What the Fed’s Third Rate Cut Means for 2026

The American Express corporate program is more than a card. It's a complete solution.
Apply for the right card for your employees, from everyday spenders to frequent travelers.

Issue virtual cards to suppliers or project teams for added security and flexibility. Simplify accounts payable with American Express 1AP, helping your company automate supplier payments.

The Amex Corporate Card Program grows with you. Terms apply.
Enrollment required and fees may apply, including an auto-renewing monthly platform access fee.

Suppliers must be enrolled and located in the United States.

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to.

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtac, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

Gana por la mañana con el extra value meal, sausage, mc, muffin with egg, hash browns, yun cafe alliance pequeño por solos $7.

Bara ba ba ba. Preses y participación pueden varía.
Los preces de la promosión pueden serminores que los las comidas. Today's number:

18.

That is how many hours koala bears spend asleep every single day. That makes koala bears the second sleepiest animal in the world, just behind Mitch McConnor.

If money is evil, then that building is hell. Show those up!

Welcome to Frofschi Markets. I'm Elsin.
It is December 11th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals.

The major indices rallied following a Federal Reserve meeting. More on that in a moment.

Meanwhile, Treasury yields fell, the dollar slumped, and finally, Oracle shares dropped more than 10% in after-hours trading on lower than expected quarterly revenue.

Okay. What else is happening? For the third time this year, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 25 basis points.
However, a divide is growing on the Fed board.

This decision marked the first meeting in six years where three Fed officials dissented. Two governors voted to hold rates steady, while Stephen Myron voted to cut by 50 basis points, not 25.

As for the bar the head, the Fed's outlook calls for just one cut in 2026. The S ⁇ P and the Dow both hit session highs as Chair Powell gave his remarks.

Okay, here to take us through what what happened with this Fed decision, we are speaking with Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics.

Mark, thank you for joining us again on Profitty Markets. Ed, so good to be with you.
Thanks for the opportunity. Good to have you back.
So this

Fed decision here, we got another cut, third in a row,

lowest level in three years.

Let's just start with your initial reactions to what we saw today. Pretty much down the strike zone, as they would say, Ed.

You know, we markets expensive investors expected the Fed to cut a quarter percentage point, and that's exactly what they did.

There was widespread expectation that there would be a lot of dissension in terms of the decision.

We got that as well.

One dissenter wanted a 50-basis point cut in rates. A couple other Fed members wanted to hold policy on change.

That's unusual, but that was expected.

And I think Chair Powell

in the presser afterwards, after the release of

the announced move, made it clear that

while there might be another rate cut in our future next year,

it's becoming much more data dependent. It's hard to know exactly what the path forward is.
And I think investors knew that that was coming.

So all in all, I thought it was, as I said, right down the strike zone.

The dissension that we saw, three dissenting votes, first time that's happened in six years, as you say um there were two uh officials who said let's hold interest rates steady and then there was one and this is trump's guy stephen myron who said um

no let's let's cut by 50 bips instead of uh 25.

Is that important? I mean, what does that say about where we're at? Jerome Powell seemed to say that that wasn't really an issue or that didn't matter that much. What is your view?

How important is it that we saw this level of dissension? Well, I think it's meaningful.

I think it's explainable by the fact that

the federal funds rate target, the interest rate the Fed controls, is now pretty close to what might be considered the so-called neutral rate, the equilibrium or R star, that rate at which policy is neither supporting or restraining growth.

That's not written in stone somewhere that we can go take a look. It's estimated.

Policymakers get to it by intuition and feel.

So, as a result, there's a lot of debate about that. But we're pretty close, and because we're pretty close,

it's not surprising you'd get people disagreeing about what the appropriate policy steps would be.

The other thing that's going on, of course, is tariffs and highly restrictive immigration policy. And those policies

weaken growth, which would argue for rate cuts, but they also raise inflation, which would argue for no rate cuts and maybe even an increase, all else being equal. So, that is another factor behind

the disagreements and thus the dissents. And then I also think Fed independence is probably playing a role here.

The president, President Trump has made quite clear he'd like input into the decision-making process at the Fed around interest rates.

Is

one of his recent appointees, Stephen Marin, that you mentioned, the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, wants a 50 basis point cut, which goes to what the president wants.

The president wants lower interest rates and much lower interest rates, and that's also playing a role. And this goes to

the disagreements and dissent. So a lot of cross currents here.
So

it's very unusual you see these kinds of disagreements,

but in the current context, I think it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, it sounds like politics is playing a larger role right now than it has in the past.
The other issue was this lack of data.

