2025 Layoffs & Stagflation: How Bad Will It Get? | Eric Basmajian
So it’s not that the leading indicators have been broken, it’s just that the increase in demand in 2020 and 2021 was so large. I’m laser focused on the labor market dynamics that are going on in construction and manufacturing. You need to see job losses in those two sectors combined increase to 100,000, 200,000, somewhere in that range before it starts to spill over into broader coincident economic weakness.
Stagflation has once again become front and center on economists and fund managers concerns. Fears are growing that the Trump administration’s policies, including tariffs, international restrictions, deportations will bring about slower growth and higher inflation into this year. Economic activity in the U.S. is slowing based on the Chicago Fed National Activity Index and inflation remains elevated.
Court CPI is up 3.3% over the year. So are concerns about stagflation justified? Will we have slower growth? Will we have higher inflation? All of the above, none of the above. What assets should we be looking at as investors? We’re going to find out with our next guest, Eric Bazmajian, founder of EPB Research.
Welcome back to the show. Good to see you, Eric. Good to see you, David.
I think it’s been a couple of months since we last talked. It was before the election. So quite a lot has changed in terms of the news flow.
Not sure a lot has changed in terms of the underlying economy, but I’m sure we’ll get into that. Well, that’s that’s an interesting point, whether or not the economy fundamentals have changed. Take a look at my screen.
Let’s start with inflation and stagflation fears. This is what I was referencing earlier. So here’s an article from Reuters.
Stagflation fears haunt U.S. markets despite Trump’s pro-growth agenda. Stubborn inflation and President Trump’s hardline trade policies have rekindled fears of stagflation, a worrying mix of sluggish growth and relentless inflation that haunted the U.S. in the 1970s, even if markets, even us markets, sorry, remain upbeat on his pro-growth agenda. Look, the 1970s was a bad time.
The OPEC oil crisis triggered really high inflation, slower growth during that time as well. Is it a little bit far-fetched to be comparing today’s economy to that of the 1970s, Eric? Yeah, I think that most of the concern surrounding inflation are around the proposed tariff policies, which is certainly different than the inflation that was experienced in the 1970s. So I don’t think that the comparison is appropriate.
I also think that the inflationary concern around tariffs is overstated. So I just will make a couple of comments about tariffs. Tariffs have certainly become a political issue.
So I’m going to try and add a little bit of nuance to the conversation around tariffs. There is certainly a national security angle to implementing tariffs on various countries, and I’m not going to say whether that’s a good or bad policy, but there is an angle around using tariffs for national security reasons. So leaving that to one side, the other side is tariffs as a economic or growth policy.
And on that basis, the data and research, and as well as just basic economic theory, is pretty clear that tariffs, as far as economic activity are concerned, are not helpful. They will generally reduce growth. Now, are they going to increase inflation? Not necessarily.
So if you increase tariffs on, let’s say, motor vehicles, that will increase the price of the good that’s being tariffed, in this case motor vehicles. But unless there’s a broad-based increase in money supply, that increase in the price of motor vehicles will be offset by a decrease in price in another good that’s not being consumed, or it will reduce the amount of vehicles being consumed, so growth would go down in that sense. So what we’re saying here is that nominal economic growth is not changed by tariff policy.
Nominal economic growth would be primarily influenced by large changes in money supply. So the tariff policy itself won’t create broad-based economic inflation. It can change the split between growth and inflation for specific goods, but in general, tariffs are not going to create broad-based 1970s-like inflation unless monetary policy really gets out of control again like we saw during the COVID period, which is certainly not something that’s on the table right now.
Let’s just take a step back and look at the broader economy like you mentioned before. We spoke before the election. Things have changed in terms of news flow.
Maybe the underlying economy in terms of growth hasn’t changed much. Let’s take a look at my screen one more time. You had a recent video published about this subject, leading indicators to be exact.
I’m just going to play the first 30 seconds and then you can comment on the rest. People can check out the remaining of the video or the full video rather on Eric’s channel linked down below. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates faster than ever, but the economy hasn’t responded like normal.
So is something broken? Not quite. The answer, like usual, lies in the housing market. In this video, we’ll explain the longer-than-normal lag time between leading indicators and broader economic growth and employment.
Leading indicators, like building permits, show where growth and employment are headed. They’re not magic, they’re mechanical. You need a building permit before you start construction.
