views from the North

BMO’s Canadian Rates Strategist, Ben Reitzes hosts roundtable discussions offering perspectives from strategy, sales and trading on the Canadian rates market and the macroeconomy. 

Podcast Disclaimer

Read more

Ben Reitzes:

Welcome to Views from the North, a Canadian Rates and Macro podcast. This week I'm joined by Jeff Oland, part of BMO's Government of Canada Bond Trading Team. This week's episode is titled Too Far, Too Fast.

I'm Ben Reitzes, and you're listening to Views from the North. Each episode I'll be joined by members of BMO's FICC sales and trading team to bring you perspectives on the Canadian rates market and the macroeconomy. We strive to keep the show as interactive as possible by responding directly to questions submitted by our listeners and clients. We value your feedback, so please don't hesitate to reach out with any topics you'd like to hear about. I can be found on Bloomberg or via email at benjamin.reitzes@bmo.com. That's benjamin.reitzes@bmo.com. Your input is valued and greatly appreciated.

Jeff, welcome back, second time on the show. The first time was very interesting, so I'm very happy to welcome you back here.

Jeff Oland:

Thanks, glad to be back.

Ben Reitzes:

All right, so first before we start, a couple things. It must be checkered shirt day, we're wearing the same style of shirt. I know you all can't see this, but I thought I'd highlight it, and you're lucky you can't see it because I have a terrible mustache for November that I'm very much looking forward to getting rid of on November 30th the minute I get home. Moving right along, this might be the last podcast of 2023 for me, I'm not sure yet, but I kind of lean that way. We'll see. We get the Bank of Canada next week for their last meeting of 2023 as well. They've hiked rates a few times and it looks like they are almost certainly done here. Jeff, what do you think they're going to tell us next week, and what's next for the bank and when?

Jeff Oland:

I would start by saying, for me, the communication from the Bank of Canada has been pretty neutral for it seems like a few months. The summary deliberation seems to consistently be kind of a both sided talk. We, on the one hand, need to see inflation lower, but on the other side has been kind of removed from the economy. My expectations just given everything we've seen data-wise would be that we'll probably get a little more of that next week. I don't have a lot of expectation for that meeting. I think now, based on the price hikes we've seen in the last few days, I wonder if it's fair to ask, and I put the question to you, is enough priced in now that the bar for a dovish meeting is set pretty high?

Ben Reitzes:

That's a good question. I was going to ask you the same thing. We've rallied a ton in the past, call it, since early October. I was just looking at the numbers. Twos and fives, they've rallied like 80 basis points, 10, 70-ish long, 65. We're pricing even small odds, it's just a couple basis points, but still small odds of a cut in January and it's like, "Hold on a second." I'm pretty sure the last time they spoke they still had a tightening bias, even if there were really no intention to tighten, they still have that bias there. It's not like they're going to go from that bias to cutting rates from one meeting to the next, so it's going to be very hard for them to clear the dovish hurdle that the market appears to have set here.

That being said, we are going to get GDP on Thursday, so it's currently Wednesday, early afternoon, we'll get GDP before this comes out. It looks to be, call it flat, doesn't really matter, unless it's massively positive I don't think it matters. We'll get jobs on Friday for November. The data haven't been great so they can sound cautious, but it still comes back to inflation. We're still way above target. The core measure is still nicely above 3%. Yeah, they'll probably come down a little bit next month again when we get the November numbers mid-December-ish, but the base effects for December, which we'll get in January, are not favorable to put it nicely. If inflation's back to three and a half-ish percent on the headline, them cutting seems slightly ridiculous given what we've been in the past couple of years, and so the market pricing has just taken on a life of its own.

The Fed has made it pretty clear that they're almost certainly done. I mean, obviously you never know on the inflation surprise front, but they look to be done. You already have members talking about potential rate cuts next year. Even if there isn't a recession, they could still cut rates just because real rates would be quite punitive if inflation continues to slow. That's probably the underappreciated scenario that I suspect the world of finances is kind of overlooking. Everyone's looking for a hard landing recession, whatever, but there's a world, and maybe it's a soft landing, I don't really know, where the economy does okay. I guess it would be a soft landing, and they're able to cut because inflation comes down and they just don't want to have real rates that high because they don't want to cause a recession. Maybe that's goldilocks, I don't know. But that seems to be what the Fed is signaling now. Thoughts there?