And we had Catherine Ann Edwards, an economist on the show recently, and she was not so sure that we would get a cut because her view was, you know, they're operating with a lot less data because of the shutdown.

So the idea of changing policy

maybe is not the right move.

What exactly were they missing in terms of data? And how did that affect or not affect the decision that they ended up making? Well,

jobs data and data on inflation, and that goes right to their back to their dual mandate. They're chartered with ensuring full employment, everyone's employed, and maintaining low, stable inflation,

close to the 2% inflation target. And we're missing data

related to both those mandates.

In fact, next week, we're going to get the October, November payroll employment data, which is critical data for understanding what's going on in the labor market.

And the consumer price inflation data, we're not even going to get that for the month of October. We're only going to get that for November here in the not too distant future.

So they were lacking a lot of data, but I do think the data we are seeing and getting, particularly on the labor market front, would suggest the economy is struggling. The job market is really

going nowhere fast. Job creation has come to a standstill.
Unemployment is still low, 4.4%, but it is moving higher.

And it's moving very quickly higher for certain groups, like young people, folks between the ages of 20, 24.

Their unemployment rates now over 9%, up three percentage points in the last couple of years. Minority group, minority rate, minority group unemployment rates are up a lot.

The black unemployment rate. So there's, we were getting other data

related to the labor market, saying roughly the same thing, so-called war notices and

layoff announcements. So I think there was enough information despite the government shutdown and the disruption to typical data for

Fed officials to come to the conclusion that they still should be more focused on on the mandate around jobs and full employment in the economy than around inflation.

And that's how they acted, and I think that was appropriate.

We're coming to the end of the year here.

So this will probably be the last time we see you in 2025. And then we'll be taking a break later.
Do you have any thoughts on what 2026 is going to look like?

And does this decision tell us anything about what might happen here with the economy?

We're talking about the labor market issues, which, as you say, they're getting, appearing to get worse, but then also inflation, which I mean, doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot better.

But if we are entering a lower interest rate environment, maybe that means more spending, more earnings growth, expansion in the economy. What do you think we're going to see in 2026?

Yeah, a lot of cross currents there. You know, that's why there's so much confusion around the economy.
It depends on what you're focused on, which part of the economic elephant you're touching. Yeah.

I mean, I think generally 2025 would characterize it as

a year of growth. I mean, we did not go into a recession.

We continued to grow largely because of the boost created by AI, artificial intelligence, lots of different channels through which that's occurring. But it's a very fragile growth.

You know, it's hard to get very enthusiastic about how things are going when you're not creating any jobs and unemployment's on the rise.

And, you know, particularly for many

Americans, it's a tough economic environment. I mean, if you're in the top third of the income distribution, life is good, no problem.

But if you're in the bottom two-thirds, particularly the bottom third,

it's a struggle. The inflation's up, hiring is down, you don't want to lose your job.

You're grappling with higher debt payments, cards, student loans,

and you're really not

benefiting from the rump in equity prices because you don't own any equity. So

it really depends. And I think that

will characterize 2026.

And I do think

there is a lot of risk when the economy is not creating jobs. That is not a place you want to be for very long.

So hopefully, you know, we'll start to see hiring kick back into a higher gear and job growth resumes and we continue to push forward. But I worry that that won't be the case and that

it'll be a tougher year. The one other thing I'll just throw into the mix, Ed, that's different from 25, that will be different in 26 and 25, is we're going to get a lot of fiscal stimulus.

You know, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kicks into high gear here in 2026.

Tax cuts for businesses, accelerated depreciation, and tax cuts for individuals, tips, and overtime, and salt, and a bunch of other stuff. So that should provide some juice.

And of course, the Fed's been cutting rates. And, you know, all else equal, that should also support growth in 26.

So I think it's going to be another kind of just uncomfortable year for many Americans with a lot of risk around that.

But hopefully with a little bit of luck and that fiscal stimulus, we kind of navigate through and avoid another year.

We have another year without an economic downturn. Final question before we let you go here.
We're going to have a new Fed chair in 26.

Trump says he's found his guy, but he's been kind of coy about it. People think it's going to be Kevin Hassett.
Either way, we're going to have a new Fed chair.

The Fed is saying we'll have one rate cut in 2026, but if Trump shakes up the composition of who's actually in the Fed, can we really trust those projections?

I mean, how will the new Fed chair actually change things in terms of policy? Yeah, you make a great point.

