committee use only. the hearing record will be held open for ten business days to provide those responses after such questions if any are asked. if there is no further business then at this time the committee stands adjourned.

cspan student camp documentary contest is in full swing and we're asking students to tell us what is the most important issue for the new presidents and the new congress to address in 2017. she is a form erwiner of 2015 for her documentary help for homeless heros. tell us about your student cam documentary. >> where we covered the issues of homeless veterans on the streets of orange county california. we decided that these sort of

people fought for our country and have given their all for our country and the fact that they are now living on the streets not having family or anyone care for them, we're not okay so we decided that we are going to talk about this issue and we decided to make a cspan documentary about it. >> i encourage all seniors in high school and even middle schoolers to use this platform to speak your voice and raise your voice and say your generation deserve to be heard in the government my advice for the students on the fence of starting this documentary is to really look into your community and see what is effecting those who are around you because they are the one who you love.

>> be a part of this because you want to be a voice for your community. >> if you want more information go to our website student cam.org. >> financial reporters talked about the financial services industry and how it might change under the trump administration. at the annual conference of the clearinghouse association. the trade group that represents the world's largest commercial banks. this is about an hour.

>> i think we're going to get started. >> your environment and institutions and even more broadly and of course with recent events and politics when the topics get more interesting. i'm capable of long introductions and i'm not doing it here and you know these people. i wake up every morning with ben white as many of you, it's my first read. i spend all day with steve because i have cnbc up and he

pops up periodically and i turn the volume back up and they actually don't pop into my office. i read them more at my leisure but certainly always in great detail but they're true resources when it comes to these issues and obviously a big read for a lot of you in this audience. probably less known to you would be candy wolf that's going to be our moderator from citigroup. head of global government affairs at citigroup which is quite a job. she knows where of she speaks. you could not be in better hands.

with that turn it over to the rest of the gang here. >> welcome to my panel. >> i usually have to be the one answering the questions from the press and it's a pleasure to be here and ask all of these questions and put them on the spot. i think we'll start a little bit with politics and and i was going to throw it open to all of you as you look back on election night and states that weren't supposed to be in play are now in play and pennsylvania was moving in the direction of trump and michigan and ohio and all of those states. what was going through your minds as the election was unfolding and perhaps we can talk a little bit to as not only

what was on your mind but financial services if anything as you are watching the results coming forward so i'll open it broadly to conversation. maybe we'll start it then and we'll keep working around. >> my first thought was might be that i got this one wrong. just a slight possibility. there was that sense of wow, this is remarkable and i clearly miss the extent to which trump's message would resinate in the rust belt and that was not getting the numbers she needed in the obama coalition. she was not getting particularly some of the suburban female white voters that didn't turn out in big enough numbers and trump ran up the score in a lot of places where obama had won in '08 and '12 so you know, the

nature of the electorate and the way it moved surprised me and surprised a lot of people that trusted the polls. the national polls when you look at the margin in the popular vote we're not that far off if she winds up with a 1 or 2% win in the popular vote. it might be below where she was. and there's several points off. and i was spending a lot. and financial services industry and i quickly started thinking about that in the days following and i'm sure other people will get into the extent in which this is a complete seismic change and there will be a pass of deregulation and dodd frank or whether people were close to trump who are in favor of some of the stuff that he wants to

do. and not go and raise capital levels significantly and i don't think we have an answer to that. shock, awe, surprise, all of those things went through my mind and i thought about the columns i would have to write and i got very depressed. >> steve. >> so, ben were you on the -- you wouldn't have been on the conference call. there was a conference call that i'm probably not supposed to talk about but i will anyway. early in the evening with nbc and the people that did the exit polls and i remember trying to listen to him. the person that was talking and then it was early on the evening and something was not about to happen the way it was expected to happen and i can't quite describe to you what it said except that it's reminding me of the guy and it's not designed