Jeff Oland:

Yeah, I mean to me this looks like it has all the hallmarks of the classic wait for the lag data to catch up with reality, and then by that time it's too late and you need to get aggressive cutting. I wonder a little bit, even if you look, for example, at the unemployment rate in Canada, I think some of the uptick, the Sahm rule I think it's called, when the unemployment rate is a certain amount over its trailing three or six month average, that's already triggered a recession in Canada. Obviously we have the yield curve, a lot of the soft data is not great, but in the end they seem to have kind of wed themselves to the inflation number and that number is still very elevated.

I think a lot of people do expect it to come down quickly. It has come down when you think about it quite dramatically, but I wonder a little bit if we're still at risk to a situation where the economy has clearly stalled, unemployment is ticking up, GDP is low, I mean we're already in that kind of a position, but the spot inflation number is still not at a level where the bank feels comfortable actually cutting rates. I know I think we discussed at the last inflation print, the three-month and six-month annualized numbers of some of the core measures are getting back in the zone. I do think they might be able to... This is truly what I don't know, and I wonder what you think and I wonder what the market thinks. If we had for example a year-over-year number sub 3%, would that be sufficient to start cutting or are they going to need to see something lower than that? I know the real inflation purists will say the year-over-year number is not really meaningful or it's not a reflection of the most current inflation.

That may be, but I wonder if this has come into kind of a political arena now where when they just got it so badly wrong, to have a situation where you're cutting rates when inflation is still at the very high end of your target. I don't know. I truly don't know. I think from a market positioning perspective, I wonder if the risk-reward is now that high twos, low threes is not going to do it and we aren't going to be looking until base effects drop out, and maybe that's not until next summer. What do you think about that?

Ben Reitzes:

I think the last part there is probably the key, that what's gone on for the past two years is probably what's going to drive things. Unless the economy is really weak, and I almost think even if it is quite weak, maybe not extremely but quite, you're going to need something maybe just north of 2.5%, so not that far from target. The shorter-term metrics, the three-month and six-month annualized type things that you were talking about, point to a further slowdown in inflation. You need to have... Those are kind of my prerequisites for them to be easing. I've written a bunch of times and said a bunch of times, the window probably opens in April at the earliest unless you get some extremely weak inflation prints, which seems kind of hard to believe given that the price of my salad yesterday went up by another 50 cents.

I went for lunch with somebody to pick up lunch and she got lunch, she used to live here, she lives in New York now, and she got the same lunch she used to get, I don't know, 5, 6, 7 years ago and she's like, "20 bucks, what is going on here?" There's still that inflation impulse there, I don't think it's fully subsided. There's lots of labor contracts going through union wage negotiations, stuff like that that are chunky. If you look at some of the provincial budgets, you'll see that some of the misses on those are because of labor negotiations and having to pay up more money to some of those... The government workers. Again, April probably on the optimistic side, but I think if you run the numbers, that's probably as early as it gets for the window to open there.

But before that, if inflation is anywhere like 3%, that doesn't make sense for them. They're trying to crack inflation mentality, and if you're easing into 3% inflation, unless the economy has literally gone off a cliff and you are certain that it's coming down further because activities grounded to a halt, you can't cut rates. On top of that, I would say that even in this meeting, even in the next meeting, again unless things are really, really bad on the economy, the bank's not going to sound materially more dovish. They probably maintain their kind of quasi hawkish tone, their hawkish bias, they're hiking bias because they don't want to even hint that they're ready to cut yet because, again, inflation is too high and they're still trying to break that mentality. It is a mental game I think still.

When they are eventually ready to cut, we'll probably only get one meeting's notice I think, and they'll want to maintain that hawkishness probably for as long as they can. If anything, I think the rallying rates over the past six, eight weeks only reinforces that because financial conditions have eased a ton, mortgage rates might start to come down again, and then in Canada you get housing and so on and so forth and they don't want to see that. Two five to maybe two seven or two eight would be the year-over-year range that you probably need inflation to be in.

