WEBVTT - Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran Talks Rate Cuts, Inflation, Future at Fed 0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:07.320 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. 0:00:07.760 --> 0:00:09.960 We begin this sound with investors searching for direction in 0:00:09.960 --> 0:00:12.680 a pivotal year, potentially for the Federal Reserve. FED Governor 0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:15.160 Stephen Myron dumpling down on his dubbish stants calling for 0:00:15.200 --> 0:00:17.079 the Central Bank tocount interest rates by more than a 0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:20.119 percentage point in twenty twenty six. Governor Myron joins US 0:00:20.160 --> 0:00:22.360 now four more. Governor, good morning, happy. 0:00:22.120 --> 0:00:23.759 New year, happy to hear, thanks for having me back. 0:00:23.800 --> 0:00:26.000 It's good to say. You've been very, very transparent about 0:00:26.040 --> 0:00:27.800 where you were on the dot plot and what your 0:00:27.800 --> 0:00:30.639 forecast is. So let's start there. Where are you for 0:00:30.720 --> 0:00:32.800 this year? Where's your dot? What are you looking for? 0:00:33.080 --> 0:00:35.200 Yeah, so I'm on surprisingly the lowest dot. I'm looking 0:00:35.200 --> 0:00:36.920 for about a point and a half of cuts. A 0:00:36.920 --> 0:00:39.000 lot of that is driven by my view of inflation. 0:00:39.040 --> 0:00:40.680 I gave a speech about this and you know about 0:00:40.720 --> 0:00:44.040 a month ago in December Columbia University. My view is 0:00:44.080 --> 0:00:47.159 that almost all of the excess inflation over target is 0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:49.960 due to quirks of how we calculate inflation. So, as 0:00:50.000 --> 0:00:51.760 you have talked about with many of your guests many 0:00:51.760 --> 0:00:54.720 times before, shelter inflation really really lags a lot, and 0:00:54.760 --> 0:00:57.120 because average tenant rents have caught up to new tenant rents, 0:00:57.120 --> 0:00:59.000 because market rents have been running at a one percent 0:00:59.120 --> 0:01:01.000 rate for a couple of years now, I think it's 0:01:01.040 --> 0:01:04.959 appropriate to sort of think about underlying inflation as abstracting 0:01:05.000 --> 0:01:07.479 from that a little bit. You know, the shelter inflation 0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:09.480 is indicative of a supply demand in balance from twenty 0:01:09.480 --> 0:01:11.920 twenty two to twenty twenty three, not twenty twenty seven. 0:01:11.959 --> 0:01:13.679 We need to be making policy for twenty twenty seven 0:01:13.680 --> 0:01:15.600 because of policy lags. And their side of it is 0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:17.600 the portfolio management fees that I'm sure you've talked about 0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:19.800 again with many of your guests many times stock market 0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:23.000 went up mechanically inflation moves higher despite many of your 0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:25.320 other guests, I'm sure no doubt telling you about fee 0:01:25.360 --> 0:01:28.399 compression and the asset asset management industry for decades. So 0:01:28.400 --> 0:01:31.280 you abstract from those two things. Underlying inflation is running 0:01:31.280 --> 0:01:33.160 at two point three percent. That's with the noise of 0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:35.600 our target. That sounds like an argument for neutral. You're 0:01:35.600 --> 0:01:37.760 making an argument though, for this year, for a combination. 0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:38.759 Where does that come from? 0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:41.720 Why are you looking for a combinative monetary policy stats 0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:42.640 cominggain to Washington. 0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:45.080 Yeah, so a couple things. First of all, as I 0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:48.320 just said, underlying inflation's running within noise of our target, 0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:50.640 and that's a good indication of where overall inflation is 0:01:50.640 --> 0:01:52.320 going to be going in the medium term. But then 0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:54.760 the unemployment rate is four point six percent, right, So 0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:57.240 that means that there's about a million Americans who don't 0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:00.360 have jobs, who could have jobs without causing unwanted and 0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:02.960 without causing unwanted upward pressure on inflation. I don't think 0:02:02.960 --> 0:02:04.680 it's right to tell those people that they shouldn't have 0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:08.760 jobs because we're just mechanically calculating inflation in some silly way. 0:02:08.840 --> 0:02:10.400 I just don't think that makes a lot of sense. 