has blamed on criminals in russia. the white house says president biden told president putin he must take action against cyber criminals acting in his country. when the two met in geneva last month, mr. biden warned mr. pruden about continuing cyberattacks on u.s. businesses and infrastructure originating in russia. in a letter to senators, majority leader chuck schumer says they should be prepared to work long nights and weekends and to cut short their planned august recess. leader schumer is looking to pass both a bipartisan infrastructure package and a budget blueprint that will pave the way for a larger democrat only tax and spending bill. he says committee staff have been working during the current two-week fourth of july break. the centers for disease control is looking to give schools more flexibility when it comes to reopening during the pandemic. in new guidance, the cdc says schools should use local

health data when looking to tighten or relax strategies liked insisting, ventilation, and handwashing. a fast spreading delta variant has raised concerns about a possible surge in covid cases in areas that are under vaccinated. mexico is racing to get covid-19 vaccines to border states, trying to inoculate all adults, as part of the president's plan to revise his battered economy. the president is hoping that getting all adults along the border vaccinated will persuade the united states to admit non-essential travelers. only 60% of americans -- mexicans are fully -- only 16% of mexicans are fully vaccinated. global news 24 hours a day, on-air, and on bloomberg quicktake, powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in over 120 countries. i'm mark crumpton. this is bloomberg. ♪

amanda: i'm amanda lang. welcome to bloomberg markets. matt: i'm amanda lang -- i'm matt miller. biden targets tech and bank mergers. the president signs and ask -- a sweeping executive order designed to promote competition across american industries. we will discuss with greg valliere of agf investments. we are awaiting comments from the president himself. any moment now he will walk out on the white house lawn and we will go live for full coverage of the speech. plus, the bond rally stalls while stocks stayed a rebound. we discussed markets in preview corporate earnings with david waddell, chief investment strategist at waddell & associates. amanda: we are watching markets put on a pretty positive display

here across the s&p 500. broad advances, most of the subgroups in positive territory. only utilities at last check moving lower today. financials rocketing higher p hops -- perhaps because of a possible move in the yield curve. 1.35 should be a big move. almost a 5% swing in the price of treasuries, so we are seeing reaction in parts of the market. we also see energy and materials be positive. as you note, tech is not suffering, despite the fact that that executive order may have implications across the u.s. industrial landscape. for what it's worth, the leak of this executive order focused on the rail and ocean freight industry. they are named in this sweeping order but are not the real targets. we might agree that the competitive forces in general would have investors and big tech taking the biggest second

look. they might be waiting to see what comes next. what is on paper and what ends up being fact may be different. matt: absolutely. we saw this under president trump as well, a more erratic push against big tech with that time warner story, but it looks like this is still a real concern for the white house resident. this time, not only in terms of competition, but data security. that is the more interesting story for me. you are seeing china strike back, try to get control of its big data, and the biden administration will want to do the same thing. amanda: so interesting. more fodder in that conversation with president putin. i want to bring in greg valliere of agf investments.

how do you interpret the executive order which is broad? but a lot of this will be handed off to first regulatory bodies, and then we imagine the courts. when you see this, where does it land in terms of how much you have to deal with it in a practical way? greg: it is not an imminent threat to these companies. the biden administration realized they could not get legislation because the filibuster would have stopped debate, so they are going this way. i do think the executive order could encounter litigation. a lot of opposition to it. it is not an immediate threat, but you have to say, for a wide range of industries, at the very least, this will be headline risk. matt: are we going to see m&a bankers pulling back a little bit on megamerger intentions? this is looking like one of the areas where he really wants to block, see more focus on

midsized or even smaller m&a. greg: i think m&a activity will be chilled, especially with the big firms, as you say. this order coming out is not entirely antitrust, not entirely against the tech sector. it is a wide range of industries. there is a pretty radical group of regulators that are now in prominent positions in the biden administration. many came from columbia university in new york. they want to go after regulations, not just antitrust. amanda: to your point, greg, none of this will change valuations today or tomorrow. it does demonstrate perhaps a change in tone, and one that may be slow-moving because regulatory agencies are full of people that have been there for a long time. it takes a long time to shift thinking. but when you think of that