Jeff Oland:

Last question on the subject, anything in the basket that we should be looking for one way or the other, surprise upside or downside that you think is a risk? I mentioned it only because when you think about the Fed, they've given you their super core, which is pretty super, pretty core. I don't feel like the communication from the Bank of Canada has been as delineated. To me, it's really been pretty vague. I do think if, out of nowhere, somebody comes out and gives you something a little more specific to latch onto or opens up to the idea of easing a little more firmly, that probably does give you some leeway to let this rally go a little further.

Ben Reitzes:

They've talked a bit about services and core services, but you have housing stuff in there that makes it kind of hard and once you take those out, there's not much left, so that makes it challenging. I mean, from my perspective, they should still just be looking at old core inflation. It was challenging when they introduced the new cores, and I find them still to be kind of challenging in that they're not that easy to explain, especially to non-economist, nerdy people. CPIX, which just excludes eight things, one of which is mortgage costs, which is procyclical to policy, that makes a lot of sense to exclude something like that, and energy and food, so it's just kind like a normal core measure. It's still pretty good, and that one's come down a lot. Rent is in there, and rent has gone up a fair amount and it's been consistently strong, so it's not like you're excluding everything. I mean, I would love it if they would refocus on that core. I don't think they will.

They have talked about services, they'll probably keep doing that, it'd be my guess. But their core measures are still what they're focused on at the end of the day. Again, given the miss in inflation over the past two years, you don't want to change the goalpost now, even if it's the wrong goalpost you still don't want to change it because then you even have less credibility if you had any in the first place, which is, I mean maybe, maybe not. It's challenging. I do feel for policymakers, their position is difficult.

Jeff Oland:

It's like when you start your day off with a bad trade and then you try to trade your way out of it, sometimes it gets hard to forget about the bad trade and focus on the next one, so they've kind of handcuffed themselves a little bit.

Ben Reitzes:

Trader mentality, yes, it makes it very challenging. Luckily I don't have to worry about things like that. I just have bad calls, which then haunt me, but that's the way life goes. So let's move on here. I want to know what your thoughts are on the December index extensions; December 1st, December 2nd, which I think is actually December 4th because it's a Monday, and then December 15th as well. There's a lot going on in December. What is the big picture here, because the shelf life of this chat would not last long?

Jeff Oland:

It's a good question. I think just a quick note. Obviously, Dec 15th is a little further, but with the larger CMB this year, it will be a bigger extension when that bond drops out of the long index than it had been in prior years. It does seem to me that the index community has some leeway to move things around when they feel like there isn't the same value offered. If you'll recall last year, 10s-30s for example is very steep compared to where it had been and there was a lot of buying of longs. Coming into this index extension, I expect we will see some buying for sure. I also think a lot of that was priced in. This morning, the curve steepened quite a bit and I have to imagine some of that is expectations of pre-positioning for the extension and just having a little bit of supply come through, maybe not having the kind of buying people expected so far.

I think overall it's always difficult to say exactly how this should go, and I think adding a complicating factor is the very strong performance bonds have already had this month versus everything else. We were looking yesterday, and I think it was written in Bloomberg earlier this week, for the 60/40 portfolio this is about the best monthly performance we've had in the last 20 years outside of April 2020, and everybody remembers April 2020. I think it's even a stronger performance for the 60/40 portfolio than we had coming out of the GFC. If there's a situation where both bonds and stocks have done well, I just wonder if there's going to be much allocation into bonds and then, yes, we have an extension, but I wonder if all those things and just the sheer fact that we've had such a major rally go into making this maybe less of an event than it would've been, and so far I would say that's what we're seeing.

If anything, we have seen quite a bit of interest to fade the flatness in our curve, whether it be through steepening CTD versus 10s or 10s bonds, that has been a theme. I think when we look at five, 10s, 30s in Canada and plus 10 or 12 versus where it is in the US, something is a little different there. In order to sustain those kinds of levels, I think you need either a divergence in policy, which I'm not sure we have, or you need the flows to subside. I think to some extent the flows in Canada have definitely slowed down compared to where they were this summer. All in all, we always expect these index days to be pretty busy events and I don't think it'll be slow, but I just wonder if we're going to see the kind of cash buying that we had seen in prior years, even with the admission that outright yields are higher than where they were in prior years. I feel like people who wanted to had their opportunity to buy quite a bit higher.

All in all, I think our feeling for the time being is that it'll be busy but nothing completely noteworthy.