0:02:10.560 --> 0:02:13.240 The other thing is that because we've kept policy tighter 0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:15.200 than I think it ought to be, that makes me 0:02:15.280 --> 0:02:17.919 mark down our growth forecast for the future relative to 0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:20.519 where it should be. And so if we didn't need 0:02:20.600 --> 0:02:23.399 if we hadn't kept been keeping policy in my view 0:02:23.440 --> 0:02:26.120 too tight over the last year or so, it wouldn't 0:02:26.120 --> 0:02:27.480 be necessary to provide that type. 0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:29.959 Correctly, say, marked down in the future. Because they fed 0:02:30.000 --> 0:02:33.040 actually marked up GDP for twenty six What do you 0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:34.160 mean in the future no. 0:02:34.360 --> 0:02:36.639 So like when you look at these dots right in 0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:41.040 the set, they're projections of appropriate policy and projections of 0:02:41.080 --> 0:02:47.239 economic fundamentals like growth and inflation conditional upon appropriate policy. 0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:50.680 So my projections for growth and inflation are conditional upon 0:02:50.720 --> 0:02:53.519 getting my policy forecast right, my policy projection. If I 0:02:53.520 --> 0:02:55.480 don't get my policy projection because the rest of the 0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:57.760 committee is more hawkish than I am, then we wouldn't 0:02:57.760 --> 0:03:01.720 meet my growth and inflation projection. We'd underperform then. And 0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:03.920 so because policy has been in my view too tight 0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:06.520 for the last year, that means that my expectations of 0:03:06.560 --> 0:03:10.359 growth will ultimately be will ultimately be unsatisfied because we 0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:11.519 didn't get the policy that I wanted. 0:03:11.680 --> 0:03:15.000 You have GDP two point six percent roughly over the 0:03:15.040 --> 0:03:17.840 next few years. Are you saying that the appropriate growth 0:03:17.919 --> 0:03:20.119 rate is something like that two percent and two point 0:03:20.160 --> 0:03:22.520 six percent and not necessarily three percent are. 0:03:22.440 --> 0:03:25.800 Above Well, so that's conditional getting upon getting the policy 0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:29.239 projection that I want, right, I think, and I think, 0:03:29.280 --> 0:03:31.000 and part of that is due. So part of the 0:03:31.040 --> 0:03:33.320 reason why it's a little bit lower than I think 0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:35.520 two point eight two point nine is probably where more 0:03:35.560 --> 0:03:37.240 where it would be if we got if we sort 0:03:37.280 --> 0:03:39.560 of had the right policy the entire time. Part of 0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:40.840 the reason it's a little bit lower than that is 0:03:40.880 --> 0:03:43.360 because we got to account for policy having been too 0:03:43.360 --> 0:03:44.720 tight over the last twelve months. 0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:47.560 There's also a question about the reaction function. We're talking 0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:49.800 about the data that we're going to be getting tomorrow. 0:03:49.920 --> 0:03:51.840 What would you have to see to change your view? 0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:54.200 I mean, if we saw, let's say the unemployment rate 0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:57.640 go down to four point four percent, would you start 0:03:57.680 --> 0:03:59.960 to question whether one hundred and fifty basis points of 0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:01.520 cuts is really necessary this year. 0:04:01.680 --> 0:04:03.720 That's a great question. And before I answer it, let 0:04:03.760 --> 0:04:07.520 me step back a foot and say that my forecast 0:04:07.560 --> 0:04:10.440 is conditional upon shelter inflation coming down, right, And there's 0:04:10.440 --> 0:04:11.840 people who agree with me, by the way, Like you 0:04:11.840 --> 0:04:13.480 look at the research from Goldman Sachs. You know, it's 0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:15.960 pretty similar to where I am on shelter. They've got 0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:18.320 shelter inflation running below the pre COVID rate by the 0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:20.040 end of the year, similar to where I have it. 0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:23.880 Where I differ from a lot of my colleagues again, 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:27.000 is thinking that goods inflation is not being driven by tariffs. 0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:29.880 Don't see tariffs being driven by goods inflation. I see 0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:32.320 goods inflation. I'm not sure what's driving I listed a 0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:35.120 few possibilities in the speech in December. I think the 0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:37.320 jury is still out on that one. But if I 0:04:37.400 --> 0:04:40.159 end up being right on inflation and gold sorry on shelter. 