With a decade-low tariff in place and both the festive and wedding seasons approaching, there is expected to be a mad dash for gold in India this year, according to a new report from Nikkei.
The country is the world’s second-largest gold consumer after China. India’s festival and wedding season begins Thursday, leading up to Diwali on Nov. 1. During this auspicious period, gold purchases surge as it symbolizes luck and financial security. Gold is also a popular gift for brides and families during weddings.
India saw gold imports surge to a record $10.1 billion in August—more than double compared to a year ago and triple July’s $3.1 billion—according to the Indian Commerce Ministry.
The Nikkei report says that the spike followed the government’s late-July decision to cut import taxes on gold and gold dore, a semi-pure alloy, by 9%. The duties now stand at 6% for gold and 5.35% for gold dore, the lowest rates since June 2013, after remaining above 10% for over a decade.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the tax cut aims to boost domestic value addition in gold and jewelry. Following the duty reduction, retail gold prices dropped by around 4,000 rupees ($47.80), with 10 grams of 24-carat gold priced at approximately 70,000 rupees and 22-carat gold at 65,000 rupees.
Ashish Gupta, a retail jewelry store owner in a marketplace in the Indian capital, told Nikkei: “Most of the local consumers are waiting for the festivals to make gold purchases as not many prefer to buy during the ongoing Shradh period.”
“However, starting Oct. 3, we are expecting a huge footfall, especially on Dhanteras festival on Oct. 29 prior to Diwali when it is considered even more auspicious to buy gold,” he continued.
“We do receive inquiries nowadays about the jewelry pieces in our store and gold price for the day but the buyers say they would only purchase during the coming festivals,” said a salesperson in New Delhi.
Kavita Chacko, India research head at international trade association World Gold Council recently added in a note: “Purchases previously deferred are now materializing, and there is increased interest in heavier pieces of jewelry.”
She added: “Industry participants anticipate that this momentum will continue, though they are closely monitoring the crucial festive and wedding season sales.”
We are currently in the “everything market.” It doesn’t matter what you have probably invested in; it is currently increasing in value. However, it isn’t likely for the reasons you think. A recent Marketwatch interview with the always bullish Jim Paulson got his reasoning for the rally.
“It is this cocktail of ‘full support’ at the front end of a bull market which commonly has created an ‘Everything Market’ during the early part of a new bull. That is, for a period, almost everything simultaneously rises – value, growth, small, large, defensive, and cyclical stocks – and usually by a lot.
Short rates are falling, bond yields have declined, money growth is rising, fiscal stimulus has again expanded, and disinflation is still evident; and because of this new and overwhelming support, expectations for a soft landing should grow while both consumer and business confidence improves.” – Jim Paulson
But that isn’t the reason.
On the other side of the bull/bear argument are “gold bugs” enjoying soaring gold prices because “debts and deficits” are finally eroding the U.S. economy. As Michael Hartnet of BofA recently stated:
“Long-run returns in commodities are rising after the worst decade since the 1930s, led by gold, which is a hedge against the 3Ds: debt, deficit, debasement.”
The evidence doesn’t support that view. Historically, when deficits as a percentage of GDP increase, gold does very well as concerns about U.S. economic health increase (as per Michael Hartnett of BofA.)However, gold performs poorly as economic growth resumes and the deficit declines. Such is logical, except that since 2020, gold has soared in price even as economic health remains robust and the deficit as a percentage of GDP continues to decline.
While stocks and gold have risen this year, bonds, commodities, real estate, and cryptocurrencies have also enjoyed gains.
In other words, whatever your “thesis” is for whatever asset you own, the price action currently supports that thesis. That does not mean your thesis is correct.
In an “everything rally,” rising asset prices cover investing mistakes.
Therefore, this analysis should elicit two important questions: 1) what drives the “everything rally,” and 2) when will it end?