Ben Reitzes:

So probably not huge flattening pressure is what you're saying, but if we do get that or some, do you fade that going into 2024? Is that the trade, because 10s-30s is super flat, 5s-30s is still super flat all compared to the US, Canada and the US long, the Canada long end is still ridiculously rich. Do you want to fade all those? Is that the 2024 trade?

Jeff Oland:

I think the last time we discussed 10s-30s steepening was something that was on our radar, for sure. I think from that time it went from about minus 20 to the flat level of, I think it was minus 34 and change. It's going to take a big change in assumptions to get us back to minus 34. I think my preference probably in the near term, if I had to have one of the two on, 10-30s or 5-30s, I actually think I'd go with the 10-30s. I just think it's got a little less torque perhaps, but maybe you don't need the performance right away, the carry just isn't going to kill you as bad as 5-30s. When we look at 5s-10s, and obviously this is not worked out today, but I find 5s-10s not to be maybe in the right place, but there is a fair amount of assumption about easing in the next year and we may well get that, but I just wonder if it's going to cost a lot to carry and if we don't get it until June, if some people are going to have a hard time sticking with it.

Overall, I do think 10s-30s is a lower risk, lower reward way to play it, but I do prefer that. If we were to get back into the, let's say, mid minus 20s, which I suppose we could see if we do have enough buying. Currently, we're about minus 17, that's probably I think a good trade.

Ben Reitzes:

So you like tens more than fives. Is that potentially because the terminal rate that's currently priced on the downside is, this morning actually, I just looked, through 3%? What are your thoughts there? Is there room to go on that terminal rate or have we rallied too far here? What are the drivers, like what drives that in your mind?

Jeff Oland:

Well, that is the million-dollar question. I think it ultimately depends on a whole bunch of things which haven't yet occurred. I don't know, have you seen that movie Charlie Wilson's War?

Ben Reitzes:

Yes.

Jeff Oland:

At the end, he's speaking and he just says, "We'll see." Anyway, I would encourage people to go watch the clip, it's good. Because in the end it will depend on a few things that haven't happened yet, in my opinion, because we had a terminal rate. If we look at three year, one year as an example of an approximation for the terminal rate, I think it's... You tell me, it may be below 3% but it was just around...

Ben Reitzes:

Just, it was like 2.90, looking at three month, not the three year one, year but three month, four years or something. I was just looking at the bottom for that three month gap.

Jeff Oland:

So that's literally rallied 100 basis points probably in the last six weeks, so anytime you have 100 basis point rally in six weeks that's pretty quick. On the other hand, that is still probably... I think I looked, the average for the last 15 years was like one in three quarters or something, so it's still probably another 100 basis points over where it traded for the last decade. I think there are a lot of really bright market commentators who are calling, I think Howard Marks is one, calling a Sea Change IE, we've entered into a new regime with respect to rates and inflation. I have some sympathy with that view, but it depends, and for me it does depend on the fiscal situation. Overall when I look at the political landscape globally, and this election in Argentina seems to be at odds with this view, but I see a move towards maybe more left politics or at least more populist politics and certainly less interest in austerity.

I remember after the GFC there was a belief, and even in the US they were I think probably hard on the Obama Administration about how much it was spending, but in the end the deficits weren't all that large and since that time they've gotten to be quite a bit bigger, and I just don't really see any substantive political conversation on the topic or any interest to bring in spending. If we go into a new world where deficits are permanently higher, I do kind of expect that rates will also be higher. What do you think of that?

Ben Reitzes:

I sympathize with the view. The more I think about it, the question I ask myself is when do rates start to matter? At what point do interest costs get so high that taxpayers and just the general public is like, "What is going on? Why are we spending 10%, 15%, 20% a rising share of every tax dollar on interest? This does not make sense. Maybe we're living beyond our means. What?" I don't know when that is. I kind of hope it's sooner rather than later just because if it gets to be later, then getting back to somewhere that's sustainable is extremely painful. We'll see, as you said, because in the US there's clearly kind of zero appetite, but we have an election cycle coming, so you just kind of never know which direction that's going to take things. Canada, it's becoming increasingly clear that no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on, there's not as much appetite to just spend massively, not saying they're in austerity at the moment at all, we're not even close to that point.