I mean, I think it does raise the odds that we see more rate cuts than markets are currently seem to be anticipating next year. Okay.
Yeah, I think

because the independence of the Fed is under a lot of pressure already, and there's a lot of things going to happen here. And you mentioned

Fed chair Jay Powell rolling off next May.

And the other thing is the court case, right? Lisa Cook, who's a Fed member, is

fired by the president. I almost forgot.
Right. So we'll have to see how that plays out.
So, yeah, I think

all else equal, you know, job market, inflation. everything the Fed looks at, financial conditions, inflation expectations.

Now you got to throw into the mix kind of the political independence of the Fed. And that would argue all else equal for lower rates.
Okay. Mark Zandi, really appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. I will see you next year, probably.
Yeah, anytime, Ed.

After the break, SpaceX is going public. If you're enjoying the show, give Profits to Markets a follow.

Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. If you've ever hired hired for your small business, you know how important it is to find the right person.

That's why LinkedIn Jobs is stepping things up with their new AI assistant so you can feel confident you're finding top talent that you can't find anywhere else.

And those great candidates you're looking for are already on LinkedIn.

In fact, according to their data, employees hired through LinkedIn are 30% more likely to stick around for at least a year compared to those hired through the leading competitor.

That's a big deal when every hire counts. With LinkedIn Jobs AI Assistant, you can skip confusing steps and recruiting jargon.

It filters through applicants based on criteria you have set for your role and surfaces only the best matches so you're not stuck sorting through a mountain of resumes.

LinkedIn Jobs AI Assistant can even suggest 25 great fit candidates daily so you can invite them to apply and keep things moving. Hire right the first time.

Post your job for free at linkedin.com/slash markets. Then promote it to use LinkedIn Jobs new AI Assistant, making it easier and faster to find top candidates.

That's linkedin.com/slash markets to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply.

Next up is a little song from CarMax about selling a car your way. You wanna sell those wheels? You wanna get a CarMax instant offer.
So fast. Wanna take a sec to think about it.
Or like a month.

Wanna keep tabs on that instant offer. With OfferWatch.
Wanna have CarMax pick it up from your driveway.

So, wanna drive? CarMax. Pickup not available everywhere.
Restrictions and fee may apply. Tito's handmade vodka is America's favorite vodka for a reason.

From the first legal distillery in Texas, Tito's is six times distilled till it's just right and naturally gluten-free, making it a high-quality spirit that mixes with just about anything.

From the smoothest martinis to the best Bloody Mary's. Tito's is known for giving back, teaming up with nonprofits to serve its communities and do good for dogs.

Make your next cocktail with Tito's, distilled and bottled by Fifth Generation Inc., Austin, Texas. 40% alcohol by volume, savor responsibly.

We're back with Profit Markets. The biggest IPO in history is on the horizon.
Elon Musk's SpaceX is aiming to raise more than $30 billion next year at a $1.5 trillion valuation.

That would eclipse Saudi Aramco's 2019 record raise, and it would make it the largest offering ever. The company hopes to list as soon as next summer.

and spacex expects to use some of the proceeds to build data centers in space okay here to discuss this ipo we are speaking with someone who's been very bullish on space lately and that is scott galloway let's give him a call

Scott, good to see you. Good to be seeing Ed.
How are you? I'm doing well. Where are you?

I am just outside the men's bathroom at the Roof Gardens at Kensington, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of every rule that the members are supposed to. I have my camera out and

I'm loitering outside the men's room. I'm pretty sure that this will be the last time I'm calling you from Roof Guard and Sony.
I love it.

You are live streaming to a very large audience from inside the club. But I do want to announce that I'm running for Senate from Minnesota.

You're not going to remember this guy, but there was a senator from Minnesota. It was this homophobic motherfucker.
And of course, he got caught

trying to

solicit blow blowjobs in the airport's men's room at Minneapolis International Airport. And he claimed it was just his wide stance.

Anyways, I'm hovering outside of men's rooms. Let's talk about SpaceX, Eds.
Let's talk about SpaceX.

We want to talk to you because SpaceX was your big pick for 2026. It's your tech of the year.

Now we've got the largest, most important space company in the world going public, the largest IPO in history if it happens. Your reactions.

So I think it's, I got to be honest, I think it's super exciting. I think this is an incredible company.

There are few products that I think have a greater delta between the offering and the rest of the competition than Starlink. I think it's just an incredible product.
Also,

I think SpaceX is one of the best-selling companies in tech, Glenn Shotwell. What they've achieved there is just staggering.

