Speaker 1: Situation where we needed to add accommodation. We have a
Speaker 1: range of tools, and we know from the things we
Speaker 1: did UM in the past that we have a number
Speaker 1: of UM options with respect to the maturity, for example,
Speaker 1: of our portfolio, with respect to asset purchases, or forward
Speaker 1: guidance that remain available to us. That are tools we
Speaker 1: could turn to in the unlikely event that we need
Speaker 1: to add accommodation. So negative rates is not something that
Speaker 1: we were actively considering, and that was not our reserved Here,
Speaker 1: Janet Yellen wrapping up her news conference, this is our
Speaker 1: special report the Fed decides. I'm Scarlett Foe here along
Speaker 1: with Mike McKee and Tom Keene live on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: and Radio and gentlemen um. Eric Chatzer pointed this out
Speaker 1: when Jennet Yellen came out with her announced that the
Speaker 1: first time around, despite a hears very prominently in this
Speaker 1: latest FED statement, the Federal Reserve deciding not to move
Speaker 1: interest rates, not to move on interest rates, and taking
Speaker 1: its forecast for the Fed funds target weight rising four
Speaker 1: times this year to two times. And that's despite a
Speaker 1: couple of things happening. Right. You have the global economy
Speaker 1: and financial developments they cite that way up high and
Speaker 1: also you've got rising core inflation, as we learned today.
Speaker 1: That was very interesting that Jenny Yellen came out and said, yes,
Speaker 1: the FED still believes that inflation is going to rise
Speaker 1: to its two percent target, but the inflation we are
Speaker 1: seeing today and recently may not be sustained. They seem
Speaker 1: to have adopted a view that they are not behind
Speaker 1: the curve, that they can run inflation a little bit
Speaker 1: hotter than normal, although she's denied that would be a
Speaker 1: specific plan, and that at this point they don't need
Speaker 1: to react to strength stronger not strength, but a stronger
Speaker 1: US economy. And the Fed is falling back on the
Speaker 1: idea that we are now globally data dependent. There are
Speaker 1: other regions of the world that are in trouble. European
Speaker 1: growth may be slower than people thought, and therefore it's
Speaker 1: prudent for us to wait instead of, as they've always said,
Speaker 1: reacting only to what happens in the United States. Global
Speaker 1: economic and financial developments continue to pose risks against this backdrop.
Speaker 1: The committee judged it prudent to maintain the current policy
Speaker 1: stands at today's meeting. Of course, the FED put out
Speaker 1: a new summary of economic projections that shows the economy
Speaker 1: growing a little bit more slowly, but unemployment still falling
Speaker 1: at the same rate and inflation rising at about the
Speaker 1: same rate. So it doesn't look like they have a
Speaker 1: lot of backup for their view that they need to wait,
Speaker 1: but certainly they are backing off. Like Tom, what do
Speaker 1: you think. I thought it's fascinating. I think the ballet
Speaker 1: that's going on. I think the questions are getting more
Speaker 1: sophisticated as we go through a lot of different press conferences.
Speaker 1: But all in all, when you look at the forecast,
Speaker 1: when you look at the change in the inflation and
Speaker 1: employing been in that it's important. I have immense challenges
Speaker 1: would longer run two percent statistic? We heard that from
Speaker 1: Richard Clarena earlier too. Right, right, Let's bring in Eric Schatzker,
Speaker 1: who asked the last question at the Janet Yellen news conference. Erica,
Speaker 1: you got some insight into what the committee thinks about
Speaker 1: negative interest rates, which is they're not actively looking into
Speaker 1: it or discussing it right now. No, and that shouldn't
Speaker 1: surprise us. Scarlett. What I wanted to know, as much
Speaker 1: as anything else, is what has the Fed learned by
Speaker 1: studying the European and Japanese experiment with negative interest rates.