Whatever Your Thesis Is – It’s Probably Wrong
When it comes to what is driving the “everything rally,” everyone has their thesis. The “stock jockeys” suggest that easier monetary accommodation by the Fed and improving earnings are the key drivers for equities. As noted above, the “gold bugs” are seduced by burgeoning government spending and expectations of a dollar decline to loft gold prices higher. Every asset class has its “reason” for going higher, but the real reason may be much simpler. This post will focus on stocks and gold as they garner the most headlines and have the most fervent of “true believers.”
In every market and asset class, the price is determined by supply and demand. If there are more buyers than sellers, then prices rise, and vice-versa. While economic, geopolitical, or financial data points may temporarily affect and shift the balance between those wanting to buy or sell, in the end, the price is solely determined by asset flows.
Notably, the amount of money flowing into assets has been remarkable since 2014. Despite many “concerns,” 2024 is on track to be the second-strongest year of monetary inflows since 2021. That statistic is amazing when considering the government was flooding the system with trillions in monetary and fiscal stimulus then versus contracting it currently.
Unsurprisingly, as asset prices increase during the “everything market,” more money is pulled into those assets, forcing prices to rise as demand outstrips supply. As we noted previously, for “every buyer, there is a seller…at a specific price.” That “demand” for stocks, gold, real estate, cryptocurrencies, etc., comes from many sources.
Hedge funds
Private equity funds
Corporate share buyback programs
Passive indexes
Pension funds
Institutional funds
Mutual Funds
Retirement plans
Global investors
Retail investors
Most important is the supply of capital from Central Banks.
Of course, a massive accumulation of cash in money market funds will face declining yields as the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates.
As noted, whatever your “thesis” for owning an asset probably isn’t the actual reason. There are three primary reasons why asset prices are rising in the “everything market.”
Liquidity
Liquidity
Liquidity
In other words, in an “everything market,” there is too much money chasing too few assets.
As noted, “money flows” are the “demand side” of the equation. As previously discussed, the “supply side,” or the amount of “assets available,” continues to decline. Such explains why managers continue to “chase stocks” despite high valuations.
“The number of publicly traded companies continues to decline, as shown in the following chart from Apollo. This decline has many reasons, including mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcy, leveraged buyouts, and private equity. For example, Twitter (now X) was once a publicly traded company before Elon Musk acquired it and took it private. Unsurprisingly, with fewer publicly traded companies, there are fewer opportunities as market capital increases. Such is particularly the case for large institutions that must deploy large amounts of capital over short periods.”
The same is true for gold. While the demand for gold increases as prices rise, the supply of gold has declined since 2019.
As such, gold is no longer a “risk-off ” asset with a negative correlation to equities but is now a risk-on asset, just like equities. The 4-year correlation to the S&P 500 is near previous peaks, with subsequent performance.
Of course, these “everything markets” can last much longer than logic suggests. However, they do end. What causes “everything markets” to end is whatever exogenous, unexpected event turns off the flow of liquidity.
Technically Speaking
As noted, “everything markets” can last longer than logic dictates. However, they eventually end, and we don’t know what will cause it or when. Take a look at the two charts below.
In each chart, I have denoted periods where three factors occurred:
The market traded at 2-or more standard deviations above the 4-year moving average
Relative Strength was overbought on a long-term basis
The MACD was elevated and triggering a “sell signal.”
In both cases, these technical extremes marked short to long-term corrections and consolidations for stocks and gold. For the S&P 500 index, these periods also corresponded to more important headline events such as the “Crash of 1987,” the “Dot.com Crash,” and the “Financial Crisis.” Notably, like the S&P 500, the technical deviations for gold are also at levels that have denoted short to long-term corrective cycles.
As Paulsen noted in his interview, “everything markets” typically last only six months to a year. He expects this one to be in force at least for “the next several months.”
“Although the road ahead, even if some of my thinking proves correct, will still be interrupted by regular bouts of volatility, investors may want to consider staying bullish during the next several months, finally enjoying a mini restart to this bull market and perhaps witness what full support can do for your portfolio.”