So I'm, I'm, I mean, I hate to say it because I don't know if you've ever sensed this, but I'm not a huge fan of Elon Musk.

But I think SpaceX is an incredible company. And I think this could,

I mean, as you said, our pick for 2026, the sector that will get the most cheap capital as it moves from ego and hate, hairy, and bullshit billionaires going into space.

All these phallic things going, you know, just above the Carmen line and the floating back line. It's going to go to connectivity, which is what this is.

And then ultimately, I think the real juice next year is going to be in space defense,

which I don't think gets enough attention. But in sum, I'm pretty excited about it.
Are you going to try to get into the IPO? No, I mean, they're talking about one and a half trillion dollars.

Also, I sold my Tesla.

I'm not, you know, I think it's an incredible product. I logged off of X.
There's enough investment opportunities where I don't need to paint the fucking effects of a guy whose primary

objective is to sponsor media companies and turn them into Nazi porn bars. So yeah, that's not a company I'm going to invest in, but it is an incredible company.
And

I mean, there's some things here. 90%

of space launch capability right now in terms of material shot into space is from one company, SpaceX. They're now the only company in the world that

can put men or women into space. Two-thirds of low-Earth orbit satellites are from one company.
And also,

if you think of the greatest market capitalization or the greatest innovations in history in terms of shareholder value, it's been when a seminal technology declines massively in cost and processing power and bandwidth all kind of came down 80 or 90% over a 10-year period.

And that's what SpaceX has been able to do in terms of cost per kilogram to get into space. They've brought it down, I think, 88% over the last

10 years.

The other kind of the business learning error, I'm kind of curious to get your take, but one of the observations I had looking at the numbers, SpaceX only did $13 billion last year and this year it's only going to do 15.

So its growth is not parabolic, but it's one of the reasons that Amazon's value is so enduring and that Open AI might be Netscape and that is digital companies can scale faster,

but analog companies have much bigger moats. And that is to put in place distribution centers and 747s, which Amazon has done is really difficult.
And it's difficult to kind of assail, if you will.

Whereas OpenAI is trading at about a half a trillion dollars. It is growing much faster than SpaceX at a similar revenue multiple, but it's much more vulnerable from open weight

LLMs and the AI from China and from other competitors and Google and Alphabet. But the bottom line is it's very difficult to build a startup.

Two guys in a dorm room at MIT can't build a viable competitor. to a space launch company.

And that's what's so incredible about this company is it's going to have moats that are just very difficult to cross because think it's going from 13 to 15.

And they're talking about a valuation of triple of what OpenAI is now, but it's going from 13 to much more than that this year. Cause the reality is OpenAI is very vulnerable.

These, these digital companies scale up faster, but quite frankly, they're just more vulnerable. So it sounds like you're very bullish on the company.
I'm pretty bullish on the company myself.

But you don't want to invest

because, I mean, let's say you were given the opportunity, someone, Elon Musk calls you, not Elon Musk, but someone else, someone calls you tomorrow, they say, here's allocation pre-IPO.

You don't want to do it, one, because you don't like Elon and two, you mentioned the valuation there, one and a half trillion dollars. Why wouldn't you invest exactly? Well,

one, I don't have, I don't have many morals, but I do have a few.

I just don't, there's just too many opportunities to,

again, paint the fence as someone who is divisive and at 100 times revenues you're talking about talenteer-like valuation so i just i mean this is the problem with the public markets and you've talked about this a lot is that most of the juice will have been squeezed it'll probably get a pop out of the gates because everybody wants to own space x it's a great gift to give to little rachel for a bomb nitzer or whatever But you're probably talking, if it goes out at one and a half, it'll pop to two.

And then it's trading at 150 times revenue. So I think it's an incredible company.
I think it's exciting. I think it'll ignite a new space race.

But no, I'm not in some, I'm not an investor at 100 times valuation in a guy whose primary export into Europe is not rockets or Twitter.

It's political division, all this bullshit calling for the breakup of

the EU or showing up in nationalist rallies.

I just think this concentration, you know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this guy's on the verge of absolute power.
Fair enough.

I will say you don't have many other options though. Oh, from the men's room at the Kensington Roof Gardens.

I just want to know what people's faces are like, the people who are around you. What are people saying as they walk into the bathroom right now and hear you on a live podcast?

Some dude just said prop G, but I'm not sure it's like good form at my age to be filming men going into a men's room.