Historically… Okay, I’ll let you explain the logic here. What is the relationship between building permits, housing starts, and economic growth? Sure. So I appreciate you showing that video.
And what this video tries to explain is sort of the mechanism of the way economic data flows from leading indicators to more coincident indicators. So coincident indicators would be things like GDP, employment, things that the Federal Reserve looks at, and most market participants look at. And on that basis, it’s true that the coincident indicators have not fallen that significantly, certainly in the context of what was a pretty large increase in monetary tightening over the last few years.
So what’s happened in the economy is that when the Fed initially embarked on large-scale monetary easing, along with the federal government in 2020, it created a huge increase in demand. And a lot of that demand was channeled through the housing market, as well as durable goods, things like motor vehicles. So the problem is that leading indicators capture rapid changes in, let’s say, building permits or the sale of new cars.
These are things that can change really quickly. You can have a 30% or 40% increase in building permits in a matter of months because they’re just simply applications on a piece of paper. So you can increase building permits or decrease building permits literally overnight.
But if you increase building permits by, let’s say, 30% or 40%, that means you’re going to build 30% or 40% more housing units. You can’t increase the production of housing or motor vehicles that substantially in any given year because there are labor constraints, there are fixed asset constraints. So if the economy can normally produce, let’s say, 10 houses per year, and in one year we order or buy 50 new houses, the economy can only deliver 10 of those houses.
In the next year, the leading indicators go down, indicating that there are no new housing sales, but you still have a backlog of 40 houses that you have to deliver. So this is the dynamic that’s been happening in the economy, where for the last two years, leading indicators have been down, signaling there’s not a lot of new front-end demand. But there has been a big backlog of production in housing, as well as motor vehicles, that’s kept employment elevated.
It’s kept some of the production elements elevated. And as a result, it’s kept GDP elevated. So it’s not that the leading indicators have been broken.
It’s that the increase in demand in 2020 and 2021 was so large, and the increase in demand was specifically for goods that had a very long production cycle, that it’s taken several years for those sectors to produce the goods that were ordered or sold several years ago. Now we’re starting to see housing units under construction fall. We’re seeing motor vehicle production fall.
We’re seeing motor vehicle employment fall. We’re not yet seeing residential construction employment fall, which means that there’s still a little bit of backlog in that pipeline. But the essence of why lag times have been so long is not because anything has fundamentally changed with leading indicators.
It’s just that the increase in demand was so large in those initial years, it’s taken the economy multiple years to produce the goods that were ordered. So as we go on through the rest of this year, that backlog is going to wear off. It’s worn off to a large extent in the manufacturing sector.
It’s still a little bit left in the construction sector. As those backlogs wear off, we’ll see the employment of those associated industries come down, and then the economy will continue along its normal business cycle sequence that’s kind of been hung up here for a couple of years. Okay.
Concerns about layoffs are resurfacing once more. Eric, we can talk about the labor market here. 2025 layoffs is from Fox.
List of companies cutting jobs this year so far. This is a broad range of companies starting from Starbucks, 1,100 corporate employees globally, Blue Origin, Chevron, Estee Lauder. The list continues.
Thousands, tens of thousands of jobs cut deep. Dig deeper. Nearly 49,800 jobs received the axe from the U.S. companies in January, according to a February 6th report from Challenger Gray and Christmas.
This is not counting the jobs from the federal government, which are expected to be axed because of Doge. 49,000 jobs nationwide. Is that a big number? Should we be concerned about this layoff cycle? So the process that I follow is very consistent, and I encourage people to either go to the YouTube channel or my website, epbresearch.com. You could get a link to my blog where I walk through the sequence or the process that I use to analyze the economy.
And I don’t really deviate from that process based on news flow. So we have a lot of information coming in about layoffs, particularly for the federal government. And there’s a list of layoffs that you’ve mentioned that have resurfaced from a variety of companies.
But the components of the labor market that are the most important as far as the business cycle is concerned is the construction and manufacturing sectors. The reason that those sectors are the most important is because when those sectors begin to shed jobs, there is a more self-fulfilling cycle that goes on in those employment sectors that drives the rest of the economic cycle. So when you see layoffs that come from various service sector oriented businesses like Starbucks without big declines in construction and manufacturing, I’m inclined to believe that those are more strings of one-offs or restructuring, and some of those people will be reabsorbed into other service sector related jobs.
