Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jai Ley.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course, on the Bloomberger St.
Speaker 1: Louis five. President James Bullard is in Jackson Hall, Wyoming
Speaker 1: for the Kansas City Feeds Annual Symposium. He's sitting down
Speaker 1: with Bloomberg's Michael McKee, and he's facing a really complicated
Speaker 1: situation at a time when China is now going to
Speaker 1: issue retaliatory tariffs. Let's head over to Mike McKee. We
Speaker 1: would like to welcome all of our viewers and listeners
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Television and at radio worldwide to Jackson Hall,
Speaker 1: where the Kansas City fat is holding its annual symposium. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: the Hawks were in control random selection of who got interviewed.
Speaker 1: But we're bringing in a dove now, Jim Bullard. He
Speaker 1: was one of the first to call for rate cuts,
Speaker 1: and you're still calling for rate cuts. Although you want
Speaker 1: basis points, you're not ready to do fifty This next time,
Speaker 1: I think there will be a robust debate about fifties.
Speaker 1: So I think it's uh, it's creeping onto the table here.
Speaker 1: But um, obviously the markets have it as a base
Speaker 1: case of twenty five basis points. J Pole characterized the
Speaker 1: rate cut on July thirty one is a mid course correction,
Speaker 1: but the markets are basically pricing it as the start
Speaker 1: of a rate cut cycle. How do you see it?
Speaker 1: How much accommodation does the economy need? I like to
Speaker 1: think about the mid nineties examples, the example and the example,
Speaker 1: And I know some of your viewers weren't around paying
Speaker 1: attention to financial markets at that time, but if you
Speaker 1: look at that, the feed adjust it was worried about
Speaker 1: let's say the Asian currency crisis, very similar to today,
Speaker 1: lowered the policy rate by about seventy five basis points.
Speaker 1: The US economy actually powered through that whole episode, and
Speaker 1: then the committee took took those insurance cuts away later.
Speaker 1: I think that's a great baseline idea about what we're
Speaker 1: looking at now, with a global trade war, global manufacturing
Speaker 1: and contraction and possible spillovers to the US. You want
Speaker 1: to ensure the economy against that and stay out of trouble.
Speaker 1: So you think maybe seventy basis points where you would
Speaker 1: see us stopping at this point, I'm saying that's what
Speaker 1: they did in the nineties. I don't know where we'll
Speaker 1: end up, but uh uh, you know, I do think
Speaker 1: that you've got this yield curve that's massively inverted here,
Speaker 1: and you got the funds rate as the very highest
Speaker 1: point on the whole yield curve. That doesn't make a
Speaker 1: lot of sense. So we have to react to the
Speaker 1: fact that there's been a down draft in global yield.
Speaker 1: What is it that you're ensuring against. There doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to be a demand problem in the US, it doesn't
Speaker 1: see to be a cost of credit problem. Now this
Speaker 1: is a This is a global slowdown, and and there's
Speaker 1: a trade war going on. I don't think there's resolution
Speaker 1: likely anytime soon, um. And this trade war is triggering
Speaker 1: other actions around the world, other countries thinking about reevaluating
Speaker 1: their own trade relationships. So this could um easily get
Speaker 1: out of control and easily feed back to the US.
Speaker 1: That's not my base case, but it is something that
Speaker 1: could happen. I think we should protect against. But how
Speaker 1: does monetary policy to do that? Well, lower rates will
Speaker 1: will stimulate our economy somewhat compared to what they would
Speaker 1: be otherwise, and that would help us power through the waters,
Speaker 1: the churning waters here of the trade war. A lot
Speaker 1: of people say lower rates won't help because the problem
Speaker 1: that we're having is companies cutting back because of trade
Speaker 1: war uncertainty. Not because they think that the economy, but
Speaker 1: it's the big economy. There are lots of other aspects
Speaker 1: to the economy. Uh, you know, intersensitive sectors that are
Speaker 1: gonna it's gonna matter for them. How much additional growth
Speaker 1: do you think you can provide to the economy. Well,
Speaker 1: that's a great question, and there's a long literature, much
Speaker 1: of it's been presented here at Jackson Hole over the
Speaker 1: years about you know, what the real effects of monetary
Speaker 1: policy are and how much the economy reacts. But if
Speaker 1: you think about the nineties Asian currency crisis, example, we
Speaker 1: actually argued in St. Louis during that period that because
Speaker 1: rates were lower because of the flight to safety, that
Speaker 1: that helped the economy get through that episode with kind
Speaker 1: of unscathed and so, uh, you know, maybe we can
Speaker 1: get an outcome like that this time around. Well, how
Speaker 1: much of it is the fact the idea that somebody
Speaker 1: will see lower interest rates and go buy a car.