for this. it's not designed for this and kept making me think something is weird here and then the stuff starts coming in and here's the weird thing. something like several thousand times the following conversation had to be taking place. do you think donald trump is trustworthy to be president. responded, no. exit pollster. who did you vote for? donald trump. if you look at the exit polls that happened, i forget it was a majority of people. some enormous number of people overall and it was something like 30 or 40% of trump voters. i had the i don't know displeasure at this point of having conducted a national poll two weeks early kwer and cnbc has done a poll every quarter for years now and we showed

hillary with a nine point lead which is a weird thing because you hope for a poll in line with everybody else and on the other hand a poll and when i go back i think could i have been smarter about thinking about that poll and what i think about is the other data in the poll that shows how dissatisfied people were with the political system and how dissatisfied they were with the economic system and how angry they were and how much concern there was about the economic future and said to myself okay there's no way they can put essentially the incumbent back in. i would have had to have tilted in my analysis against the top line but you can read the bottom line of this and the exit polls as well explaining it.

>> on the evening for a bit of a party. we had pizzas delivered and we even bought a fringe to stock with beer which we did and a group of us all trying to stay busy and look useful. i went to be pub at about 7:00 and i got back at about 8:30. i remember watching the peso climbing and climbing and when you look at it you can actually see a movement and this thing was inching up and up and up and at that point i realized we could be in for a shock and at that point the pizzas didn't get eaten but the beer was left untouched and i just tried to stay useful by hammering out something about u.s. stocks in japan which were open at that point. >> there was a similar dynamic at the journal the day of the election. we put in a plan where half of us on the banking team would be there late sort of watching the

markets and the other half would come in early the next morning so i was on the late shift and the early crew the next day was sort of joking, kind of, you know, with all the sentiment that we'll probably be able to come in at normal time this f this is an uneventful election if everything goes as planned but that didn't take place. in events like this you sort of have part of you looking at the political dynamic of it and wondering how everything is so surprising to so many pollsters but like ben we were following the markets and watching stock prices with a very interesting reaction to the news that it was going to be a trump win and then changing sort of around 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 a.m. after the acceptance speech. more gracious than some feared probably that he was going to -- that the stock started to rebound. we saw within about an 8 hour time frame the markets reaction go from very worried and to

optimistic about what it meant for u.s. stocks. especially bank stocks. >> well and i think some of that optimism comes from the fact that there was an all republican congress. there was this view that all of a sudden you had a republican house and the question in the election was whether the republicans were going to maintain the senate and then in history there's only certain periods of time in which an administration is controlled by the same party hah you have gotten things done at least in the current time line. so if you look to obama's first two years or bush kind of mid, 1, 2, 3, well, 4, 5, 6 little bit of -- of course now for trump. >> the one thing you can throw out is that the markets used to like or traditionally liked gridlock. that wasn't the reaction in this case. >> i thought the market was wrong about that.

one of the private moments i had was to be excited for myself professional in that half of my job was supposed to be covering the fed and the economic data but i'm also supposed to cover economic policy and there hasn't been economic policy in this country to cover for six years and you can laugh at that but it's true. and get on the president's desk and it may be instruck tif and that republican congress and see if we want to talk about that further if they can get their act together and my feeling is professional that okay i'll have economic policy to cover again and personally as an american have to say i wasn't sure that america was going to get by

another four year with gridlock and real quickly and having spent six years in russia in the early period of 92, 98. you need that stuff. and there's a reason why it wasn't getting done for whatever reason. we can talk about what is going to be tun but the fact that something can get done and maybe some of that is reflected in the market's optimism. it's obviously the marks started to turn and overnight partly because of the concession speech which was relatively gracious and not filled with vitrial but also clear that there's going to be a republican senate and republican house and republican president and we can get into the details of what it means but the prospect for lower corporate tax rates and lower individual tax rates and maybe big fiscal spending all of which obviously short-term good news for the