I’m laser focused on the labor market dynamics that are going on in construction and manufacturing. On that basis, we have job losses that are starting to accumulate in manufacturing. So that is a warning sign for the economy.
That’s something that we should be very mindful of as we go forward. There are not yet any job losses to speak of in the construction sector. When you take those two sectors and you put them together, there are very few job losses together.
So those two sectors combined are falling. That is a concern and that is an early warning sign of labor market weakness to come. But usually you need to see job losses in those two sectors combined increase to 100,000, 200,000, somewhere in that range before it starts to spill over into broader coincident economic weakness.
Those two sectors combined are only about 10,000 to 20,000 jobs lost so far. So we’re still pretty early in the labor market deterioration situation, in my view. I’m less concerned with the news flow of layoffs from service sector related companies, and I’m less concerned about some of the layoffs or potential layoffs that we’re hearing on the federal government side.
I remain focused on construction and manufacturing. We are seeing early warning signs there, but it’s still pretty early as far as the labor market situation is concerned. Some weakness is popping up in these early key sectors.
It’s not deep or broad enough yet to cause widespread economic weakness. What about monetary policy from the Federal Reserve and whether or not that’s going to impact rates for mortgages and ultimately the construction and home building sector? Do you think that the Fed this year will stay accommodated enough to bring down rates, thus reinvigorating demand for home building? So right now, mortgage rates are in the high sixes, low sevens, depending on any week that we look at it. And that level of mortgage rates is tight enough to keep housing volumes in the new construction sector relatively depressed.
New home sales are in the range of 600,000 to 700,000. That’s not a recessionary pace. Recessionary pace is normally less than 600,000 for new home sales, but 600,000 to 700,000 is weak.
It’s not very strong. It’s not enough to cause a boom, but it’s generally not enough to create deep recessions or job losses in that residential construction sector. So as long as the Fed keeps mortgage rates in this area, you’ll see home builders slowly walk down building permits, they’ll chew through their backlogs, and eventually they will begin to lay off construction crews.
Should the Fed ease monetary policy aggressively and get rates into the fives, that’s probably sufficient to stimulate housing demand. But as we sit here today, that doesn’t look like the path forward for the Fed. So they are probably going to stay tight enough to keep the housing market, as far as the construction sector, slowing down.
As far as is monetary policy tight or easy, we get that question all the time. People say, well, the Fed’s easier, the Fed’s tight. And many people use the stock market to make that determination.
And that’s inappropriate in my view. The stock market doesn’t determine whether the Fed is tight or easy. The best way to determine whether monetary policy is tight or easy is by looking at real money supply growth.
So the Fed can engineer an increase in money supply growth by a marriage with the Treasury Department, as we saw during COVID. But normally, money supply increases through endogenous lending in the economy, through bank lending. But either way, watching real money supply, so money supply adjusted for inflation, is the best way to look at it across time and compare it to different periods in history.
And right now, real money supply growth is growing at about 1%. That is not indicative of easy monetary policy. That’s actually indicative of monetary policy that is still exerting some restraint on the economy.
It was negative several quarters ago. Now it’s about 1%. So on the margin, monetary policy is easing.
And that does make sense. They’ve lowered interest rates about 100 basis points. But as we sit here today, current monetary policy is engineering about a 1% increase in real money supply growth.
That’s more consistent with tight monetary policy than easy monetary policy. So if the Fed holds policy in this range, and money supply growth in real terms continues at about that 1% pace, they will continue to engineer a slowdown in the cyclical sectors, and then it will spread forward. So I would say that monetary policy is currently tight.
And should the Fed keep policy here, mortgage rates will stay elevated, and the economy will continue to slow with these long lag times notwithstanding. Would an extension of the Trump tax cuts offset some of this tight monetary policy? So the extension of the tax cuts is an interesting one, because when you say tax cut, that would imply that people are getting more money in their pocket. But this is just extending the situation if it’s extended exactly as it is to change, just because we’ve been living with this tax policy for the past 10 years.
You can say that it would be an easing if the policy, you know, relative to if the policy wasn’t passed, because if the policy won’t pass, the tax high would be lapsed, and taxes won’t be up. But if the policy just can’t necessarily be a huge increase to growth, since we’ve been living with this tax policy already for a number of years. What is your viewpoint on the U.S. container treasury? Let me just take a look at this chart here on my screen, if you just allow me to share my screen here.