We have no idea what will eventually cause a shift in liquidity as the Federal Reserve and global central banks move back into easing mode. (The monetary conditions index combines interest rates, the dollar, and inflation. It is inverted to correspond to rising asset prices.)
Critically, September was the biggest month of monetary easing since April 2020 amid the global pandemic crisis.
Notably, an eventual reversal could be caused by a “crisis event” or a reversal of monetary flows. The technical analysis tells us that it will occur and likely when the fewest investors expect it.
But that isn’t today.
Of course, this is always the case, so investors regularly “buy high and sell low.”
Remember Warren Buffett’s famous words when investing in an “everything market.”
“Investing is a lot like sex. It feels the best just before the end.”
Of course, maybe that is why Warren has been raising a lot of cash lately.
California governor Gavin Newsom has just signed a new law banning local governments from requiring residents to present identification to vote in elections.
The legislation – introduced by Sen. Dave Min (D-Orange County) – is a direct response to a ballot measure approved this year by voters in Huntington Beach which required people to show photo identification at the polls.
The Republican-led city, whose leaders often tussle with Sacramento Democrats, has maintained that its status as a charter city gives it home rule over elections administration.
But Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber aren’t buying it: The officials sued Huntington Beach in April to invalidate the law, arguing it interferes with state voting rights protections. -Politico –Politico
California is one of 14 states that does not require voter ID at the polls – so, if a person wants to operate a car, hop on a plane, or rent an apartment in California – you need ID. Voting? Not so much.
“The right to freely cast your vote is the foundation of our democracy and Huntington Beach’s voter ID policy flies in the face of this principle,” said Bonta in an April statement coinciding with the state’s lawsuit against election security.
As Politico notes further, Min’s legislation is one of several bills introduced by Democratic state lawmakers over the past year which seek to cement Democrat control over the state protect poor disenfranchised ‘citizens’ who (per their argument) don’t have the resources or brainpower to obtain a license, yet want to participate in elections.
The changes aim to prevent Huntington Beach, Shasta County and other conservative local governments from establishing election policies that are often driven by suspicions of voter fraud.
Legislation from state Sen. Steve Bradford, signed into law Wednesday, clarifies record-keeping procedures for secure elections data and increases the secretary of state’s regulatory power over poll books and other voting systems used in local elections. -Politico
Last year, local officials in Shasta County, CA were unsuccessful in their attempts to get rid of electronic voting machines.
Wall Street remains deeply divided on the demand outlook for the new iPhone 16. Some analysts believe the iPhone’s new artificial intelligence features are driving a major upswing in the upgrade cycle, while others argue that demand for the higher-priced models has sputtered.
The latest note about iPhone 16 demand comes from Barclays analysts led by Tim Long and George Wang, who completed supply chain checks and found Apple likely slashed production of the new phone for the December quarter over weaker-than-expected demand.
“Our checks indicate that orders have been cut for Dec-Q iPhones at a key Taiwanese supplier. We have previously discussed shorter lead times across iPhone 16 models globally, both of which indicate softer demand for IP16, in our view,” Long wrote in the note to clients on Tuesday morning.
The analysts uncovered in supply chain checks that about 3 million units may have been cut at a top Taiwanese supplier. This is followed by a recent report showing that global iPhone 16 sales were down 15% YoY in the first week of sales.
“Overall, possible iPhone build cuts, weak sell-throughs and shorter lead times suggest a softer start to the IP16 cycle with a negative mix shift due to weakening consumer spend, macro pressure and competition,” they said, noting, “The roll-out of Apple Intelligence in Chinese language is not until CY2025, which may dampen early enthusiasm for IP16 in that important market. Europe is also likely to see a staggered AI launch through 2025, which could limit excitement for the new device.”
If the analysts are correct about their supply chain checks, they explained, “We think Apple’s order cut this time, if confirmed, implies the earliest cut in recent cycles as AAPL typically makes its first order adjustment in early/mid October based on sell-through data points.”