shift, from an investment point of view, do you have to start thinking that big tech players are not safe forever, and at what point do you start discounting that? greg: i would say we are now entering a period of adversarial relations between this administration and big business. certainly, the new heads of the sec, ftc, a lot of these agencies really want to crackdown. they want more competition, less consolidation, and they want to go after regulation. i think we are now headed for a lengthy period where the climate between washington and business is pretty hostile. matt: i want to ask about the u.s. trade issues, not with china, not with europe, but canada. it seems trudeau and biden are on the same page, at least

philosophically, but there are still a lot of issues to hammer out and it could be problematic. greg: absolutely. donald did not get along well with premier trudeau. at the same time, even though biden and trudeau get along great, there are some big issues. solar panels, softwood lumber, dairy products. a lot of things were discussed when the head canadian trade expert came to washington this week, and they did not reach any big agreements. i think maybe trudeau looking for a snap election in the fall, he has to get back into trade deals with the u.s.. right now, that does not look very promising. amanda: when you talk about this hostile era, some would call it pro-labor. at what point do you take that to your portfolio managers and say this may be the catalyst the markets have been waiting for

for a reason to sell. people are looking for catalysts. greg: if a big chunk of regulations come along affecting an industry, tech or other industries, it could be more than just headline risk. the federal reserve is more important for the big market outlook. but if you see case after case being brought, antitrust cases, cases against, say, the airline industries because they don't allow people to have good wi-fi connection -- that is apparently on the list of things that can be scrutinized. when you start to see all sorts of regulations like that, it would cast a pall over business in general. matt: very interesting. we will get those details soon. greg valliere, agf investments, chief u.s. policy strategist, thank you for your insight.

u.s. earnings season kicks off next week. we have a preview with david waddell, chief investment strategist at waddell & associates. plus, we are waiting for president biden to start speaking any moment. we will bring that to you live. this is bloomberg. ♪

matt: this is bloomberg markets. i'm matt miller with amanda lang. u.s. earnings season officially kicks off next week with 24 firms reporting in the first week. it is going to hit pretty hard.

i think we have been so focused on geopolitical issues, central bank policy, and the bond market, it will be interesting come in my opinion, to see the markets attention turned back to what companies are actually doing in terms of sales and earnings. amanda: of course, those issue we've been talking about, some are macro but there are some micro-ones. how is inflation showing up? how is staffing going to affect certain businesses? the bigger issue of esg will also show up as a cost, hit some bottom lines. matt: absolutely, the supply chain, how that is affecting sales, margins, inflation, comes out in the macro as well. joining us for more is waddell & associates chief investment strategist, david waddell. what are you looking for in

terms of what companies present us next week? david: i think the earnings will be absolutely astounding. going into the first quarter, analysts expected them to grow 25% and they grew 50%. now they expect 63% earnings growth. guidance going into the quarter has been at a record level. i think what will be interesting is more the corporate, that are forward-looking relative to the delta virus, offshore and onshore, relative to those supply shortages. i would rather have an issue where we have a supply shortage that a demand shortage. i would imagine those supplies issues will be resolved. corporations are extremely healthy, there is a co liquidity out there supporting anything they want to do, now at even lower interest rates. this whole experience around covid has shown us how resilient and resourceful u.s. corporations have been.

i expect another astounding earnings season. by the way, that should continue for the rest of the year. analysts now predicting 35% growth for the s&p for the rest of the year. mid-caps and small caps will do even better than that. amanda: give us the contacts on what you are advising people should do on the fact that we will see declines. as ungrateful as it sounds going from 50 to 35, stocks are forward-looking price mechanisms. what do you do with that, that the biggest bulge of earnings is behind you? david: you reference the macro issues earlier. i think they are in control. if i can jump on that. global case counts bottomed in early june and started rising higher. in the u.s., we didn't really notice that because we are 51% vaccinated, and the delta verne is not particularly lethal, but offshore, you had a serious risk off trade. that led to money flooding into