stock market. not necessarily long-term good news if you spike up inflation and you have a scenario where you do a big stimulus and you shoot up debts and deficits again and the scenario played itself out. this is a great short-term bull move. >> maybe it will transition for a little bit. but first let's talk about the transition. maybe any administration has to go through and they have a transition team and they're putting landing teams into the various agencies and assessing regulations, policies, creating some sort of briefing book that's ultimately going to be turned over to the heads of all of these agencies and cabinet posts and one of the more important ones we'll be hearing rumors about is treasury so i can put you on the spot as to

when we might hear or who it might be and kind of talk about the rumors that have been swirling now for three plus weeks. >> sure an neecdotal about this just in the process of having been in this room for 30 minutes i heard he's going to be announced tomorrow and that squar red kushner vetoed him and he's not going to get it because he didn't raise enough money for trump and they're angry for him that he didn't raise enough money. it's important to say that it's not like any transition that we have seen in a long time. this is a very at hoc, very -- every transition has different factions and people pushing candidates and the extent to which they're openly public fights among dump's staff about who was going to take a senior

job, mitt romney is the obvious example of that with kelly ann conway arguing against him. trump still appearing to be inclined to pick him and on the treasury front continues to be the most likely candidate and there's still others in the mix. it's hard to cover this transition because you have so many different elements of the trump universe fighting each other and then in terms of the transition teams again it's not steve and i were talking beforehand and i think it's true for a lot of people in the room, this is not the universe of economic policy and financial policy people that a lot of you know very well. and the treasury transition team we're big in the 80s and then he had the big fight and disappeared into the wilderness

and been living on a farm and investing in movies and now he is back and on this treasury landing team and very antiregulation and very antibig government but we don't know a lot about him or what he is doing or what that's going to look like so it's very hard to cover this transition and we just don't know very well. >> speaking on regulation and economic policy and ran a bank and it's very much on the road and what he thinks should happen and i think it is a little bit more of a wildcard for how financial services are. >> it's been for a long time but

why haven't it been confirmed? ross apparently seemed a shoe in last week and i spent most of my thanksgiving researching this guy and writing a story about it but monday was the confirmation day and that came and went and nothing is for certain in this environment and trump has nothing to gain by keeping the likes of us informed. >> there's an element of what ben said that there's some infighting and definitely a lot of factions for the big jobs. and there's also an element that he wants to test the waters and if you're going to hire a treasury secretary and then just benchmark themes and see what you're passing up. if you see the treasury people there is just the question and we're talking about before getting through the paperwork, the vetting, the assets how he would go about putting in the

blind trust orally inquiry identifying assets and how willing is he to do that and we have the guy at the top not inclined to do any of that and your cabinet secretary and that's true for all the big jobs or particularly true for treasury when your operating within a universe of people that have significant assets and possible conflicts and it's more that trump is not completely -- i mean i think helenes and likes him and knows hill but there's people very close to trump that are whispering in his ear don't pull the trigger yet. look at this person. there's conservative and he is known on his views in perform and regulatory system on banking reform where you have a blank slate in a guy like steve. so a lot of these moving parts i

hear often which this is coming tomorrow and by the end of the day stand down this is not happening. >> nobody said romney for treasurer secretary. >> i haven't heard that but it could happen. >> to me this points to another issue which is -- to borrow a craps term, the extension to which the market is trading trump. in large measure a campaign is a stress rehearsal and blueprint and skeleton. part of the reason we have motte seen anything like this before is there's no campaign structure that moves from here to there. with we have that famous quote when somebody went into the west wing and asked how many came in and stay. i don't think he is tremendously behind where he normally would be. i also think that the extent to which the president elect was

specific about plans and specific about what he wanted to do. and it remains unclear and i know the market is very optimistic and there's something about that optimism and i think it's way out over it's skis on this in terms of what can be done and what is capable of being done given the infrastructure that he lacks. i know that the morning that the times published it's interview with donald trump i had this personal reaction of you know wtf for lack of a better term which is how am i supposed to do this job if for the next several months the whole game is, if then. if he does this then it might mean this for the economy. but the if, we don't know what the if is. the if could be i'm going to keep parts of obamacare or i'm