Speaker 1: And you heard Janet Yellen say that in at least
Speaker 1: in her assessment, and I think she was speaking for
Speaker 1: the Central Bank, that the impact of negative rates, the
Speaker 1: effectiveness of negative rates has been mixed. That was the
Speaker 1: word that the term that she used to describe what
Speaker 1: she has observed. Now she said, there have been some
Speaker 1: positive impacts, some negative impacts. Quite honestly, I wish she'd
Speaker 1: gone into a little more detail. It would have been
Speaker 1: fascinating to hear Jenny Yellen dissect the effectiveness of negative
Speaker 1: interest rates in the Eurozone economy. But you know, that's
Speaker 1: that's It shouldn't surprise anybody that the Fed isn't actively
Speaker 1: considering negative interest rates, as you've seen from the dots,
Speaker 1: every single member of the m C, you know, regardless
Speaker 1: of the fact that they have scaled back their expectations,
Speaker 1: does expect does anticipate that interest rates will rise by
Speaker 1: at least half a point by the end of this year,
Speaker 1: right to rate increases this year if you count ms
Speaker 1: basis points. What's interesting in this negative rate discussion is
Speaker 1: uh nariana cultro la Coda, the former Minneapolis FED president
Speaker 1: who is no longer on the Fed Committee right now,
Speaker 1: had written on Bloomberg View that perhaps the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: should preemptively discuss things like negative rates. He says, if
Speaker 1: the Fed can convince people that it is willing and
Speaker 1: able to take rates into negative territory, it might actually
Speaker 1: be able to raise rates faster and higher. Views. Well,
Speaker 1: you're not gonna convince anybody with what Yellow said today,
Speaker 1: So it looks like essentially she's taking the table by
Speaker 1: saying they don't work at this point. But uh, the
Speaker 1: other point you made is we're not anywhere close to
Speaker 1: needing to worry about it. Well, I thought it was great,
Speaker 1: Eric Rock, congratulations on a terrific question, and the press
Speaker 1: conference in our Kyle Ricodanna makes very clear Yelling's comments
Speaker 1: on negative interest rates were very important. We need to
Speaker 1: get perspective from someone who works within the interest rate
Speaker 1: UH million Janni's capital uh Managements. Bill Gross joins us
Speaker 1: now from Newport Beach. Bill, I got like eight ways
Speaker 1: to go here, but I think it was exceptionally important
Speaker 1: what Cherry Yelling said to Mr Shatska, the idea that
Speaker 1: we're not gonna do negative rates, and she's really questioning,
Speaker 1: now do the work. What have we learned about negative
Speaker 1: interest rates in the last four weeks. Well, we've learned
Speaker 1: a lot of things from other countries over the last
Speaker 1: several years. Over the last four weeks, the you know,
Speaker 1: the dialogue has has increased, and I think the markets
Speaker 1: and the central bankers global air of getting to be
Speaker 1: aware that there are negative aspects to negative interest rates. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, Cherry Yellen cited the experience in Japan, and
Speaker 1: obviously the negative or zero interest rates for a long
Speaker 1: long time have not done much to stimulate inflation or
Speaker 1: to stimulate economic growth. The same thing in your land
Speaker 1: for a shorter period of time. And so I think
Speaker 1: some of the members that that are beginning to sense that, uh,
Speaker 1: negative interest rates and the lower and lower you go,
Speaker 1: the old FED model is not necessarily effective when you
Speaker 1: get to zero or below. Build this today's meeting, does
Speaker 1: today's press conference? Does it amend your portfolio? Will you
Speaker 1: make immediate changes? Yeah? I think to some extent. Obviously
Speaker 1: it's a it's a more devish FED. It seems to
Speaker 1: me that stan Fisher has been overruled to some extent
Speaker 1: by Cherry yelling. In terms of the forward policy, the
Speaker 1: dots have come down. I still think, though, Tom, it's
Speaker 1: interesting that the market, in terms of forward expectations for
Speaker 1: live war and for FED funds only anticipates a thirty
Speaker 1: to forty basis points a year for the next several years.
Speaker 1: The FED still is looking at a hundred. So the
Speaker 1: Fed is still a way above the market, and to
Speaker 1: the extent that the market is lower than UH to
Speaker 1: a certain extent, UH treasuries are fully priced at these lovels,
Speaker 1: And of course the FED sounded very doublish in today's statement,
Speaker 1: even as the fundamentals improved. If you were to look
Speaker 1: at the Atlanta Fed GDP NOWN tracker Mike McKee, what
Speaker 1: you would see is that the lifetime track of the
Speaker 1: domestic economy shows sub two percent growth right now, which
Speaker 1: is pretty much where it was at the December f
Speaker 1: O and C meeting. That's that green circle. They're certainly
Speaker 1: an improvement from January when the FED had its non
Speaker 1: live meeting. I guess you could say without the news conference,
Speaker 1: but it's interesting that the economy, overall views of it,
Speaker 1: has improved and the FED has actually turned more doublish now.