Speaker 1: And how much of it is just reassuring people that
Speaker 1: somebody's watching out in the economy. Well, we do want
Speaker 1: to continue the expand, shin, and we're certainly willing to
Speaker 1: take all actions that we need to to continue the
Speaker 1: expansion as best we can. How much do you worry
Speaker 1: about the way Wall Street sees it, the idea that
Speaker 1: they think there's a recession imminent and they're looking at
Speaker 1: four additional rate cuts. Do you think they're reading the
Speaker 1: economy the outlook wrong? Well, if you look at the
Speaker 1: look at the yield curve, it's been a good predictor
Speaker 1: of slowdowns and recessions. And so if you have a
Speaker 1: recession prediction model, it's going to use the yield curve
Speaker 1: to try to predict that. So our job is to
Speaker 1: get the yield curve to be uninverted so that those
Speaker 1: recession probability models don't work anymore. That would be a
Speaker 1: great uh, that would be a great thing to do.
Speaker 1: I'm not interested in testing somebody's theory about this time
Speaker 1: is different about the yelk curve. Well, do you think
Speaker 1: that with the haven trade these days you might not
Speaker 1: be able to get long rates up because so much
Speaker 1: money is coming into the US because rates are negative elsewhere. Right.
Speaker 1: But there's a silver lining to that because that's driving
Speaker 1: longer term yields low, and that should be helpful to
Speaker 1: the U s economy. That's what happened during the Asian
Speaker 1: currency crisis. What are CEOs in your district telling you
Speaker 1: about what's happening What they see happening, um depends who
Speaker 1: you talk to. Uh. I would say in manufacturing, they're
Speaker 1: very much scrambling to reorient supply chains, think about new
Speaker 1: strategies that will work even in a more uncertain world. Uh. There.
Speaker 1: If you look at agriculture, that's very much a UM
Speaker 1: down industry, I would say for now, they've and they're
Speaker 1: very much affected by the trade war. So but on
Speaker 1: the other hand, consumer goods or something more closely tied
Speaker 1: to US consumer they're doing pretty well. Walmart reported out
Speaker 1: of our district last week that, you know, very strong sales.
Speaker 1: So I think there are um good things going on
Speaker 1: on the consumer side and the household side, which makes
Speaker 1: perfect sense. You've got, you know, a great labor market,
Speaker 1: unemployment near fifty year lows a lot of good things
Speaker 1: going on in that dimension, well, business has been helding,
Speaker 1: holding back on spending. Do C e O s tell
Speaker 1: you that they think there will be demand out there,
Speaker 1: there will be a reason to invest if they get
Speaker 1: past the uncertainty of trade wars go away. I think
Speaker 1: they'd be willing to invest, but they're kind of wondering,
Speaker 1: Oh wait a minute, now, how should I do this
Speaker 1: given the uncertainty that's out there? Uh? Do you worry
Speaker 1: that the fit is the only game in town and
Speaker 1: that people are putting too much responsibility for keeping the
Speaker 1: economy afloat on you? I do think uh, all eyes
Speaker 1: have turned to central banking, but that's that's over the
Speaker 1: last decade. And uh, I think a whole people are
Speaker 1: coming to the realization that you need other types of
Speaker 1: policies to help you. There are many, many policies pursued
Speaker 1: by federal and state governments, and it's the sum total
Speaker 1: of all those that help your economy. Would you think
Speaker 1: that the economic situation in the US now calls for
Speaker 1: a significant fiscal response. You know, we just got a
Speaker 1: budget deal through and it you know, it is more spending.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to see an analysis of that on
Speaker 1: the economy before I go to another spending bill on
Speaker 1: top of that. Inflation it was BIPARTISANSI you know, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, people say, well, there's never bipartisanship, but actually
Speaker 1: you got that through, So I thought that was pretty good.
Speaker 1: The minute showed that there was division on the committee
Speaker 1: in terms of inflation and some people thinking that cutting
Speaker 1: rates is. One of the reasons for cutting rates is
Speaker 1: that inflation expectations have slipped in that too low. I
Speaker 1: presume you're in that camp. Now. I'm very I'm very concerned.