Barclays maintains an “Underweight” rating on Apple and forecasts a price target of $186, down from its prior target of $233.
Shares in the premarket are down slightly over 1% to the $230 handle, trading shy of record highs.
We have cited several other reports that show the hyped-up AI iPhone launch cycle has likely disappointed:
Meanwhile, analysts from Morgan Stanley said lead times for iPhone 16 Pro and Pro Max models were stabilizing, marking an unexpectedly positive development. Also, JPMorgan analyst Samik Chatterjee noted that demand trends are improving via its Apple product availability tracker. This was enough to fuel Apple shares higher on Monday.
Last month, Wedbush Securities’ Daniel Ives said this is the “beginning of an AI-driven iPhone supercycle.”
In short, Wall Street analysts are all over the map, with no clear consensus on the demand for the iPhone 16 since the launch last month.
Job Openings Unexpectedly Jump Over 8 Million On Record Surge In Construction Job Openings
One month after the “catastrophic” August JOLTS report presaged the ugly September jobs report, which in turn prompted the Fed to cut a “jumbo” 50bps and spooked markets that a recession was imminent, moments ago the BLS reported that in September (as a reminder, the Job Openings and Labor Turnover report lags the Payrolls report, which is due on Friday, by one month), job openings unexpectedly jumped by 329K from an upward revised 7.711 million in July (up from 7.673 million) to 8.040 million in August, smashing the median estimate of 7.673 million, and coming above the highest Wall Street estimate.
The August print was the biggest monthly increase in job openings since last August!
What is remarkable is that this unexpected spike in job openings comes at a time when 3rd party metrics, such as the ISM Mfg employment index keeps sinking, dropping to 43.9 in September…
…. with the divergence between the JOLTS job openings and the ISM’s percentage of respondents who believe employment will be lower, hitting a record high.
But what is even more remarkable – and laughable – is that the surge in job openings was primarily due to a time series which we pointed out last month indicated a collapse in the construction sector as the divergence between the job openings in the construction sector and actual construction jobs hit a record high. Well, after that particular print, the BLS decided to reverse the entire July loss and then some.
So how big was the August jump in construction job openings? Funny you ask: it was the biggest on record!
And while this number was clearly bullshit, coming at a time when new home starts is the lowest in years, the BLS decided to double down and reported that the balance of the job openings surge in August came from state and local government jobs, which surged by +78,000.
Because when in doubt how to goose the economy may as well as just make the deep state bigger.
Ignoring the data manipulation, in the context of the broader jobs report, in August the number of job openings was 925K more than the number of employed workers, 510K more than the number of unemployed workers (which the BLS reported was 7.115 million), up from last month’s 548k, which was the lowest since April 2021.
Said otherwise, in July the number of job openings to unemployed dropped to just 1.07, a plunge from the June print of 1.16, the lowest level since May 2021 and now officially below pre-covid levels.
While the job openings data set was an upside shock thanks to a record surge in construction sector jobs, where the weakness continued was in the number of hires, which resumed their drop, sliding by 99k to 5.317 million, just shy of the lowest since the covid crash, while the number of quits plunged to a fresh 4 years low of 3.084 million.
Finally, no matter what the “data” shows, let’s not forget that it is all just estimated, and it is safe to say that the real number of job openings remains still far lower since half of it – or some 70% to be specific – is guesswork. As the BLS itself admits, while the response rate to most of its various labor (and other) surveys has collapsed in recent years, nothing is as bad as the JOLTS report where the actual response rate remains near a record low 33%
In other words, more than two thirds, or 70% of the final number of job openings, is made up!
I like my sci-fi films. Tiktoks about the best sci-fi films of all times often recommend 2006 film Children of Men . I didn’t remember it as a truly great film when I first watched it – so decided to watch it again. On rewatching – I do think it’s a masterpiece. The long takes are mind-boggling. And I think the finale and the theme of movie was more moving now that I am a father myself. Recommended.