Speaker 1: Bill I'm looking at the dots plot on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: terminal and you can see the December dots plot and
Speaker 1: the oh I S curve below that. And the big
Speaker 1: argument was the FED was out of step with the markets.
Speaker 1: Then let's go ahead now to the current dot plot
Speaker 1: and the oh I asked curve. They're chasing their tail.
Speaker 1: O I S has gone way down because everybody's selling
Speaker 1: out of treasuries. Now, Uh, it's fed at all connected
Speaker 1: to what is going on in your world? Well, I
Speaker 1: think to some extent. I mean they're connected to the
Speaker 1: stock market. You know, the old bernanke uh put so
Speaker 1: to speak. Perhaps the yelling put is still in effect.
Speaker 1: That the stock market went down by you know, five
Speaker 1: or ten percent tomorrow, then yeah, the FED would respond,
Speaker 1: but I don't think they're fully responsive to uh, the
Speaker 1: effects of interest rates at the zero bound or interest
Speaker 1: rates in negative territory, and um, the effects are as
Speaker 1: such that they affect pension funds, they affect insurance companies.
Speaker 1: They think bank net interest margins, you know, basically financed
Speaker 1: cow pennies today in terms of the market are doing
Speaker 1: very poorly because they now sense that interest rates will
Speaker 1: go up less fast than they had previously. So it's
Speaker 1: a it's a negative for the finance industry, for pensions
Speaker 1: and for savers going forward, they can't earn as much
Speaker 1: as they should. Post cross conference like that, Bill Gross
Speaker 1: Mike is pushing the dollar lower. Gross a single annaly
Speaker 1: pushing the dollar down to new weakness and also esecuity
Speaker 1: markets up a billion. Where when where I wanted to go?
Speaker 1: And I should point out dots go on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: terminal for those of you who haven't, you can see
Speaker 1: all of this and I set it out of the
Speaker 1: radio plus app for Bloomberg Radio. Uh. The Fed at
Speaker 1: this point did it what Jannet Yellen did not talk
Speaker 1: about the impact of what they're doing keeping rates low
Speaker 1: for longer on financial markets. You've told us in the past, though,
Speaker 1: that you think there is a distortion to the markets.
Speaker 1: Is this not a danger? You're talking about pension funds
Speaker 1: and others who have long term obligations. Are we at
Speaker 1: risk of screwing things up? If they can tinue this
Speaker 1: for so for for the ex stated period, Well, well,
Speaker 1: I think to a certain extent capitalism is at risk.
Speaker 1: I mean capitalism depends upon a spread between a borrowing
Speaker 1: fund and and and and risk out on the maturity spectrum.
Speaker 1: And to the extent that that's very narrow, to the
Speaker 1: extent that savers can't earn anything on their money, then
Speaker 1: capitalism doesn't break down, but at the margin, it's it's
Speaker 1: hindered and hampered. And that's what we're seeing I think
Speaker 1: over the past several years in terms of economic growth.