0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:42.120 If I end up being read in shelter and Goldman 0:04:42.160 --> 0:04:43.919 ends up being read in shelter, and I end up 0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:46.560 being wrong on tariffs and everybody else is right on tariffs, 0:04:46.560 --> 0:04:49.080 then we're going to undershoot our target. Two sided risk 0:04:49.160 --> 0:04:51.800 is back, and I think that people haven't really internalized 0:04:51.839 --> 0:04:54.280 that yet, and I think it's important to appreciate that. Now, 0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:56.560 where would I be wrong Because so much of my 0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:59.560 disinflation forecast is based upon shelter, I'm going to be 0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:01.280 wrong if market rents pick up again. 0:05:01.360 --> 0:05:03.080 So you're saying this is all an inflation issue and 0:05:03.160 --> 0:05:04.560 not anything to do with the labor market. 0:05:04.839 --> 0:05:07.239 Now, as I said before, unemployment is unemployment is somewhat 0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:10.360 above the somewhat above what where I view the natural rate, 0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:13.599 And so it's sixty basis points a million people you 0:05:13.600 --> 0:05:16.600 know of unnecessary unemployment that we could reduce by having 0:05:16.640 --> 0:05:17.560 a more appropriate policies. 0:05:17.560 --> 0:05:19.200 Now it's Toalsa's point. Is there a line in the 0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:21.560 sand and the unemployment rate tomorrow that would maybe have 0:05:21.640 --> 0:05:23.240 you think about this a little bit differently. What if 0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:25.560 the unemployment rate drops down four point five percent or 0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:27.000 even four point four percent. 0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:29.080 Yeah, I would absolutely addst I would absolute adjust my projection. 0:05:29.120 --> 0:05:31.279 So if you look at the September step, right, I 0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:33.159 was fifty business points higher than I was in the 0:05:33.200 --> 0:05:35.720 December step. Part of the reason why I adjusted my 0:05:35.800 --> 0:05:38.400 dot down by fifty basis points is because the labor 0:05:38.440 --> 0:05:42.440 market didn't perform for my expectations that I had in September, 0:05:42.480 --> 0:05:45.360 and because inflation actually I performed to the downside, right, 0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:47.359 So it was appropriate to adjust my dot down. And 0:05:47.400 --> 0:05:48.880 then on top of that, we had the two type 0:05:48.880 --> 0:05:51.120 policies I described. So if the data come in a 0:05:51.120 --> 0:05:52.760 little bit better, yeah, of course I'm going to adjust 0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:53.279 my expectation. 0:05:53.440 --> 0:05:54.919 In just the past few weeks, we've heard from a 0:05:54.960 --> 0:05:58.000 number of your colleagues talking about how actually they feel 0:05:58.000 --> 0:06:00.880 like we're pretty close to neutral. Have you any inroads 0:06:00.920 --> 0:06:03.919 convincing them that they're not right about this the way you. 0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:06.159 See the world, You know, can't I can't speak for them, 0:06:06.360 --> 0:06:08.360 but you know, I think that every month we come 0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:10.359 in and the unemployment rate ticks up a little bit, 0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:12.560 and the inflation, you know, and the inflation data sort 0:06:12.560 --> 0:06:14.159 of seemed to be doing a little bit better. I 0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:16.640 think it's really difficult to argue that policy is neutral, 0:06:16.720 --> 0:06:20.120 especially when we've been on this course of gradual listening 0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:21.880 or the labor market for a couple of years now. 0:06:22.360 --> 0:06:24.320 It's just really difficult in my mind to sort of 0:06:24.400 --> 0:06:27.680 argue that policy is not restricting the economy. 0:06:27.760 --> 0:06:29.320 A couple of words to want to pick out, and one 0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:32.080 is neutral and the other is correct. I think it's 0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:34.960 very difficult to say this is where I think neutral is, 0:06:35.040 --> 0:06:37.440 and this should be the correct policy rate, because it's 0:06:37.480 --> 0:06:39.200 such a guessing game as to where neutral is. And 0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:41.440 I think you understand that. Of course. I also want 0:06:41.480 --> 0:06:43.600 to pick up the difference between being an economist and 0:06:43.680 --> 0:06:46.039 being a policy maker. When you say two way risk, 0:06:46.120 --> 0:06:48.240 I think that really makes us all think about speed 0:06:48.360 --> 0:06:50.960 and the appropriate speed to adjust