If you have not seen it – it imagines a future where a world-wide pandemic has rendered the world infertile. Strangely prescient, and yet also wrong. In “Children of Men” the collapsing fertility leads to a collapsing society. Japan has been the poster child of falling population, and yet societal collapse has yet to happen. Unsurprisingly, older societies tend to prefer order to chaos.
The IMF population numbers above assume fertility rates continue to remain low. One theme of “Children of Men” is that we as a species, want to procreate. That there are 8 billion of us pretty much proves that we are genetically predisposed to having children. While I understand the arguments that some people make that the world is overpopulated and not having children is a logical choice -again by definition within a generation or two groups that choose to have children should dominate the population. We have seen this in action in Israel, where the ultra-orthodox Jews now make up much higher proportion of children in Israel than their total share of the population, and are the most rapidly growing part of Israel’s population.
All of this makes me think that rising populations, and higher fertility rates are a secular theme, while the low fertility rates we have seen later are a “cyclical” story. So what could be driving this cyclical story? First of all – capitalism is not good for fertility. The shift right wards in global politics that happened in the 1970s marked the end of the baby boom. For countries in Eastern Europe that moved rapidly from Socialism to capitalism in 1990s have seen even more dramatic falls in fertility even as incomes have soared. It seems to me falling incomes relative to asset prices encourages falling fertility rates. Or if you can’t feed them, don’t breed them. But the fact of capitalism is that the owners of capital will constantly seek to pay the least amount possible for labour. What we have seen from 1970s to 2010, was that unemployment in the US was higher that it was in the 1960s. In recent years, initial jobless claims have remained remarkably low. If the average worker begins to feel more secure about the future, expect fertility rates to rise.
The second part of the argument is technological. Families are choosing to start having families later in life. This naturally reduces the window when it is possible to have children, leading to a falling fertility rate. My argument is that technology is improving to allow women to have healthy babies later in life. The biggest factor driving this is that realisation that the success of IVF is not tied to the age of the mother, but the age of the eggs and embryos.
As more and more women realise that freezing eggs before the age of 30, can give the opportunity to have a successful birth in your 40s, technology is increasing the window where women can have children. That’s the theory, but is it happening? The evidence so far is mixed. Denmark has by far the most liberal and supportive policies on IVF. When policy was changed a few years ago, there was a significant uplift in births, but recent data is showing that coming off again.
The problem is that the process of pregnancy is quite long, especially if you are using IVF. From deciding to undertake IVF, through to actually giving birth can be three or four year process. Another country I look at is Australia. Australia has universal healthcare, and published good statistics. Despite being a nation built on immigration, Australian fertility rates have been falling steadily.
As can be seen below, Australian mothers are becoming older. You can also see that the baby boom was driven by mothers suddenly becoming younger after World War II – a trend that has more than completely reversed. Baby boomers was a demographic aberration that is now passing through the system.
Australia combines its statistics on IVF (or Assisted Reproductive Technology – ART) with New Zealand. ART births have continued to climb, and are now nearly 6% of all live births.
But as mentioned, live births are at the tail end of a decision made two or three years earlier. Fortunately we can get statistics in Australia on the number of IVF cycles. These do not necessary correlate to births in a year or two, as cycles to freeze eggs could be far into the future. But it does show the intention to have children. As in the UK, freezing cycles are becoming more and more common.
So do we face a fertility crisis? I doubt it very much. In fact if was to right a sci-fi film about the future, the story would be more along the lines of as the baby boomer generation died out, demand for labour soared, as the working population declined. Rising political power saw government direct more spending to the young, which raised disposable incomes. Families could start to afford to have more children, and many women who froze the eggs in their 20s take the opportunity to have one more child in the late 30s and early 40s. Populations shifted younger again, and political parties actively courted the votes of the young and families, creating a virtuous cycle of pro-natal policies. This makes far more sense to me than predictions that Japanese, Korean populations will fall by half. Extrapolation without analysis is the bane of modern economics – it is such simplistic thinking. Mentally, it makes economists children, not men.