the treasury market which took rates down, took the dollar higher, large-cap growth stocks higher. offshore you have this delta macro concern. onshore, we scratched our head, why is the 10-year going down? why do we have growth issues? shoot first, ask questions later. let's rotate away from the inflation trade. but supply will come back online, which is why the fed is not worried, which is why inflation expectations are rolling over. even though we are hitting new highs, there has been low conviction. my expectation is investors get excited once they realize delta is not all that lethal and supply issues get resolved. as investors, you use this opportunity to reflate, if you will, the reflation trade. matt: i can understand why that is great for especially the small and mid-cap companies in terms of growth right now.

people talk about rotating into other regions, europe and asia, into em, when they do start to open up, in the case of developing countries. but if you look at the big caps in the u.s., they sell to all those people as well. wouldn't they profit off of those other reopens as well? david: they will. large-cap u.s. growth stocks 20 times. mid-caps are at 17 times. small caps are at 17 times. em is at 14 times. if you think about the spread between earnings yield and real yield, rising rates will drive people to places with higher earnings yield. matt: great context. i have to jump in because the president is walking out. let's listen live to president biden. president biden: good afternoon.

we are in the midst of an historic economic recovery. because of our successful vaccination program strategy has been working and the immediate relief through the american rescue plan has brought back our economy from the worst economic crisis in nearly a century, america is now on track. we're on track for the highest economic growth in 40 years, one of the highest growth records on record. we designed our economic strategy to be durable for the ups and downs that come with recovery. there are ups and downs. that is why the american rescue plan was designed to help people not just all at once but over the course of the full year, so we could continue supporting families, small businesses, state and local budgets, help them weather those ups and

downs. now that the economy is back on track, we are making progress on the second track of our strategy, entering long-term growth. that is where my build back better agenda and my american families plan and the bipartisan infrastructure agreement we reached last month, that is what they are all about, long-term. to keep our country moving, we have to take another step as well. i know you are tired of hearing me during the campaign and since elected president talk about it, and that is bringing fair competition back to the economy. that is why today i'll be signing shortly the executive order promoting competition, to lower prices, increase wages, and to take another critical step toward an economy that works for everybody. the heart of american capitalism is a simple idea. open and fair competition. that means that if your company wants to win your business, they have to go out and up their

game. better prices and services, new ideas and products. competition keeps the economy moving and growing. fair competition is why capitalism has been the world's greatest force of prosperity and growth. by the same token, a competitive economy means companies must do all they do -- everything they do to compete for workers, offering higher wages, more flexible hours, better benefits. but what we have seen over the past few decades is less competition and more concentration that holds our economy back. we see it in big agriculture, big tech, big pharma, the list goes on. rather than competing for consumers, they are consuming their competitors. rather than competing for workers, they are finding ways to gain the upper hand on labor. too often the government has made it harder for new companies

to break in and compete. look at what that means for family budgets. take prescription drugs. just a handful of companies control the market for many vital medicines, giving them leverage over everyone else to charge whatever they want. as a result, americans pay 2.5 times more for prescription drugs than in any other leading country. nearly one in four americans struggles to afford their medication. another example, hearing aids. right now, if you need a hearing aid, you cannot walk into a pharmacy and pick one up over-the-counter. you have to get it from a doctor or specialist. not only does that make getting hearing aids inconvenient, it makes them considerably more expensive, and it makes it harder for new companies to compete, innovate, and sell hearing aids at lower prices. as a result, a pair of hearing aids can cost thousands of

dollars. that is a big reason why just one in seven americans with hearing loss actually use hearing aids. another example, internet service. there are more than 65 million americans that live in a place with only one high-speed internet provider. research shows that when you have a limited internet operation, you pay up to five times more on average than families in places with more choices. that is what a lack of competition does, raises the prices you pay. it is not just consumers getting hurt. big and is putting a squeeze on farmers. small and family farms, first-time family farmers, like veterans coming home, black and latino and indigenous farmers, they are seeing price hikes for seed, lopsided contracts, shrinking profits, and growing debt. lack of competition hurts workers as well. in many communities, their only