So this is the U.S. 10 year. It has peaked around 4.8 percent. It’s now come back down towards 4.39, 4.4 percent.
The Federal Reserve was looking at this, and in fact, in prior FOMC meetings, Chair Powell was asked whether or not a higher 10-year yield would in fact be the equivalent of quantitative tightening. They said they were looking at it. Is it a concern for you that the 10-year is above 4 percent? Does that equate to tightening on the part of the Federal Reserve? I mean, is it basically, is the bond market doing the Fed’s job by, you know, staying above 4 percent? Right.
So if we look at the 10-year yield and Fed policy together, what we see is that the changes in the 10-year yield are almost entirely explained by changes in Fed policy expectations. So the 10-year just has been essentially been swinging up and down in a 100 or 150 basis point range since the end of 2022. If you pull the chart all the way back, it goes up towards 5 percent when we’re in a period where we think the Fed’s going to stay tight.
It drops down into the 3’s when people expect a lot of monetary easing. And the Fed over that course of, you know, end of 2022 to today has, you know, pretty much done a whole lot of nothing. They increased rates a little bit and then lowered them a little bit.
And then we’re just swinging based on expectations of future monetary policy. So I don’t buy into the argument that the 10-year is moving based on fiscal policy or term premium, as it’s often said. The 10-year yield is pretty much just oscillating around forward expectations of Fed policy.
The 10-year has backed up towards the higher end of that range because right now we’re in an environment where the market doesn’t expect a lot of Fed rate cuts. But if we hit a soft patch of economic growth, which it looks like we may be in the beginnings of now with some soft retail sales numbers and other data points like you mentioned, then the 10-year starts to come down because we start to put more monetary easing into the curve. So I think this is all about future expectations of monetary policy.
I don’t think this is all about supply of treasuries or term premium. We hear this all the time. But if you just overlay the 10-year and, you know, Fed funds or 10-year of expected Fed funds in the future, to be more precise, that’s really what’s driving all the changes in interest rates, even on the longer end of the curve.
Taking a look at markets now, Eric, would you say that the sideways consolidating pattern of the major indices, the NASDAQ and the S&P 500, Dow Jones, for example, are signaling some sort of stalling in economic growth or are they moving in different directions? I’m talking about economic growth with the markets. Is one signaling the other or are they just completely diverging from each other now? Right. That’s a great question.
And on my Substack blog, I have an article titled Stocks are Not a Good Leading Indicator. And I’ll explain that a little bit. When you look at the history of leading economic indicators, there’s been a large study of leading economic indicators going back to the 60s and 70s is when it became popular to use leading economic indicators.
Stock prices were always considered a part of a leading indicator basket. And over time, as we continue to test those correlations, stock prices have become a worse and worse leading indicator of economic activity to the point where now over the last 10 or 15 years, really 20 years, stocks have been a really poor leading indicator of economic growth. There’s a few reasons for that.
Number one is the stock market index. If you just take the S&P 500, which is the one that’s most commonly used, the S&P 500 many decades ago used to be primarily industrial or manufacturing related companies. And if you look at the process that I follow, those early indicators in the economy are all manufacturing and construction based.
So it made sense that those stocks would move ahead of broader economic activity. The index construction today is very small in terms of construction and manufacturing and very large in terms of service oriented technology companies. The services sector is what I would consider the lagging economy or lagging indicators in my overall framework.
So the change of the composition in the stock market has made it a worse performing leading indicator than it has been in the past. The second big reason is that the stock market many decades ago used to be primarily driven by active managers, picking stocks, mutual funds, and they would look at company earnings and try and get ahead of what companies may have for economic performance. And you’d see a more leading nature in that regard.
The stock market today is primarily driven by passive retirement 401k flows, as well as a big buyback bid from those same large technology companies. So the passive flows are indiscriminate. No one’s looking at company earnings.
They’re just passively putting money into the market. So those two things have made the market much less of a leading economic indicator and much more of a coincident indicator of the labor market. If the labor market is intact, and again remember the labor market is not a leading indicator, but if the labor market is intact, people are putting money into their 401ks, there’s a passive flow and there’s a buyback flow, stock prices S&P 500 will likely continue performing well.
When the labor market breaks and there’s big job losses and those flows stop, then the stock market runs into an issue. But by that time, economic activity is already declining. So stocks are not a good leading indicator as broad indexes are concerned.