going to get rid of baobamacare and if the if is so uncertain it's difficult to game out the then and right now the market decided what the if is and what the then is. >> i think one more thing on the nature of this versus other transitions and he was coming out of a single term in the senate that wasn't a massive world of policy peel around him so he is building a lot of scratch in the transition and they took it so seriously from the start in terms of hitting the markets and also had a crisis that they are coming into it so the policy frame work is how do we stop the bleeding and get people in place to do that and with trump you have no government in waiting and turn the key in the white house and start moving and you have a

relatively descent economy and good stock pricing and we don't know what the if is so you have somebody whose policy views aren't well-known in addition to not having the apparatus and structure to put in place for a new administration so the gap of unknowns is enormous. >> part of the continuation is that we're going through a period of time that they're trying to figure out cabinet officials. that's wave one. you have to have the names in and get people through the confirmation process. hearings and things at the beginning part of january in order to get individuals confirmed on january 20th and 21st so you have a cabinet with the continuity of government the day after or the day that the president is sworn in. but after that in the conversations that are are going on next is what is wave 2 and wave 3? of course wave 4 and i think that if you look back and at least some of the research that i have done previously, you

know, administrations take a minimum through august to try to fill out positions so you'll have them going with themselves and probably a secretary and maybe a counselor and no one else underneath them in terms of assistant secretaries, et cetera. part of that conversation is how long is it going to take? kind of what the next set of names and positions that are going to be filled and one of the things that i keep hear as good that wave 2, maybe it's wave 3 but -- wave 2 is around filling out treasury but also starting to look at the fed, you know, the sec, the cftc. some of them occurring as we speak because there's names still pending as the sec is going to be in a position of not having a corum with the resignation and departure of the

chairwoman. and they'll begin to fill out the positions but given the discussions maybe we could turn to the fed. we have had two vacancies pending. they don't appear to be going anywhere right now and we have the vice chair of supervision. well, you know, he's been in the acting role but he has not been appointed or confirmed so there are some slots that can be filled and if the treasury secretary gets named and what impact it could have on the fed or how quickly this might happen or what it could mean for people here in the room around the policy going forward.

>> that speaks to the fact that there's such discord and inability to work together in washington that he felt like he couldn't get him through. he wanted to stick with him so what will the democrats do. how willing will they be to work with trump. how will they push back on the nominees and policies and that's one of the big wildcards and a lot rides on the leadership and how tough they're going to make it for trump to fill those positio positions. >> i wonder how long he'll survive if he elects to quit and take a position in academia he has to rev up for six months but

consensus is they won't be sad to see the back of him. >> let's take a poll. >> no. >> the numbers are that he gets to a point immediately. if he names one of them as the vice chair of supervision then he gets probably re-signed. sorry getting over a cold and then he'll have a chair and a vice chair. he'll have five of seven in the next year and a half. >> year and a half. >> i agree with all of that. i got the e-mails after some of the names are floated as head of supervision and all of them are like if this happens i would be surprised if he stays a week. so that's the conventional wisdom. i haven't spoken to dan so i don't know if that's true or not

so it's been conventional wisdom for awhile. does he stick around to try to stop somebody from undoing what he's trying to to on capital levels and all of that? i doubt it. he probably does head for the door and a lot of the game will be played at the fed in terms of regular withdrew lags -- regulation. they're going to get rid of dodd frank and change regulation overnight and it's way more complicated than that and way harder than that. it depends on the senate and the ability to filibuster stuff and it's notike elizabeth warren and her forces are completely without weapons and also arguing that church campaigned on a populous message of championing the little guy and not giving wall street what he wants and he'll have to deal with that.