US Manufacturing Surveys Signal Stagnation, Employment Weak
According to S&P Global’s PMI survey, the US manufacturing sector moved deeper into contraction territory at the end of the third quarter of the year (dropping from 48.0 to 47.0 – the third straight monthly contraction in the soft data survey.
ISM’s version of the Manufacturing PMI survey also showed contraction (47.2 – worse than expected) for the sixth straight month…
Source: Bloomberg
New Orders remain in contraction for the sixth straight month, Employment tumbled back near post-COVID-lockdown lows, but Prices Paid softened significantly…
“The September PMI survey brings a whole slew of disappointing economic indicators regarding the health of the US economy. Factories reported the largest monthly drop in production for 15 months in response to a slump in new orders, in turn driving further reductions in employment and input buying as producers scaled back operating capacity.
“However, companies are sensing that at least part of the drop in demand is likely to be temporary, as spending, investment and inventory building have been paused in many cases amid the uncertainty caused by the Presidential Election. The prospect of lower interest rates has meanwhile raised confidence in the longerterm outlook, with firms anticipating that demand will be rekindled by lower borrowing costs if the political environment improves. Hence, despite the deterioration in the current business situation, business expectations about the year ahead have in fact improved.
“While the current weak demand environment has helped keep cost pressures low in the manufacturing sector, the potential for geopolitical events to drive energy prices higher alongside possible spikes in shipping prices poses upside risks to the inflation picture.”
So, to summarize – slower growth/contraction and rising output prices – that kind of stagflationary signal is not exactly screaming “50bps rate cut!!”
Iran To ‘Imminently’ Launch Ballistic Missiles On Israel; White House Warns
Axios is reporting that the White House has intelligence saying Iran imminently plans to carry out a missile attack on Israel in retaliation for the Friday killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
A senior White House has said, “The United States has indications that Iran is preparing to imminently launch a ballistic missile attack against Israel.”
“We are actively supporting defensive preparations to defend Israel against this attack. A direct military attack from Iran against Israel will carry severe consequences for Iran,” the official continued. Crude prices immediately responded to the headline…
It seems the White House is prepared to defend Israeli militarily, though there has been no official authorization in Congress (much less a debate).
The Pentagon on Monday confirmed that it is sending a “few thousand additional troops” to the Middle East to be on standby if needed to defend Israel from a broader attack. This is widely being seen as preparation for war against Iran, if needed.
This is to include the new deployments of squadrons of F-15, F-16, F-22, and A-10 fighter jets along with assisting personnel. It was only the day prior that President Biden was asked if he would be sending more troops to the Middle East. He replied: “No.”
LEFT (YESTERDAY): Biden answers “no” when asked if he’ll deploy more troops to the Middle East.
RIGHT (TODAY): The Pentagon announces they’re deploying more troops to the Middle East.
Watch: Yemen’s Houthis Shoot Down Another $30 Million US Reaper Drone
The Houthis have declared that they plan to intensify their ballistic missile attacks against Israel in light of the killing of Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and the new Israeli military ground assault on Lebanon.
The Shia rebel group of Yemen has also of late been intensifying its fire against US warships in the Red Sea. On Monday the group reported shooting down another US MQ-9 Reaper drone while it was operating over Yemen.
“The air defenses of the Yemeni Armed Forces shot down an American MQ-9 aircraft while it was carrying out hostile missions in the airspace of Saada Governorate,” a statement from Houthi military spokesman Yahya Sarea indicated.
US defense officials confirmed the shootdown to CNN. The Houthis claim it marks the 11th US MQ-9 downed over Yemen since hostilities began last year, however the Pentagon disputes this figure.
“I can tell you that that number is not accurate,” Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder has said. “It’s too high.”
