The Opportunities for Investors amid Higher-for-Longer Interest Rates

0:04This is The Markets. I'm Chris Hussey. And today is Thursday, September 17th. And we're here on the Goldman Sachs trading floor with Anshul Sehgal, who is global co-head of fixed income currencies and commodities within our FIC and equities business. Anshul, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me, Chris. Okay, this is the third time this year we've had you on. After every Fed meeting, we had you on in January, we had you on in April. It's not every Fed meeting, but this Fed meeting, we definitely got some action finally. Walk us through it. What do you make from the market reaction so far?

0:33Yeah, it was a real meeting. We learned a few things, a few key things from Chairman Walsh's presser. Number one, the entirety of the committee coalesced around having two hikes this year. One of them we got yesterday and likely another one either in October or December. Initially, the market had expected, given what the committee members had said in their speeches, that there would be more dispersion of opinion. That was not the case. They all coalesced, at least for this year. The second thing we learned is that they believe they're removing a dose of accommodation. It's not that they are moving to restrictive.

1:05They believe that the current Fed funds rate is accommodative and they are removing a dose of accommodation. He said this three times. Both of those were new pieces of information for the market. In the markets telling, the reason the market's been so frazzled about Fed policy is it's because the market believes that the Fed was making a decision on whether to hike or not based on just the CPI print we got last week or even, say, the last couple of CPI prints. And that is not how the market basically expects the Fed to set policy. In the Fed's telling, it was catch up. It was that they have missed their inflation target for five years.

1:42the employment side of their target has been met, and therefore they need to get a move on. Now, the difference between these two is like you look at what changed this meeting, in my mind, compared to what we've heard from the Fed over the last four years, is last four years has all been about if you're going to be running loose fiscal policy, we need to run tighter monetary policy. That is not what the market believes is happening right now, because even though fiscal policy is loose, that fiscal expenditure is not really going to labor. If you look at it, primary deficits, which is what the government spends, is tracking the same give or take half a percent rate that it was tracking in 2015 or 2017.

2:23What has changed on this side of the pandemic is interest expense or debt servicing costs for the U.S. government. But that does not accrue to labor. That accrues to capital. That accrues to the top decile of wage earners. And for the Fed to hike into that essentially means that labor spending is getting curtailed. So that is not good for the long-term consumption prospects of the U.S. economy. And therefore, what hangs in balance, at least in the markets telling, is you can get closer to your inflation target perhaps sooner by doing all of this, but that would also thwart consumption. Is that what the Fed, is that what's in the crucible right now?

3:04Is that what the, is in, in that debate, it's unclear what the right policy will be. Inflation itself is at best a concurrent indicator, likely a backward looking indicator. Deciding policy just based on that print, again, in the market selling, might not, might not be prudent. So that's the reason why the markets were frazzled. Equities were down yesterday. They're up today. There's oil prices going up. All of it is just a lot, many different dimensions that the market has to handicap. Okay. But if we take the Fed at face value and they're talking about being accommodated, too accommodative, that means rates are going to be higher for longer.

3:40What's the path from here for rates? That's a great question. So the long bond, as you know, has traded about 5 % for a few weeks now. It's the highest yield the long bonds had in over two decades. And understandably, macro markets are quite worried about the long end being unhinged. It's not just a U.S. story. It's a global story. The U.S. Treasury is doing buybacks to rein in the yield of the long bond. All of that. That is what we again learned from Chairman Walsh yesterday. He gave clarity on this issue. He does not believe that he has to police the long bond. It's for the market to do. There is also, in my view, a good reason for the U.S.

4:24Treasury to enact buybacks. A few things have changed over the last decade. Number one, demographics. As the boomers are retiring, the demand for the long bonds is not as high from their pension savings. Number two, you've got a lot of AI-related issuance, which is all long-dated. And the combination of those things has led to a crowding effect in the long end. So should the U.S. Treasury reduce its long-end issuance when all of this other stuff is going on? It makes some sense to it. Should it be done expressly with the intent of reining in the long end? Not so much. In markets, behavioral finance, we use the term bandwagon effects that everyone wants to be on the bandwagon that's winning.

5:00And therefore, if everyone is worried about deficits or the long end being unhinged, that sort of reduces the willingness of market participants to basically warehouse the long end. Ostensibly, this is all because of debt to GDP basically blowing out. People are really worried about the U.S. debt sustainability in the long run. For me, that's a red herring. It's October. It's the new fiscal year. We hear this at the start of every fiscal year that the U.S. is going to be expanding its debt to GDP ratio by 6 % to 7%, which is the amount of deficit spending that goes on. But that's not what's transpired over the last four years because what happens is that the U.S.