However, there are some sectors of the stock market that still do have some leading nature. Again, if you go to this framework that I use where I break the economy into four major buckets, the early part of that sequence is all construction and manufacturing related. So if you look at, let’s say, homebuilders or residential construction related stocks, those stocks are the ones that of all the sectors still hold the best leading relationship over the broader economy.
And over the last six months or so, we’ve seen these homebuilder stocks take a pretty good beating, down 20 to 30 percent in the index. And some of the subcomponents are actually down a little bit more than 30 percent. So I am taking that as a signal of there is some weakness brewing in that early part of the economy, that residential construction sector.
Those stocks are revealing that. That’s the signal that I would be looking at if I were to look at stock prices as a barometer of what’s going on. I wouldn’t look at the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq because of the domination of the more service related technology companies.
So if you look at the homebuilders and stocks in that realm, they are showing a pretty good amount of weakness over the last six months or so. That’s an important signal and I would keep my eye there. Okay.
Let’s talk about FDI. This is an interesting development with the Trump administration. Trump targets China with the biggest salvo of moves of second term.
The Trump administration took aim at China with a series of moves involving investment, trade, and other issues that raises the risks ties may soon worsen between the US and its top economic rival. In recent days, Trump has rolled out a memorandum telling a key government committee to curb Chinese spending on tech, energy, and other strategic American sectors. At the same time, the administration called on Mexican officials to place their own levies on Chinese imports, a move that comes after Chinese firms move production to the US neighbor to get around duties the Republican enacted in this first term.
Now, FDI from China is not a significant contributor to GDP growth overall, but the question is whether or not, first of all, the Chinese will respond with retaliatory measures of curbing American FDI into China. And second, whether or not a restriction on Chinese investments into the country will have a significant impact on capital flows overall. So I would echo what I said to the earlier tariff conversation, which is tariffs or, you know, retaliatory measures like you just mentioned, as it pertains to national defense are a national defense issue.
And there may be policy goals to doing things like that, that are different than just purely maximizing economic growth. And I don’t have a huge comment in that regard as to whether that’s a good idea or a bad idea. But any escalation of tariff wars or inter country wars, particularly China, which were so economically integrated, would almost certainly be a negative to overall economic growth or economic activity.
There’s retaliation, it disrupts trade flows and all of those types of things. So if you’re pursuing national defense and you have objectives outside of economic growth, perhaps that’s a good policy, perhaps it’s not out of my area of expertise, but any escalation of tensions with a country that we’re so economically intertwined with will have negative economic ramifications. Is it better for us to take some of that pain now in exchange for less entanglement with China in the future? Again, that’s a national security thing and perhaps outside of my area.
But if you do escalate relations with China, almost certainly that would have some short term negative economic consequences. Finally, I know we talked about home building, but let’s talk about home sales. So this came in earlier this week, home sales dropped sharply as prices hit an all time high.
For January, the US housing market continues to weaken. Sales of previously owned homes fell 4.9% in January from the prior month to 4.08 million units on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis. Sales were roughly 2% higher than January 2024, but are still running at a 15 year low.
Slowing housing market on the previously owned homes markets. Is this in line with what we talked about earlier with home building? Yeah. So when you look at the housing market, we just put out a report to our clients.
We break down the real estate cycle and there are four steps to the real estate cycle. The first step is changes in monetary policy. The second step is changes in housing volumes.
The third step is construction activity and construction employment. And the fourth step is home prices. So home prices are at the very tail end.
Housing volumes are in that second step. They’re an earlier mover. It’s important to have that sequential nuance when you discuss the housing market.
So as we talked about, monetary policy remains tight. One of the signs or symptoms of that is that housing volumes remain depressed. However, that third step is where we are in the sequence now, where construction activity is beginning to fall, construction employment not quite yet.
That means home prices remain elevated on a national basis with pockets of weakness across the country. So when you look at that four step sequence, monetary tightening, sales volumes, then construction activity and employment, and then home prices, and you look at it in a dashboard like the way we present it, you can kind of see where you are at any given time. We’re right now hung up in that third step.