a handful of employers left competing for workers. think about company towns across appalachia, other parts of the country where one big corporation runs the show. when corporations have that kind of leverage over workers, it pushes down advertised wages by up to 17%. as competition decreases, businesses don't feel the need to innovate or invest in their workforce. that hurts working families and hurts our economy. all told, between rising prices and lowering wages, lack of competition costs the median american household $5,000 a year. i am a proud capitalist. i spent most of my career representing the corporate state of delaware. i know america cannot succeed unless american business succeeds. let me be very clear, capitalism

without competition is not capitalism, it is exploitation. without healthy competition, big players can change and charge whatever they want, and treat you however they want. for too many americans, that means accepting a bad deal for things that you cannot go without. so, we know we have a major problem. we also have an incredible opportunity. we can bring back more competition to more of the country, helping entrepreneurs and small businesses get in the game, helping workers get a better deal, helping families save money every month. the good news is we have done it before. in the early 1900s, president teddy roosevelt saw an economy dominated by standard oil and jp morgan railroads. he took them on and he won. he gave the little guy a fighting chance. decades later, during the great

depression, franklin roosevelt saw corporate mergers wipe out scores of small businesses, crushing competition and innovation, so he ramped up antitrust enforcement, saving families billions in today's dollars and helping to set the course for sustained economic growth after world war ii. he also called for an economic bill of rights including "the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom, from unfair competition, and domination from monopolies." between them, the two roosevelt's established an american tradition, and antitrust tradition. it is how we ensure our economy is not about people working for capitalism but capitalism working for people. over time we have lost the idea that capitalism depends on fair

and open competition. 40 years ago, we chose the wrong path, in my view, following the misguided philosophy of people like robert bork, pulling back on enforcing the laws to promote competition. we are now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. what have we gotten from it? less growth, weakened investment, fewer small businesses. too many americans who feel left behind. too many people who are poorer than their parents. i believe the experiment failed. we have to get back to an economy that grows from the bottom up and middle out. the executive order i will soon be signing commits the federal government to full and aggressive enforcement for antitrust laws. no more tolerance for abusive actions by monopolies. no more bad mergers that lead to mass layoffs, higher prices, fewer options for workers and

consumers alike. my executive order includes 72 specific actions. i expect the federal agencies -- and they know this -- to help restore competition, so that we have lower prices, higher wages, more money, more options, more convenient for the american people. today, i want to focus on three specific actions. first, the fda, the food and drug ministrations. we are going to work with streets and tribes to safely import prescription drugs from canada. that is just one of many actions in the executive order that will lower prescription drug prices. second, the fda will issue rules so that hearing aids can be sold over-the-counter. that is something the last administration was supposed to have done but did not do. we are going to get it done. after these rules go into effect, hearing aids will cost

hundreds of dollars, not thousands. and you'll be able to pick them up at your local drugstore. third, we are going to pursue competition for workers. we talked a lot about noncompete agreements that say you cannot take another's job in your field even if you get a better deal. i was reminiscing with my staff, back in 2018, the brookings institution, where i talked about the noncompete clauses that were absolutely at least one in three businesses require their workers to sign a noncompete agreement. these are not just high paid executives or scientists that hold secret formulas for coca-cola so pepsi can't get their hands on it. one in five workers without a college education is subject to a noncompete agreement.

they are construction workers, hotel workers, disproportionately women and women of color. think of a 26-year-old employee at the company. she is a worker but she is not being treated right. she's underpaid and passed over for promotions. a competitor knows it and wants to bring her into a higher wage. she cannot do it. her company threatens legal action over because she had to sign in order to get hired. she can't afford a lawyer. she is locked in. imagine if you were in her shoes. you would feel powerless and disrespected, bullied. that is not right. workers should be free to take a better job someone offers. if your employer was to keep you , he or she should have to make it worth your while to stay. that is the kind of competition that leads to other wages