Speaker 1: I don't think the Fed really has a sense, um uh,
Speaker 1: that the negative industrates really have a negative implication. They're
Speaker 1: they're they're looking to stimulate the economy via market prices,
Speaker 1: via asset prices, and have it flow down via a
Speaker 1: wealth effect, you know, to the rest of the real economy. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't think that's happening to the extent that they
Speaker 1: think it's happening. And so because of that, what you
Speaker 1: saw I did and what I started five minutes ago
Speaker 1: in terms of pension funds and insurance company is the
Speaker 1: long term effect basically hampers investment and hampers institutions with
Speaker 1: long term liabilities and makes them less credit worthy. And
Speaker 1: you know, Tom and Mike, as we look through the
Speaker 1: commentary out of the south Side analysis, this yellings dealing
Speaker 1: with this and I dare say, Bill Gross internationally has
Speaker 1: to deal with this. Explain to our audience what this
Speaker 1: divergence means for their yield future. Well, it has an
Speaker 1: important effect, an influence and effect on on the US
Speaker 1: market and other markets, to the extent that there's a
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty basis points spread between the German tenure
Speaker 1: and the U S tenure. And I haven't seen your chart,
Speaker 1: but I think that's about to spread, um, then to
Speaker 1: to a number of global investors. That's an attraction. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, if the US dollar holds its level, and
Speaker 1: it's not today, but if it holds its level relative
Speaker 1: to the Euro, then hundred and fifty basis points for
Speaker 1: equal credit is a pretty decent spread. And so yes, Um,
Speaker 1: your point is as well taken here Tom. That to
Speaker 1: the extent that the e c B is buy an
Speaker 1: eighty billion dollars worth of the bonds of a month,
Speaker 1: not German bulls, but eighty billion in the you know,
Speaker 1: in the euro complex, then that's going to affect treasuries
Speaker 1: and hold treasuries at artificial levels as well. Right, Bill,
Speaker 1: I've got to ask one more question. It's off script
Speaker 1: on the FED, but it's of national importance and Canadian
Speaker 1: importance as well. I guess I'll be rude and ask
Speaker 1: you if you own valued paper. It's been a blood
Speaker 1: bath the last few days. But seriously, Bill gross when
Speaker 1: when we look at the confidence lost with the collapse
Speaker 1: of a valiant you and I have seen this before.
Speaker 1: What does that signal in terms of bond confidence across
Speaker 1: the corporate space. Well, at that's suggestive of of leverage
Speaker 1: and the uh. You know, back in my day town
Speaker 1: when I when I studied at the Anderson Graduate School
Speaker 1: in nine seventy one, there were companies called conglomerates in
Speaker 1: which they used leverage to buy companies to increase their
Speaker 1: earnings per share based upon the difference in pe ratios.
Speaker 1: That's to a certain extent what's happened here. In addition,
Speaker 1: you know, they're in the pharmaceutical market, where pricing of
Speaker 1: products the subject of political problems at the moment and
Speaker 1: certainly going forward, and so that combination has been deadly
Speaker 1: for the price of that stock going forward. And by
Speaker 1: the way, we have a separate account that had those
Speaker 1: bonds when we brought the account in about twelve months ago,
Speaker 1: and we we sold the bonds the first day that
Speaker 1: the problems arrived and that's about three months ago. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, book girls, thank you for that
Speaker 1: clarity and value, in particular clarity on what we saw
Speaker 1: today from Chair Yellow and Scarlett. All right, let's bring
Speaker 1: back our own Eric Shotsko, who has been in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Attending the news conference hosted by FED Chair
Speaker 1: Janet Yellen. Eric, give us your final thoughts as we
Speaker 1: wrap up our FED special. Well, I want to talk
Speaker 1: about inflation for just a moment, and then I want
Speaker 1: to talk about these global risks that the FED pointed to,
Speaker 1: And the reason is that you and Bill were talking
Speaker 1: about inflation. There was a lot of concern in the
Speaker 1: room among the reporters there who are asking questions of
Speaker 1: Jenny Ellen about inflation and specifically what they seem to
Speaker 1: perceive as a disconnect between the figures that show accelerating inflation,
Speaker 1: whether we're measuring it by the PC, the Fed's preferred
Speaker 1: measure or gauge if you prefer, or by core cp I,
Speaker 1: both of which have surprised to the upside. Core cp
Speaker 1: I just a little bit of the PC quite dramatically
Speaker 1: as of late. And Ellen had a lot to say
Speaker 1: about inflation She said that the committee looks through oil prices,
Speaker 1: that fifty dollar oil would maybe move the path for
Speaker 1: course CPI up slightly, but with no real policy significance.
Speaker 1: She said that there may be some transitory factors involved
Speaker 1: in the in the recent acceleration of inflation, and she
Speaker 1: hasn't noticed any lasting upticking core inflation. She says that
Speaker 1: inflation expectations remained reasonably well anchored. Those are her terms.