monetary policy. When there 0:06:51.040 --> 0:06:53.719 is two sided risk, why do you think we should 0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:56.479 be going this fast this year in your mind to 0:06:56.560 --> 0:06:59.320 cut that aggressively in twenty twenty six. 0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:02.400 So same thing as I said in the lest few 0:07:02.400 --> 0:07:04.760 times I've been here, we're still materially above neutral in 0:07:04.760 --> 0:07:06.960 my mind, and there's not really a reason to be 0:07:07.040 --> 0:07:09.080 materially above neutral if the labor market is an a 0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:13.440 weakening path and inflation is underlying inflation's already running close 0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:15.680 stort target and on trajectory to hit it. To hit 0:07:15.680 --> 0:07:17.800 the target, there's just not a real reason to be 0:07:17.840 --> 0:07:21.080 so restrictive. And we're running unnecessary risks on the labor 0:07:21.080 --> 0:07:23.560 market by being so restrictive, and so in my mind, 0:07:23.720 --> 0:07:26.040 it's like we're selling options for nothing, and I don't 0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:27.160 see why we're selling those options. 0:07:27.280 --> 0:07:29.840 This just requires such a strong amount of conviction. Though, 0:07:29.920 --> 0:07:31.520 coming down of the pandemic, I think what we all 0:07:31.640 --> 0:07:34.120 learn was a massive degree of humidity because there were 0:07:34.160 --> 0:07:37.200 so many things that we thought were obvious that actually 0:07:37.440 --> 0:07:39.800 things just turned out to be completely the opposite. And 0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:41.440 I wonder if this year we should have the same 0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:44.200 approach to monetary policy. As a monetary policy official, do 0:07:44.240 --> 0:07:46.160 you have to sit here and say, actually, the prudent 0:07:46.200 --> 0:07:48.120 way to do things is actually to move slowly and 0:07:48.160 --> 0:07:50.400 work things out meeting by meeting, Because that's why I 0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:52.560 hear from other members of the committee, and I'm wondering 0:07:52.600 --> 0:07:54.280 why you see things so differently. 0:07:54.560 --> 0:07:56.080 Sure, So first of all, I'll say that I was 0:07:56.120 --> 0:07:58.680 right about inflation at coming out of the pandemic. And 0:07:58.720 --> 0:08:00.520 if you sort of go back to twenty twenty when 0:08:00.560 --> 0:08:02.240 I was in the Treasury Department, you know, we were 0:08:02.320 --> 0:08:05.320 arguing for a smaller stimulus package because we didn't see 0:08:05.600 --> 0:08:08.000 we didn't see COVID as a similar type of recession 0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:11.000 that we had POSTGFC, post dot com bubble, where you 0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:14.480 had persistently leveraging dragging on demand that caused the balance 0:08:14.480 --> 0:08:18.200 sheet recession with a persistent, slow, crappy recovery. Right, COVID 0:08:18.280 --> 0:08:20.760 was like a switch turned off. Right, people stayed at home, 0:08:20.840 --> 0:08:22.760 and the switch turned on when they started going out again. 0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:24.320 And so there wasn't going to be that slow recovery. 0:08:24.400 --> 0:08:26.880 And that's why we were pushing for for smaller stimulus 0:08:26.920 --> 0:08:29.920 packages because we didn't think that it narrated that type 0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:32.160 of package. We were concerned about inflation picking up. So 0:08:32.480 --> 0:08:34.800 I did I did get that. I did get that right, 0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:40.280 And I do understand the value of of being cautions 0:08:41.000 --> 0:08:43.400 and having humiliating these things. I will say my forecast, 0:08:43.440 --> 0:08:46.480 as I said before, is predicated upon shelter inflation and 0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:49.440 shelter is a weird thing where market rents give us 0:08:49.440 --> 0:08:52.319 a window into measured into the path of measured inflation 0:08:52.360 --> 0:08:55.720 that's very different than other sections of the inflation index. 0:08:56.000 --> 0:08:58.440 We know that market rents, a weighted average of single 0:08:58.440 --> 0:09:00.760 family multi family market rents have been growing at a 0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:02.920 one percent rate for two years now. We know that 0:09:02.960 --> 0:09:05.079 average tenant rents have caught up to new tenant rents. 0:09:05.160 --> 0:09:05.319 Right. 0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:09.000 There are statistically mechanical relationships that give you a lot 0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:11.400 of confidence that measured shelter inflation is going to come 0:09:11.400 --> 0:09:12.000 down a lot. 0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:12.240 Right. 