The latest fall economic statement had plenty of spending in it, but it wasn't like they just blew up the budget deficit, it was just kind of... They took the gains that they were otherwise going to get and just plowed them back into spending to keep the deficit effectively steady and increased it slightly on the [inaudible 00:22:15] years. You have incremental creep and things getting worse but nothing big because the appetite for that, I just don't think it's there anymore. People are like, "Well, hold on, the government's how big now? We're spending how many hundreds of billions of dollars a year in government? Is this right?" I think that's the direction we're going. Incrementally people do seem to matter, there's a lot more editorials on the government getting too big, interest costs, and just irresponsible spending, stuff like that. I think we've seen in a bunch of years just, yeah, the appetite isn't there the way that it was, and I think that's just the function of rates.

At some point that trickles down from the policy nerds like me to the guy on the street that's like, "What's happening? Somebody explain this to me. Maybe we shouldn't be spending all of this money every year. Maybe we're living beyond our means."

Jeff Oland:

I agree with that. I wonder though if a little bit the interest expense also contributes to the inflation where the government's paying more in interest but the interest is sitting in bondholders pockets or whatever. Also, I wonder a little bit the dynamic of the Bank of Canada's operating loss, how that contributes to things.

Ben Reitzes:

It's accounting. I think it's accounting. I don't want to say that, but that's what I think. Whether I'm right or not, we'll find out, I don't know, maybe never, but...

Jeff Oland:

I wonder, and I think it's something very few, let's say, DM focused people, participants have studied, but I wonder if some of these lessons can be taught to us from EM. In the future if you face a kind of balance of payments, I don't know, crisis wouldn't be the right word, but a situation where you need to pay a higher level of interest rates to attract people to your currency. Certainly people have been talking about this for the US in particular for a while. I don't think it's even begun to happen with the US dollar as strong as it's been, for sure, that is not yet occurring in any way. This may be something that never becomes an issue, I really don't know.

But if, I guess just back to the discussion of the terminal rate and to anyone listening, I think we're soliciting views here, what people think of the terminal rate, I just wonder if we do go back to some reasonable level of government spending and make some hard choices, when you think of the discussion of secular stagnation, which was so relevant only five years ago, bad demographics, lots of debt, aging population, all those things make it I think difficult to have a much higher terminal rate than what prevailed prior to COVID. I wonder then in that situation, if we go back to maybe zero rates or something much, much lower than where we are and in that case there is a huge amount of room to run in this rally. From what I can see, I do think it appears to be a bit of a Sea Change, and I wonder a little bit, but I also don't know if it's fully played itself out yet.

Ben Reitzes:

My response to that would be that I think that's where you have to separate real and nominal rates. I think on a real basis what you're saying makes a lot of sense. On a nominal basis, I don't know. All of the things you mentioned are totally still there and they all are growth challenging factors that will weigh on developed market growth for some time, but we also have the inflation impulses that I have espoused and talk about so often, not de-globalization per se, but less globalization going forward, green energy shift, maybe wider budget deficits are also part of that, just more [inaudible 00:26:00] in general. All those things argue for higher nominal rate and higher inflation, but growth doesn't have to be strong so then you do get secular stagnation or stag inflation if you prefer, a term I tend not to like to use but in this case I think it actually works okay. But that's how I look at it, at least initially how I'd approach that problem.

Jeff Oland:

I wonder, cat 10-year yields floating around the 3.5%, let's say rough number, what comes first, 0% or 7%?

Ben Reitzes:

For 10-year?

Jeff Oland:

Yeah.

Ben Reitzes:

I'm going to go with seven. Zero just seems too ridiculous to me.

Jeff Oland:

Yeah, it does.

Ben Reitzes:

I mean, it could very well be that, but I can't get there.

Jeff Oland:

I'll take zero. I'm just a product of the lower for longer sucker era. Everyone told me about the bond bear market, I didn't believe them, and here I am, so I'll stick with my guns. But I definitely think that it is a very fair question to ask if something has really changed, and in which case the next few years are going to be quite interesting.

Ben Reitzes:

I'd say who wins the next election here, but we're not going to go there. Looking ahead to next year, top let's go with two trade ideas, and they don't have to be for the full year because that's a ridiculous ask, just going into the year, and if you want you can just say kind of fading stuff that hasn't happened yet because the de-extension will move things. Go ahead.