A prior MQ-9 was reportedly shot down a mere two weeks ago, and each is estimated at around $30 million. According to the Houthi count, that’s well over $300,000 in US military hardware downed over Yemen.
Throughout the half-decade which preceded the Oct.7 attacks in Israel, many more Reapers had been lost, in connection with the prior Saudi-US-UAE coalition war against the Yemeni rebels. Last November 2023 and again in February of this year the Pentagon acknowledged that MQ-9 drones were shot down.
Both the US and Israel have conducted bombing raids of late on Houthi targets in Yemen, particularly on the key port of Hodeidah. Major Israeli strikes destroyed facilities there on Sunday.
Alleged footage of Monday’s shootdown:
Ansarallah vs US Air Force: Yemenis down a still-armed USAF MQ-9 Reaper drone over Saada province for the eleventh time since the Battle in the Red Sea began and ~14th USAF Reaper since 2017. The drone carried 500-lb bombs and Hellfire missiles. [Yemeni Armed Forces 30/9] pic.twitter.com/KhYWHiXS1V
“The Israeli enemy, with American support, launched 17 airstrikes on various civilian facilities in Hodeidah, including the port and the power station, which led to the martyrdom of five citizens and the injury of 57 as a final tally,” military spokesman Sarea said additionally on Monday.
But he vowed that attacks would escalate against the Jewish state. “The crime of aggression against Hodeidah will be met with a military escalation against this criminal enemy in the coming period,” he said. Israel’s anti-air systems have been very busy repelling projectiles from the directions of Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen of late.
What You Need To Know About Today’s Vance–Walz Debate
The two vice presidential nominees – Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz – will face each other in a debate on Oct. 1, one month out from the 2024 election.
Debate host CBS News announced on Aug. 15 that after proposing four dates for the matchup – Sept. 17, Sept. 24, Oct. 1, and Oct. 8 – the Harris–Walz campaign quickly agreed to the third.
In response, Vance said he accepted the date, while also pushing for another debate on CNN on Sept. 18.
“Not only do I accept the CBS debate on Oct. 1, I accept the CNN debate on Sept. 18 as well. I look forward to seeing you at both!” Vance wrote on X.
Traditionally, as Jacob Burg details below via The Epoch Times ,there is a single vice presidential debate per election cycle. On Aug. 15, Harris–Walz campaign communications director Michael Tyler said Walz would only participate in the CBS debate on Oct. 1.
Now that both campaigns have agreed to the showdown, here’s what you should know about the Vance–Walz vice presidential debate.
CBS News will broadcast the 90-minute debate at 9 p.m. ET with two commercial breaks, lasting four minutes each.
Network “Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell and “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan will run the debate from the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City, an area that often leans Democrat but was also a longtime home of former President Donald Trump.
In addition to the CBS broadcast network, viewers can watch the debate on all platforms and streaming services where CBS News 24/7 and Paramount+ are located. C-SPAN is hosting a live stream of the debate.
A total of 43% of registered voters say that they will watch the entire vice presidential debate live, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey. Those who said they would watch or read highlights made up 27%, compared to 18% who said they would watch part of it live, while 12% said they would not watch the debate. Only 24% said they will be watching the debate to help them decide who to vote for.
The survey also found that 49% of registered voters believe Walz is qualified to be president, if necessary, while 44% believe the same of Vance. However, 51% said that Walz isn’t qualified, and 56% said the same about Vance.
Of the registered voters surveyed, 86% said that they want to hear the candidates’ economic views, 76% said they want to learn about the candidates’ immigration views, 56% want to hear their views on abortion. Just 14% of respondents said they want to hear the candidates criticizing each other.
There will be no opening statements, and the moderators will begin by introducing the incumbent party candidate, Walz.
Vance’s podium will be on the left side of the television screen, while Walz’s will be on the right.
Both candidates will remain behind their podiums for the duration of the debate.
Like both presidential debates this year, there will be no studio audience.
Each candidate will have two minutes to answer questions, and the opposing candidate will have two minutes to respond. There will also be an additional minute for rebuttals.