0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:14.320 You don't have that type of confidence when you're talking 0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:16.000 about goods. I said before, I don't know what's driving 0:09:16.040 --> 0:09:19.680 goods inflation, Right, I don't have this forecast that goods 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:22.280 inflation is going to come down because it's just driven 0:09:22.280 --> 0:09:24.240 by tariffs that my colleagues seem to have. 0:09:24.679 --> 0:09:24.880 Right. 0:09:25.240 --> 0:09:27.880 I don't have that type of confidence on areas the 0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:30.079 index that I think are much more difficult to understand. 0:09:30.360 --> 0:09:34.520 Shelter is a mechanical thing from market rents to measured inflation, 0:09:34.679 --> 0:09:36.920 and therefore it's in my mind appropriate to have that 0:09:36.960 --> 0:09:39.319 high degree confidence. And to least's point, where would I 0:09:39.400 --> 0:09:41.679 be wrong if the market rents pick up again. If 0:09:41.679 --> 0:09:43.880 the market rents pick up, then I'm going to say 0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:47.520 my mechanical pass through from market rents into measured shelter 0:09:47.600 --> 0:09:49.800 inflation is getting invalided, and we'll see that. 0:09:50.040 --> 0:09:52.600 Just to hone in a little bit on the housing aspect, 0:09:52.640 --> 0:09:55.240 since that has been a really hot topic, how much 0:09:55.280 --> 0:09:57.480 signal would you take if you did start cutting more 0:09:57.520 --> 0:10:00.240 aggressively at the fetcher reserve and tenure yield rows and 0:10:00.240 --> 0:10:03.040 that actually created an issue for mortgage rights and the 0:10:03.120 --> 0:10:05.360 pass through there. It might actually help with disinflation, but 0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:07.960 it might as exactly be the outcome that you're looking for. 0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:11.040 Yeah, so this is an area where i'd want to 0:10:11.080 --> 0:10:13.760 where I'd want to have I'd want to not jump 0:10:13.800 --> 0:10:15.520 to conclusions because I want to sort of try and 0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:17.600 analyze and very carefully and thinking about what the market 0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:19.640 is saying, think about what the economy is doing. And 0:10:19.720 --> 0:10:22.160 if it's the case that you cut rates and you 0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:24.280 sort of get a burst of activity in some sector 0:10:24.320 --> 0:10:26.400 of the economy that's not housing and that ends up 0:10:26.440 --> 0:10:29.360 crowding out housing, then you know, you wouldn't really mind. 0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:32.160 You're focused on aggregates, you're focused on inflation, on area inflation, 0:10:32.200 --> 0:10:36.679 You're focused on aggregate unemployment. Right, If it looks like 0:10:36.760 --> 0:10:39.079 you cut rates and the bottom market is giving you 0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:41.960 a very clear signal. And I'm not just talking about like, 0:10:42.040 --> 0:10:44.240 you know, trading behavior for a week. I'm talking about 0:10:44.280 --> 0:10:46.800 a very clear signal over the course of a period 0:10:46.840 --> 0:10:49.360 of time that it's not the right move, then I think, yeah, 0:10:49.400 --> 0:10:51.000 you want to you want to take that signal, and 0:10:51.040 --> 0:10:52.760 you want to think about what's the market telling me 0:10:52.800 --> 0:10:54.720 that I missed? Is the market right? Am I wrong? 0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:56.400 Let me rethink my framework. 0:10:56.559 --> 0:10:58.800 You're going to miss this when it sort of it 0:10:58.800 --> 0:11:00.600 feels like you're enjoying this? Are you going to miss 0:11:00.640 --> 0:11:02.320 this when you have to leave the Federal Reserve? 0:11:03.480 --> 0:11:06.960 Well, you know, uh, that's not part of my forecast. 0:11:07.640 --> 0:11:08.640 How are you going to hang around? 0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:10.520 Oh? I have no idea. You know, we'll see. I 0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:11.960 don't I don't make personal decisions. 0:11:12.160 --> 0:11:14.720 Okay, you've had nothing at all from anybody. 0:11:15.440 --> 0:11:17.760 Uh, you know, I think that you know, we're very 0:11:17.800 --> 0:11:20.040 clearly now getting into getting into the new year, and 0:11:20.120 --> 0:11:22.040 the president. You know, the President has said in the 0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:24.400 past that he would make announcements as we got there, 0:11:24.480 --> 0:11:27.839 So you know, I imagine we'll be getting some at 0:11:27.840 --> 0:11:30.559 some point. But you know, I don't know. I don't 0:11:30.600 --> 0:11:32.280 know anything about my future, so I would, I would, 0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:33.040 I wouldn't mind it. 0:11:33.160 --> 0:11:35.280 What a position to be in. We're all sitting here waiting, 0:11:35.440 --> 0:11:37.000 just like you. Governor. Thank you, it's good to see you. 0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:39.120 Thanks for having thanks for saying so generous with your time. 0:11:39.120 --> 0:11:41.199 The Federal Reserve Governor there, Stephen Myron