Jeff Oland:

Yeah, I think order of operations. I think 10s-30s. It's one of those things that people have been so hurt on it, impatient with it, but it's got a lot working for it. I think the entry level as with any trade is important, so maybe it's not something I run out and put on at minus-seventeen on a day like today, but if as I mentioned we get back into the minus-twenties, I just think it's a low negative carry way of expressing something, which I think will happen with a downside which I really feel a need... Something you really haven't foreseen, and this is always the case when something doesn't work for you, but you need something big to happen. With the expansion of long issuance from the FES, I think the federal government is saying they see that there was a little bit of a long supply issue and definitely if they choose to address that, I think they can make it wherever they like, they could issue another 10 billion or whatever.

I think as well, I've heard the refrain used higher interest rate monetary policy works, and if you believe monetary policy works, I think I've seen an interesting chart. The consecutive time where 2s-10s is inverted in the US, and now we're at the longest period in history where 2s-10s has been inverted in modern financial history. I do think monetary policy will work, and if it does go serve to slow down the economies, I expect we'll see a lot of provincial issuance as well. There has been a lot of buying. That is for sure. But in order to get us to that next flat level, I really think you need a few things working for it to get us back to minus-thirty. For the year, if I could put a trade on and not look at it, that would probably be one.

In the near term, I actually think... This is at odds, and this is why I think the timing is always important and maybe we're getting a little too... Sometimes I feel in this seat you get too day-to-day, but I think there's a lot of price in. Now, we have 1% of cuts priced for next year. I think in the very near term we're at risk to a slight acceleration inflation or an inflation print that just comes a little higher than expectations that causes people to say, "Yeah, maybe we need to push everything back a quarter here," which I don't think in any way really changes the thesis. I'm not really even sure how much it would flatten 10s-30s, but would it be so crazy to say, "Yeah, the first cut isn't going to come until June, July instead of April?" I don't think that's so crazy.

I think in the front-end, one year-one year or something to that effect, you probably have a chance here to fade this last move, but I think for some people that might be a little too acute and you just deal with the market-to-market volatility of something that has kind of been heading in the right direction. Overall, if we look at inflation globally, I mean it certainly has come off a lot. I think people talk about the last 1% being the hardest and all that, I get it but the rate of change for all these things is in the right direction to just own the front-end and forget about it. But if one was so bold to make a tactical play, that might be one to look at.

Ben Reitzes:

Yeah, I'm very much with you on that. If next week, I think it'll take a US data point, just to be clear, to move the needle for Canada and the US. Absent a really strong Canadian inflation report, and I'm not even sure that's enough, Canada's done, there's no... The Bank of Canada cannot be pushing rates higher here, they can't. The economy is already all but in recession, dare I say. I mean anything on a per capita basis, we're in pretty rough shape. I'm in that camp. But if we can like next week's US Payroll report, let's say it prints plus 300,000, the unemployment rate goes down a tick and wages go up a tick, which is not impossible. Yeah, what's been priced in over the past few weeks is going to look challenging with that backdrop. I'm with you very much so. We've moved a long way in a very short period of time, and I lean that way entirely, but it can get a little bit ahead of itself.

Again, with a few beeps and cuts price for January for the bank, that just signifies that we've probably gone a bit too far. Even if that's the most likely outcome for January for the bank, it's extremely unlikely, you'd need to have some kind of catastrophe, so you're pricing in catastrophe. Does that sound like a good idea? I'm usually not going to bet on that. I mean, why don't you do a 16 team parallel while you're at it? Not such good odds there. Jeff, why don't we leave it at that? Thank you. We'll see if this is my last episode of the year, I think timing wise, it might have to be, but...

Jeff Oland:

We'll see what the Dec 1-2 brings, it might be so exciting, you need to have another.

Ben Reitzes:

If I can squeeze one in after the bank, I will try. If not, thank you everybody out there for listening for 2023. Hope you had a good year and look forward to a prosperous 2024.

Thanks for listening to Views from the North, a Canadian Rates and Macro podcast. I hope you'll join me again for another episode.

Speaker 1:

The views expressed here are those of the participants and not those of BMO Capital Markets, its affiliates or subsidiaries. For full legal disclosure, visit bmocm.com/macrohorizons/legal.

 

Benjamin Reitzes Managing Director, Canadian Rates & Macro Strategist

You might also be interested in