she can't stop him but she does have the pulpit still and the convening power to get the progressive left to at least make noise and get in the headlines what regulatory changes would do. if republicans are lock step in agreement on an agenda on financial reforl they could get it done and signed by trump but plenty are nervous. is it what republicans in pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin voted for. how is it going to play with these people. what does it mean for 2018 elections. what does it mean? i don't think it's a slam dunk that all of a sudden the pro wall street reform people i think they're in retreat. i think their odds are stacked against them but i do think there is still weapons to try to

slow stuff down in the senate. and it will be where a lot of the action will take place. >> i think maybe following up on steve's point the senate still has the filibuster now. there's a question as to whether or not the senate will change the rules going forward to require only 51 votes for many of the provisions but under the rules of the senate it takes 60 votes to end debate and bring a bill to a vote which is what the filibuster is and at that point the challenge the republicans have at that point -- assuming louisiana goes for the republican candidate but you end up with 52 senators so it's somewhere in there to get to 60. >> so can i play this out there, if elizabeth warren wants to filibuster any reform to dodd

frank so i don't know how it won't happen. is it separate bills or a single bill. >> no is the answer to that. >> stop that. >> right. >> unless they somehow get democratic votes. >> or they try to go through reconciliation. >> or try to move something on a bill which you can do in the senate but to not get totally nerdy you have to -- so my background used to be budget rule in the u.s. senate so i will get nerdy and you need it to have a budge dare impact. it will say we will have an impact and there's very few provisions that i'm aware of that could get that scoring. and they could ultimately be considered. >> the xlf isn't trading like he elizabeth warren has a

filibuster authority over the reform of dodd frank. am i crazy about that? >> i'm not. >> it seems to be trading as if this is a done deal. >> i'm highly skept car length that all the stuff is going to get undone. >> they're fine and they're all good. >> it's all the financial stocks. >> we have all seen it in all bank stocks. we have all written stories about. it seems to be nothing to do with the prospect of lighter regulation it's all prospects of normalization as far as i can tell. may or may not do what job. >> dodd frank reform is one of the reasons it's probably up but

a agree with ben that the yield curve, the chance for infrastructure spending. more inflation. the longer part of the bond yield curve spiking up and then the short and probably coming with it at some point that that's all very positive for bank stocks and then also just the change in activity very good for trading desks so a part of the banks that have been depressed for years in part because of regulation and in part because of market conditions and investor appetite is starting to see a lot more activity. >> so you're saying carry on bid it higher. it's all good. >> it had a good rally. whether it sustains is another question. it definitely reset. regulation was part of that but not a huge part of that and that's going to be a tail wind for the stock but if you're counting on regulation going away or deregulation coming in or dodd frank being rolled back as the thesis for your bank stock investment it may be a longer play or trickier play. >> we also should take into

account the extent to which the bank stock rallies and relief rally from what the market expected which was a clinton white house with a democratic senate and smaller

an r and international reform along request individual or at least that's the starting point. and repeal of obama care and maybe some form of replacement. we've got some changes going on and big marketplaces. possibly things will take longer, but certainly in the course of the first six month or so is where some of these conversations are going to go. so what's the thinking about the impact with the respect to the deficit, how is the analysis going. is there a consideration as to whether some of these policies, depending on what you look at, and we don't know what do substance is going to be, you know, is the market going to start reacting more to concerns

around deficit spending should some of these proposals not be paid for or offset. >> i've been thinking about that very question for while. it doesn't seem like it's caught on yet, i'm waiting for s&p. i'm waiting for someone to say wait a minute. the president elect has had a lot of business experience, he's had a lot of business experience running companies with a very low bond rating to put it kindly. his views on deficit and growth are probably different at a core level. the definitely hawks are important to the tea party and to his base, but it doesn't seem like they're getting a lot of love yet, at least early days. to me, the infrastructure is a very plausible thing for him to do. he's a real estate guy. he's built things over his life that are appealing to him and had bipartisan support, as long as it doesn't get the deficit