Speaker 1: So we heard a lot about inflation. What we didn't
Speaker 1: hear a lot about notwithstanding the fact that they were
Speaker 1: at two maybe three questions on the subject, including from
Speaker 1: our colleague Chris Condon, were these global risks? When asked specifically,
Speaker 1: what were the global risks that the Fed perceives as
Speaker 1: uh I guess presenting a downside to the U S economy,
Speaker 1: she talked about the I m F cutting its global
Speaker 1: growth projection. She talked about no great surprise in Chinese
Speaker 1: growth effed expected it to slow down, a surprisingly negative
Speaker 1: GDP print in Japan and the fourth quarter, and weaker
Speaker 1: growth indicated by data in the Eurozone. But again no
Speaker 1: real depth on that, and no real discussion of the
Speaker 1: financial factors that the Fed explicitly referred to, and Chris
Speaker 1: Condon pressed her on FX rates, for example, and whether
Speaker 1: the transmission or at least if if foreign exchanges, the
Speaker 1: transmission mechanism between various monetary policies, whether that constrains the
Speaker 1: FED because the weakening or at least the accommodation in
Speaker 1: Europe and Japan strengthens the dollar, and all she really
Speaker 1: you had to see on that front was no, Scarlett,
Speaker 1: A simple no. Alright, Eric Shasker, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for doing yeoman's duty over at the FED. We want
Speaker 1: to now bring in Tom Purcella. He's the chief US
Speaker 1: economist at RBC Capital Markets and he joins us now
Speaker 1: from the RBC trading floor. So Tom to FED rate
Speaker 1: hikes is now what is being uh implied in the
Speaker 1: FED dot plot? Is this realistic? Do you see this
Speaker 1: as happening or is this still an aspiration? According to
Speaker 1: Richard Clarida, who had seen the four dots of the
Speaker 1: four rate hikes price into dot plots as an aspiration, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, I think it's in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways where so we were guided by them. Um, if
Speaker 1: they're telling us that they want to go twice this year,
Speaker 1: then guess what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna change my
Speaker 1: forecast to twice this year. I think that they should
Speaker 1: have gone four times this year. I think that the
Speaker 1: economic data lend itself to the FED going four times
Speaker 1: this year. But as Ye highlighted it, if she's going
Speaker 1: to be continuous, she's going to be continuously worried about
Speaker 1: what's going on in China and Japan and Europe. Uh
Speaker 1: And if you know spread widening is something that she's
Speaker 1: concerned about, all four things she's quite specifically mentioned as
Speaker 1: a reason for expecting a lower path, then I think
Speaker 1: you actually have to wonder, well, are they even gonna
Speaker 1: be able to go two times this year because a
Speaker 1: lot of these global issues that we're dealing with we
Speaker 1: really don't see going away in any material way. So
Speaker 1: if they're going to continue to be spooked by these things, uh,
Speaker 1: then then yeah, then maybe two is actually too high
Speaker 1: for the time being. Will stick with it, um, but
Speaker 1: I think it's a it's a massive question mark at
Speaker 1: this point. Going inside the terminal, looking at both the
Speaker 1: cp I core and PC core, they are the two
Speaker 1: measures of inflation the FED is looking at. The FED
Speaker 1: likes to look at PC which is the white line
Speaker 1: runs a few tens lower, but you can see both
Speaker 1: are rising significantly recently. She seemed to dismiss that as
Speaker 1: an issue. So let me give you a couple of
Speaker 1: things to think about. If you if you get gains
Speaker 1: a point one five month on month in core PC,
Speaker 1: you will be at two percent year and year by October, right,
Speaker 1: just for who don't know, point one five percent gains
Speaker 1: monthly is actually a pretty low hurdle. So you are
Speaker 1: going to see continue to increase his inflation. This is
Speaker 1: something we've been sort of pounding the table on and
Speaker 1: I would actually um take issue with one thing that
Speaker 1: she said, in particular that it's been the volatile components
Speaker 1: of inflation that I've actually been doing most of the driving.
Speaker 1: That this is actually untrue. Just look at the Atlanta
Speaker 1: Fed sticky measure of inflation. That might sound sort of
Speaker 1: like very wonkish for a lot of people, take a
Speaker 1: look at their website. It's the sticky measures of inflation
Speaker 1: that are actually doing all of the driving right now.
Speaker 1: So I think that whole idea that that that narrative
Speaker 1: that she was trying to push is a dubious one
Speaker 1: at best, just given the facts that are in front
Speaker 1: of us right now, right, Tom Purcella. We featured earlier
Speaker 1: Robert Gordon's optimism he of Northwestern on labor participation. Leggy
Speaker 1: up here. It reminded me of your wonderful work on
Speaker 1: wage inflation eighteen months ago or so. Benjamin apple Bomb
Speaker 1: of the New York Times brought this up at the
Speaker 1: press conference on slack. What's the level of slack out there?