Should we see construction activity come down and employment come down a little bit more, like I would expect, considering that monetary policy is still tight and home volumes remain depressed, then you’ll start to see further weakness in prices in particularly the Sunbelt region where there’s a lot of construction, and then prices nationally will lag that as well. So housing market is slowing down, but when you say housing market slowing down, everyone immediately jumps to prices, and then they say, well, in my neighborhood prices are still up. We actually put out a map in our report of all 50 states, and it’s a heat map.
You can kind of see where the prices are falling, mostly in the Sunbelt, where the prices are really strong, Northeast, parts of the Midwest, but it’s really important to look at the economy or the housing market as a sequence. Monetary policy tightening, volume of home sales, construction activity and employment, and then prices. Where we are now is we’re still waiting for some more weakness in activity and employment, and then you’ll see a follow through with prices coming down.
So the way I would read your article of depressed housing volumes is very much a symptom of the fact that monetary policy is still tight. Okay, so then finally let’s talk about asset allocation in light of everything we’ve discussed so far. Which assets would you prioritize, overweight, and underweight for the remainder of the year? Right, so when I look at the whole business cycle, I look at it in basically four steps.
We have leading, cyclical, aggregate, and lagging. As I mentioned, the big stock indexes like the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ have become coincident indicators of the labor market predominantly. That’s going to be in that third and fourth step of that four economy framework that I present.
So until you see those two lagging buckets decline, S&P 500 and NASDAQ, which is predominantly those big, large technology companies, they’ll probably continue to perform well. So I don’t think that you need to sell S&P 500 or sell NASDAQ. I would be inclined not to do that until you’re very advanced in an economic downturn.
So where we are now is the leading indicators have contracted, and we’re starting to see weakness in the cyclical economic sectors like manufacturing, and then a little bit less construction. As that happens, you start to get weakness in your more cyclical stock sectors like home builders. I would avoid things in that realm, trucking, home building, anything tied to manufacturing specifically.
As that second step, that cyclical economy begins to roll over, you also begin to get lower interest rates. So interest rates have been range-bound for pretty much three years at this point. They snap to the high end of the range, then they come back to the low end of the range.
If interest rates back up, I would be a buyer of interest rates. And then as the economic cycle continues to get more advanced, we’ll continue to see a series of lower highs and lower lows on interest rates. So I think that bonds are likely to continue to perform better than they have going forward as interest rates continue to come down.
I wouldn’t be avoiding large-cap stocks until you’re more advanced in the cycle, but I would be avoiding, as I said for many of the interviews that I’ve been on with you, things like the Russell 2000, smaller-cap stocks, much more sensitive to economic conditions. If you look at the Russell 2000, David, it’s lower today than it was in 2021. We’ve gone on four years now where 2,000 stocks essentially continue to perform really, really poorly.
That’s more of a symptom of what’s going on in the mainstream economy. So I would avoid things like that. And if you’re going to have stock exposure, you’re going to want to stick, in my opinion, to the large-cap stocks that are more indicators of the labor market, more tied to passive flows.
Those will continue to perform well until the economic downturn is in its more advanced stages. That’s the way I would think about asset allocation more generally. Okay, so I’m getting the sense that you’re a little bit cautious but not bearish yet, still on the optimistic side.
Yeah, I mean, I’m cautious on cyclical assets. I’m bearish on cyclical assets. I’ve been bearish on things like small caps for a while.
I don’t ever think it’s a good idea to short S&P 500 or short NASDAQ. Having a continually underweight exposure or reducing your exposure to those assets as the economic cycle gets more advanced likely makes sense. But I don’t think it would ever be appropriate to come on and say, for the vast majority of people, it’s a good time to get out of S&P 500 altogether or short S&P 500.
There’s a big passive bid there. There’s a big buyback bid there. So as I look at my framework, I monitor these four steps.
I look at how we’re progressing. As it gets more advanced, I reduce exposure. I’m not in any exposure in cyclical and small-cap stocks.
And I would continually dial back my equity exposure as the economy gets into a more advanced downturn and dial up fixed income exposure in that regard. Okay, excellent. Eric, thank you very much.
Where can we follow your work? The best place to go is just epbresearch.com. You can see the list of everything that we do there as well as links to our blogs, which give you a good educational background on the process that we use and how we think about economic cycles. Okay, excellent. Thanks very much, Eric.
We’ll put the link down below, so make sure check out Eric’s work in the link there. Take care, Eric. We’ll speak again soon.
All right, David. Thank you. Thank you for watching.
Don’t forget to like and subscribe.