I don't know if that's like good for their brand or mine. It's good for the brand.
Give them a shout out. This is my first and last video from the roof gardens.
I think we did one last year.

God, I miss Chiltern, Ed. I miss Chiltern.

This is Ross. I know.
I need someone to take me to Shea Margot in New York. Do you know anyone? Maybe like a 30 under 30 total fucking douchebag.

That's good. That's good.

We'll do it. We'll do it when you're back.
All right, brother. When you're back.
Until then, enjoy the roof. Take care.
Say sad. Thank you, Scott.
Bye-bye.

Mackenzie Scott just revealed details on her philanthropic work this year, including how much money she gave away. And the number is quite staggering.
$7.2 billion.

This year's annual total was announced with an update on her blog, which also tracks all of her contributions to date. And for those who don't know who Mackenzie Scott is, she is Jeff Bezos' ex-wife.

She helped to start Amazon back in the 90s, and she now runs her non-profit Yield Giving. And it was through this nonprofit that these donations were made.
So, $7.2 billion in 2025.

Let's just put that number in context. That is more than the entire budget of the World Health Organization.

It is also more than it costs to build the Suez Canal, the Burj Khalifa, the Hoover Dam, and the Vegas Sphere combined.

And that is on top of the $2.6 billion she gave the year before that as well as the 2.1 billion dollars the year before that and so this brings her total philanthropic contributions to over 26 billion dollars so at this point mackenzie scott has given away more than a third of her net worth and after this year she is now in the list of the top 10 most giving philanthropists of all time As for where the money actually went, about half of her gifts to date have gone to educational causes, almost 90% to causes in America.

She's also given hundreds of millions of dollars to things like environmental conservation and economic opportunity and social equity nonprofits.

The list goes on, but $26 billion, that is her total so far. So this isn't really a market story.
It's not the kind of thing we usually cover.

We usually talk about how much money people made, not how much they gave away.

But we wanted to mention it because this is the kind of thing that really deserves more attention more coverage and more praise in fact i would argue that giving away seven billion dollars is far more impressive than making seven billion dollars and i believe that that is why these kinds of contributions these massive contributions are so rare

And I can show you how rare they actually are. Even the richest few people in the world, people far richer than Mackenzie Scott, even they haven't given away nearly as much money as she's done.

Elon Musk is worth over $490 billion.

Last year, he gave away around $470 million, and that's less than 0.1% of his total net worth. By the way, most of that money went to entities he already controls.

Bezos has given away about 2% of his net worth in his lifetime. Zuckerberg's given away about 2% as well.
The average for American billionaires is about 3%.

She's given away more than a third. So it would appear that it is actually easier to make lots of money, to make that amount of money, than it is to give away that amount of money.

And yes, getting rich takes a lot of skill. It takes ambition.
It takes grit, patience, et cetera. And that is all very hard.
But giving that money away requires something that is honestly harder.

It means selflessness. It means kindness.
It means running the risk of, yes, benefiting other people, but also at your own expense. Maybe there was something else you wanted to do with that money.

Maybe you worked really hard for it. Maybe you were saving up for something.
Maybe you were saving up to rent out Venice for your wedding. There are infinite reasons to not give your money away.

And so to give it away is simply braver and more impressive than making it. Now, Mackenzie Scott, deserves praise here, and that's what we're doing, but only so much praise.

And what's great about her announcement and her blog post, which I encourage you to read, is that she actually recognizes that.

She recognizes that, yes, she gave away a lot of money and it's a big number, but proportionally speaking, there are still many people who give away a lot more.

In fact, she points out $7 billion is only a tiny fraction of what's given away by Americans every year. And that's only counting the money that is reported.

You know, she also points out that 70% of Americans give away both their money and their labor to people for free. And that can manifest in many different ways.

It can mean literally giving money, or it could mean just taking the time out of your day to just show up for someone and help them.

There are many ways in which people give, and yet so much of it, unfortunately, goes unrecognized and unreported.

That's why we wanted to recognize this contribution. It's not all about Mackenzie Scott, but it is a reminder of what is actually important and what is actually deserving of our respect.

Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller, edited by Joel Paston and engineered by Benjamin Spencer.
Our associate producer is Alison Weiss.

Our research team is Dan Shallon, Isabella Kinsel, Kristen O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio. And our technical director is Drew Burroughs.
Thank you for listening to Profitty Markets from Profit Media.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson.
Tune in tomorrow for an amazing conversation with Tom Lig.