5:36at the beginning of the year, year marks 6 % to 7 % of additional spending. By the end of the year, if GDP grows by 6 % as well, which is what has happened, Nominal GDP has grown by about 6 % over the last four years. Debt to GDP doesn't move that much. In each of the last four years, debt to GDP has worsened by 1 % to 1.5 % instead. So I don't think the sustainability issue is really that credible in the long run. In the near term, what's driving it, the rhetoric is sustainability. The effect, the way it plays out is the bandwagon effect. Like the U.S. had over 200 % debt to GDP after World War II.

6:10In the ensuing 20 years, that came down to 60 % debt to GDP with no austerity, largely because the economy grew its way out of it. So what's endogenous and what is exogenous is GDP. Could it be that GDP is just an endogenous effect? Like when the U.S. government fiscally expands more, endogenously GDP goes up and therefore debt to GDP is more sustainable? It's possible. One has to be open to that. That's what we've witnessed in the last five years on this side of the pandemic. That doesn't necessarily mean that's how it'll play out in the future. The U.S. has run a 3 % primary deficit. Should we be that worried about interest expense being 3 %?

6:47Boca had much higher interest expense. All right. So you're a fit guy, but you're also, you know, every market there is. And I love your view on stocks. So let's go to your view on stocks here. What does all this mean for equities, credit, everything? I think long-term borrowing costs being in check is a net positive for the equity complex here. what's changed from, say, a year ago to now is that the equity complex is more levered. Largely, as I view it, the way the economy has gone on is that over the last few years, the excess interest expense went to the savers. Those savers then lent that wealth to, whether it's a hyperscaler or a neocloud or pick your sector, essentially then extended credit to that part of the economy.

7:32So as of now, the overall domestic equity market is more levered. But that said, there is also the potential for a general purpose technology that's going to revolutionize everything we do, which makes handicapping exactly how macro markets work that much more difficult. It's a more levered system today. We're still very positive on equity, certainly certain parts of the equity market. I think long compute just makes a lot of sense to me here. But does that mean that the broader equity complex should do very well? it's less clear, especially if tighter monetary policy is going to lead to less consumption down the road.

8:08All right, Anshu, let's put a bow on it. What's the trade? To me, it's being long compute, being long neoclouds, being long data centers. We get a lot of calls from clients who want to basically buy the long bond north of 5 % risk-free yield. It looks pretty attractive. To me, I'm not seeing the asymmetry there. Personally, I think the asymmetric expression is being long compute. These are more levered expressions, of course. But at the same time, we think that they can go up multiplicatively, whereas if you're long bond, especially if you're not doing it on leverage, the amount you can make on that, even if you're right, isn't nearly as much.

8:37We're not expecting long-end rates to go down to 3%. We think that nominal growth should be north of 5%, and rates have generally hovered about 50 to 100 points lower than that. So the long bond can go to like 4.25%, but we wouldn't expect more of a rally from there. Such a good point. All right, so much taking place. What are you watching most carefully for markets in the couple of weeks ahead? I think handicapping the war, because if you take a step back, what we've learned from global central banks is that between, certainly the Fed, between tariffs, fuel costs, energy costs going up even away from the war, the combination of those things, they're not able to underwrite the inflation that comes out of it.

9:21So handicapping what comes out of the Middle Eastern conflict is the number one thing that will dictate the course of monetary policy and equity markets and fixed income markets. Anshul Sagar, you're a torrent of knowledge every time we have you on. Thank you for having me. Thanks so much. That does it for this week's episode of The Markets. I'm Chris Hussie. Thanks for joining us.

9:41Anshul Sehgal: Thank you. of future results. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates make any representations or warranties expressed or implied as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or information contained herein and disclaim any liability whatsoever for reliance on such information for any purpose. Each name of a third-party organization mentioned is the property of the company to which it relates, is used here strictly for informational and identification purposes only, and is not used to imply any ownership or license rights between any such company and Goldman Sachs. A transcript is provided for convenience and may differ from the original video or audio content.

10:40Anshul Sehgal: Goldman Sachs is not responsible for any errors in the transcript. This material should not be copied, distributed, published, or reproduced in whole or in part, or disclosed by any recipient to any other person without the express written consent of Goldman Sachs. Copyright 2026, Goldman Sachs. All rights reserved.