out of control. he can talk about talk about rolling back dod frank where his infrastructure projects, i don't think as hard of a fight for him. democrats are starting to koeless around the idea they would fight an infrastructure program that's based on credits for private corporations. and they'll continue do that if you have a filler buster of democrats saying we lo the idea of building the roads and bridges, we don't love do idea this is a hand out to big

corporations. and if they can figure that all out and koeless around it. i don't think there's some slam dupg for an infrastructure spending bill. >> it's only so much band width in a white house and in congress for major over hauls. i remember i had a conversation with the chief of staff for bush going to the second administration he laid out for me all of the things that were going to do. i said that's a lot of stuff. the president is ambitious. i said you could maybe get any of this done.

you were involved in. it's like -- wuchb thing or two things, maybe and then you've got to get over the hump of the midterms because that's going to be key. if you think about the enormity of immigration reform and dod frank and tax cut proposal and repay tree yags. even just the repay tree yags proposals which we were talking earlier, it includes pretty major over all in the tax system going from a territorial and then the repatriotion on top of that. if you get the secretary in

there and then he should have shut up then. >> during the headlights. >> we had him on. i did the interview with brian williams and market took a step down, even the word "the". >> it was not the high point of obama administration. >> that was an argument to shut up and maybe you're right, you wait until you get under secretaries and you have -- not to mention the job you did. >> the white house jobs will be filled. they don't require conformation. some presidents choose to use the treasury and some use to keep it.

>> the other thing to take into account when talking about the massive agenda or getting any of it done, the fact they're going to have to do confirmation fights for some of these people sessions. there may be others who have tough confirmation hearings. it's caution for people who think that a full rewrite of the corporate individual tax code along with infrastructure spending, obama care repeal, pump the brakes. >> can i add one thing to this, which is that this, to me, says that i should read and understand the paul ryan plans best. he had a thing during the crisis and it was this phrase, plan needs no plan. he come to the meeting and he had a plan. whether or not it was the right

plan, it was a plan. >> right. >> and that's -- >> president who has a plan dictates. >> plan beats no plan. so to the extent they don't have to wait to review all of the stuff h what is it, better way dot goov. i've read a bunch of it. >> it can be translated. >> you saw in the campaign, the first and second iteration from the tax reform plan, move from rates, cuts that were not going to happen, close to the paul ryan, of rate cuts that's probably where they'll wind up. >> okay last like human growth hormone. and i could see the trump

administration not being too proprietary about paul ryan kind of driving the bus on corporate tax reform and individual tax reform and just taking the credit for it when it gets done. he's not like -- he's a headlines guy, he's not a details guy. >> i'm going to open it to the audience in just a second, i think to comment on what ben and steve were saying, you've got a minimum of two-budget resolutions and repeal of obama care and all of these things not, it's going to take a lot of time. i think the interesting challenge would be how the administration -- and the kind of pressure, i'm told anecdotely that the house had their calendar schedule so they could determine what days they would be in and out, they had three weeks in, one week out, traditionally how the congress

has been operating and they don't vote mondays or fridays. and the trump transition took a look at the calendar and said, you know, this doesn't work because i work seven days a week and you guys aren't really and so the calendar went back and got revised. >> yeah. >> and they took out the one extra week off, et cetera, so there's already some of that interesting pressure around, you know, how much work is going to be done and the senate has now announced they'll be in on mondays and fridays. we'll see if they in and if they really vote. there seems to be some movement around maybe giving the -- given the amount of things that need to get addressed and understanding there's a short window they're going to try to push it. at some point the twitter account is going to pressure the congress to act more rapidly than the congress is sort of willing or able to do. i think that tension will be an interesting dialogue for you guys to write about. >> interesting is this, urcnder statement, you can see a thing,