Speaker 1: And this is a fact that's gonna have to catch
Speaker 1: up because the slack will disappear. It's it's hard to
Speaker 1: make the case that there's any material slack in the backdrop.
Speaker 1: I mean, you have to think about this practically for
Speaker 1: a second. We can have the conversation about the you
Speaker 1: know that the people sitting on the sidelines, and I
Speaker 1: think that's a fair question, uh, And I think it's
Speaker 1: something that probably needs to be addressed from a uh,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of a d C perspective. But when
Speaker 1: you think of it from a practical perspective, what companies
Speaker 1: are actually doing in terms of hiring their raising pay
Speaker 1: because there's not enough qualified workers. I mean, think about
Speaker 1: that practically. Um. Uh, you know, there's a reason why
Speaker 1: you're actually seeing increases in wages. And let me be
Speaker 1: very very clear, Um, I'm not making the case for
Speaker 1: a sort of rampant wage gains. Tom, as you know,
Speaker 1: you and I've been talking about this for a really
Speaker 1: long time. We've been making the case for modest increases
Speaker 1: in wages and we're already seeing it. And part of
Speaker 1: the reasons because there's a lack of qualified workers. There's
Speaker 1: a dearth of qualified workers and that's why you're seeing
Speaker 1: these wage so but but again it's it's funny like, sure,
Speaker 1: we had a good call on that, but but to
Speaker 1: what end? It doesn't matter? Right, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: not something that's resonating within the FED. Good point, Tom
Speaker 1: for Selly. We really appreciate your time and your analysis
Speaker 1: of the FED chairs comments. The chief US economists for
Speaker 1: Urbacy Capital Markets, Tom for Selling joining us from his
Speaker 1: office in New York. So, what I thought was interesting
Speaker 1: in the commentary on inflation was Jennet Allen, of course
Speaker 1: concerned about the energy price drop, calling that transitory on
Speaker 1: the way down. It's also transitory on the way up.
Speaker 1: What we don't know is what's going to cause them
Speaker 1: to raise rates. Now she's taken a lot of the
Speaker 1: measuring sticks off the table. The FED funds futures function
Speaker 1: now shows no move until September. What is it that's
Speaker 1: going to lead them to remind us? Before the press
Speaker 1: conference was for June. We have something to talk about
Speaker 1: tomorrow morning. I think I'll see you early. It's not right.
Speaker 1: It's never boring, folks. That is it for our FED
Speaker 1: coverage The FED decides on television and radio. Welcome to
Speaker 1: our special edition of Taking Stock on Bloomberg Radio today,
Speaker 1: coverage of the Fed's decision to pull back on the
Speaker 1: interest rate accelerator. I'm Kathleen Hayes and I'm Pim Fox.
Speaker 1: We'll be talking about FED share Janet Yelling. She said
Speaker 1: that caution is appropriate. This was during her news conference
Speaker 1: that followed the meeting. She summed up her approach in
Speaker 1: handling what is described as a vulnerable economy in a
Speaker 1: central bank that doesn't seem to have too many tools
Speaker 1: left if there are any new threats in order to
Speaker 1: derail the expansion in the United States very important. The
Speaker 1: feder Reserve had signaled him at the end of that
Speaker 1: there would be probably about four interest rate increases this year.
Speaker 1: They made the first increase since two thousand six in
Speaker 1: December basis points well, today the dot plot the Feds
Speaker 1: sort of casual look at where they think they're going.
Speaker 1: So there's only two interest rate increases. This is weekend
Speaker 1: the dollar that's having a big impact on commodity prices
Speaker 1: and commodity producing company. He's like Freeport mcmaran. And we're
Speaker 1: gonna be talking to the former president of these Minneapolis Fed,
Speaker 1: Gary Stern, to get his expert view on what this
Speaker 1: all means. Also, we'll be speaking about commodities with Frank Holmes.
Speaker 1: He is the chief executive, the chief investment officer of
Speaker 1: us A Global Investors, and also on bonds and the
Speaker 1: reaction in the bond market. We've got Cliff Noreene. He
Speaker 1: is the president of Babson Capital Management. He helps to
Speaker 1: manage two hundred and twenty three billion dollars. So we're
Speaker 1: going to find out what the