The moderators are allowed, at their discretion, to give both candidates an additional minute to continue a topic. They will remain seated for the debate and are the only ones in the studio allowed to ask questions.
CBS will have lights in front of both Walz and Vance to indicate how much time remains for each response. Both candidates will also have a countdown clock.
Vance won the coin toss to determine the order of the two-minute closing statements and opted to go last.
CBS may opt to mute the microphones at any given point, but otherwise, they will both remain on for the debate.
Neither candidate will receive questions in advance of the showdown and campaign staffers are not allowed to interact with the candidates during the breaks.
Like the previous debates this year, no props or pre-written notes are permitted onstage.
Vance and Walz will be given a pen, a pad of paper, and a bottle of water.
How Are the Candidates Preparing?
Vance has spent large portions of the past month preparing for the debate and recruited Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) as a stand-in for Walz.
The senator has held prep sessions at his home in Cincinnati and online with team members and Trump campaign strategist Jason Miller.
Emmer has been studying Walz’s past debates and policy positions after spending time with him in Minnesota’s congressional caucus before Walz was elected governor in 2018.
Walz has enlisted the help of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who was a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate and has often appeared on Fox News defending his party’s policy positions.
Buttigieg also stood in for then-Vice President Mike Pence during candidate Kamala Harris’ pre-debate preparations in 2020.
Walz told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow following the Sept. 10 debate between Harris and Trump, “I fully expect that Senator Vance, as a United States Senator, a Yale Law guy, he’ll come well prepared.”
What to Watch For
Walz has labeled the Republican ticket as “weird” while Vance has argued that Walz is too progressive for voters.
Walz, 60, has a two-decade political record to draw on, including his governing experience in Minnesota and his years representing the state’s first congressional district, which had often voted for Republicans before Walz won it in 2006.
He also emphasizes his Midwestern roots and plain-spoken rhetorical style.
In newly unearthed video, Tim Walz BRAGS about overwhelming small-town America with migrants:
“We have more refugees per capita than any other state. That’s not just morally a good thing, it’s our economic and cultural future.
Vance, 40, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022 and has made strong appeals to both rural and working-class America in recent campaign stops, often championing U.S. manufacturing and energy independence.
While criticizing the Harris–Walz campaign, he has described them as radical liberals, particularly for Harris’s California roots and Walz’s gubernatorial policies.
Thomas Hollihan, a professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, said that conversationally, Vance is likely to be bold and declarative.
“I think we’re going to see a much more populist style of presentation from Vance,” he told The Epoch Times.
John Murphy, a professor specializing in presidential rhetoric at the University of Illinois, said Walz has a more relaxed approach to debating.
“He enjoys stories, he talks with people, and he uses a regular-guy, dad-joke speaking style. He is preeminently a personable speaker, shaped by the norms of conversation,” Murphy told The Epoch Times.
Vance has also strongly criticized Walz for mischaracterizing his retirement rank with the Minnesota National Guard.
Vance served in the Marine Corps as a public affairs officer and was deployed to Iraq for six months.
Walz has defended his military record, which includes 24 years in the National Guard, but the Harris campaign recently said he misspoke in a 2018 video where he mentioned “weapons of war that I carried into war.” He has never served in combat.
Aaron Dusso, a political science professor from Indiana University-Indianapolis, said the best strategy for both candidates is to always “try and seem competent on the issues that are not your campaign’s strength and then move as quickly as possible to talking about the issues that are your strength.”
“So Walz will want to continue to emphasize reproductive freedom and social issues like health care and education and continue to hammer Project 2025,” Dusso told The Epoch Times.
Vance, on the other hand, should stick to policy and avoid ad-libbing, Dusso added.
“Be a policy wonk; stick to the border, economy, and crime … even though crime is down and the economy is doing pretty well, it’s still best for Republicans to focus on those issues because the average voter sees those issues as their strengths,” he said.