do nothing congress. any of that is possible, you know, and they can be a complete odds with each other by, you know, three, six months into the administration, we have no idea. >> it will likely happen between midnight and 3:00 a.m. >> you're going to be on that late shift. >> we'll call it the tweet shift. >> i think we're going to open it for questions from the audience. i don't know if there's a mic. >> you guys are laughing like this is his stair cysterical. >> happy days are here again. mic is there and we have a question for you. >> i default to moderator mode because i moderate so many of these things. sorry, andy. >> so 2016 was suppose to be the good year and what they're

looking. -- was suppose to be the pivotal year. >> 2018 was suppose the year they were defending a lot more seats and they're looking to lose ground. how does that play in terms of dynamics now. does that encourage democrats to compromise knowing the situation could get far worst or does it encourage republicans to hold back a little bit expecting of what maybe to get that 60-seat majority in 2018. >> that's a great question and you're absolutely right that. 's terrible math for democrats. they fully expect it to win the senate in '16 and lose it again in '18. and now they've not won it back and see their numbers dwindle even more, how that changes the political dynamic, someone smarter than me will have to figure that out.

i think there are some incentives for democrats to show that they have achieved something on legislative front in terms of economic policy, whether, you know, there's anything that's put forward that they can support make them v vulnerab vulnerab vulnerable. you have to remember while trump did win the electoral college, he doesn't have this massive mandate and a lot of pressure on democrats to stand up to try to resist trump. i don't think we know the answer until we know his legislative agenda looks like. what's in the bills that the democrats and senate being asked to vote on. they could decide that they have to be -- get through some economic legislation that could boost economic growth or they could decide that trump is so unpopular and toxic that they can block him at every turn. it's too soon to answer that.

>> what role does senator shumer have, post election, assuming he is the minority leader. >> on shumer being the democrat leader, they said republican -- given his relationship with donald trump, republicans should be probably more scared than the democrats, or equally as great as the democrats in terms of that relationship. i think there is some truth to, you know, what kind of dialogue could happen between the white

house and senate democrats in a way that i think could open some possibilities for coalitions. >> i'll let ben answer this or maybe erin. i'll point out pretty quickly, mark, i would call you and ask you this question. you would have some great great thoughts on that. dod frank as it was and gone back to revisit it in at least a four year time frame, maybe a five-year time frame. if the senator can't possibly be a bridge between the extremes on the left and, tell me if i'm speaking naively here, who don't want it touched at all and the extremes on the right who want to get rid of it. i think he can play an amazing in the constructive role here. i don't think shumer wants to be seen the guy who is, you know, coddling wall street. i also think, you know, there

are a lot of smart people who i have talked who are very convincing about some of the negative effects of dodd frank that argue for loosening it in some regards that normal reasonable people might have done. >> we're in position to block broken efrtds to change, financial regulations. he can cast himself, you know, the broker who protects the most important pieces, is reasonable on things that maybe need tweaks and changes that have some bipartisan support and it's going to be one of these finally delegate political balances and shumer, better than anybody figuring those out and playing them. the best way to his political.

>> i'll deal with you on one item, but we're not touching this item and that might work. on the other hand, you've got to keep in mind the midterms and he'll want to do things that add to the democrat standing in the house and the senate even if it is seeming pretty hopeless at this point. he'll have to keep an eye on that and four years from now as well. it's a great question, should be really interesting. >> i want to offer one idea.

there's a constituency of senators in the middle. >> right. >> shumer, corker, warner, if these guys are kind of looney on each end, could -- and i don't mean that premajorityively. -- -- sorry to take your job, moderator, i'm going to ask him a question. >> that's fine. >> where these middle senators gain power and there's a certain sanity that would over take the seat. >> i think politico had a great story on this the other day. to toot our own horn. moderate of senators from swing states who will want to have some accomplishments to get some stuff done and brokers on the

senate that is closely divided. it will all depend upon trump's popularity, how he is seen by the public -- and if it looks like he is doing well and has put together reasonable legislative packages and spending, there will be democrats who want to cross the line and not filler buster and get that stuff passed. how they're going to feel and what they're going to do. we have to wait and see how the rest of the transition process plays itself out. how the early days of the administration plays itself out. if it's some chaotic mess and popularity where it is 42, which is not particularly high for incoming president, down to the 30s, then you'll see people running away from him left and

right. i kept to see -- i hate to keep saying wait and see, but you've got to wait and see. >> questions, anyone, prerogative of the moderator. >> we can talk about sports. >> we haven't talked about trade. >> okay. >> i'd rather talk about sports. >> so probably the one challenge, and i'll look to aaron here, you've got all of this exuberance in the marketplace, when it comes to trade there are questions of renegotiating partnership, trans pacific, wants to list china currency manipulator. and then a number of, you know, enforcement mechanisms to use commerce to bring actions on unfair trade.

for many in the room or, you know, i can put my city hat on and we look at the antiglobalization trend that's been going on around the world and whether we look at the brexit vote or whether we look to current elections in france or potentially what's coming up in germany or all the other stories around this antiglobalization that helped elect trump, you know, the antitrade message was incredibly strong, what should we be thinking about, what should business be thinking about from a trade perspective, what do kru think the markets are doing and thinking as we go forward. i think one of the challenges is that you can have all of this potential stimulus on the tax side, we'll have questions around trade that's going to really, you know, pull down the potentially lead to, you know, a lack of glout in the economy, if there's -- lack of growth in the economy if there are terrorists.

>> it's going to be -- and insta deficit, almost, over night. he wants to have automatic reopeners in deal. take a step back. industry and jobs, and, you know, it's going to be a complete change, assuming you don't get the job. >> historically, the problem with terrorist and protection is trade policies you might get a bigger slice of the pie, the global over all pie is not maybe not as big or growing as fast. i think he wants the economy to grow and he wants america to grow first and foremost. i think it's going to be one of

the most important areas in terms of how the market reacts to that. i mean, in, putting ton rosy colored glasses, if he goes in and he negotiates better trade deals for america that other countries can live with, that's probably a good thing. if they retaliate, why wouldn't they retaliate, it could be a vicious cycle sort of situation. i think there's a lot of risk there in the markets that is not being priced in at the moment. >> let it sink in for a while. it's intended as a joke, but maybe a little bit too subtle. he'll get two briefings. one he'll learn about the whole ufo thing in area 51. the second briefing he'll get and hopefully this will sink in is how america runs the world

through its trade agreements, and through the different ifis and organizations. he'll be like, oh, that's why we do that. and he'll get the briefing that will tell him there's a couple of reasons why we maybe wachbt -- want to help mexico, why we'll have the current set of agreements that might be engendered to tpp they may be as much about military security as they are about economic security. there may be a reason why it doesn't necessarily add up ledger because it has an asset over here that's not counted in security. one of the things that i thought in post brexit is, we kcreated economic agreement so that we couldn't kill each other and i think we've gotten that entirely. it's impossible to measure some of these trade agreements via

the way donald trump and wilbur ross, puts it forward, we have a deficit with them and, you know, to some extent that's a negative for u.s. growth how you measure the import, but i think what he'll find there was some sense behind from the obama foreign policy trade policy. and it was on a numbers basis and don't be too shocked by this. america was less great as it was. as percentage of total gdp, the u.s. percentage is declined. the question is how do we maintain our greatness or being great at, essentially, authority over the world trade system, in a world where other countries somewhat to our benefit, are getting wealthier and we do that

through -- somebody -- i think it was mic made this point, globalization is a reality, our trade agreement is simply the rules by which we live in that reality. i'm just saying, i think he'll get the ufo briefing and he'll get the trade briefing and then we'll see where trade policies will be. i think tpp is history. i think it's an unfortunate fact that that's the case. i guess we could have stood the benefit greatly from that. i don't know who is going to ultimately win the argume