Speaker 1: Excuse me about the five year tips break even, which
Speaker 1: is I'm not sure where it's trading today, but it's
Speaker 1: been trading very low. And if you subtract our thirty
Speaker 1: basis points to translate between CPI inflation and pc inflation,
Speaker 1: it says that markets are only expecting about one percent
Speaker 1: or maybe one point one percent inflation over the next
Speaker 1: five years, and we're supposed to hit two percent inflation.
Speaker 1: So I think we can afford to be kind of
Speaker 1: duvish here and get those inflation expectations up and hopefully
Speaker 1: hit our inflation target over the next five years. Well,
Speaker 1: again a question about what you can accomplish. Do you
Speaker 1: think you actually can move inflation expectations. Given that you
Speaker 1: had rates at zero for seven years and inflation couldn't
Speaker 1: hit two percent, Well, uh, we have to try while
Speaker 1: we can, and while we've got the what we're in
Speaker 1: the position to do so. I definitely think inflation expectations
Speaker 1: will move up if we if we uh, player cards
Speaker 1: right here. How long do you think we need to
Speaker 1: be in a rate cutting cycle as long as the
Speaker 1: trade wars are on? You know, I think the trade
Speaker 1: wars have been priced into markets, uh, in a way
Speaker 1: that they weren't earlier. I think as of May or
Speaker 1: April May time frame this year, markets were kind of putting,
Speaker 1: you know, making up numbers, but like probability on the
Speaker 1: idea that there would be a deal with China was
Speaker 1: just around the corner, just two weeks away, something like that.
Speaker 1: Now I think that it's shifted the other way, where
Speaker 1: Wall Street is putting probably a no deal anytime soon,
Speaker 1: the kind of the notion that that maybe the Chinese
Speaker 1: will just wait for the election and see if they
Speaker 1: can get a new president to negotiate with. So I
Speaker 1: think the all of that's now been priced in and
Speaker 1: so there's probably no more kind of downside to that
Speaker 1: at least. All right, Jim Bullard, St. Louis Fed President,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us on Bloomberg Television and radio work.
Speaker 1: All right, Thanks a lot, Mike, we'll send it back
Speaker 1: to you in New York. That was Bloomberg's Michael McKee
Speaker 1: speaking with St. Louis Fed President James Bullard. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be hearing right now from Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan.
Speaker 1: He is in Jackson Hole at the Kansas City FEDS
Speaker 1: Annual Symposey. I'm sitting down with Bloomberg's very own Michael McKee. Mike,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, and welcome to all of our
Speaker 1: viewers and listeners on Bloomberg Television and radio worldwide. We
Speaker 1: are with Robert Kaplan, the Dallas Fed President. Thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us again here on Bloomberg. A lot of people
Speaker 1: yesterday you took the comments of the Fed presidents who
Speaker 1: were interviewed as a sort of hawkish rebellion. But there
Speaker 1: are doves out there as well. And since you got here,
Speaker 1: we've been basically telling people you're sympathetic to the rate
Speaker 1: cut cause yeah, and you know, the disagreement within within
Speaker 1: the Fed, I think is much more about how to
Speaker 1: manage the risks. And the way I see the US
Speaker 1: economy is the U S consumers strong, and as long
Speaker 1: as the US consumers stay strong, we're not going to
Speaker 1: have a downturn or severe downturn. We're going to have
Speaker 1: solid growth. The issue is manufacturing. This week, global growth
Speaker 1: is decelerating, and if those intensify, that's going to seep
Speaker 1: into the rest of the economy. The consumer will be
Speaker 1: the last thing to go. H. And what what I'm
Speaker 1: concerned about is if those negatives intensify, you could have
Speaker 1: a negative jobs report UH in the next X number
Speaker 1: of months, and then you're gonna see weakness in the consumer.
Speaker 1: And if we wait to see that, I think we've
Speaker 1: waited too long. So I'm very open minded and constructive
Speaker 1: that we may need to make a policy adjustment here
Speaker 1: in the next X number of months. UH. And but
Speaker 1: I'm keeping an open mind, and I haven't made a
Speaker 1: decision yet, and I'll decide before the September meeting. How
Speaker 1: big a policy adjustment in the long run do you
Speaker 1: think we need? There was J Polla his July thirty
Speaker 1: first Press convert saying mid course correction and yet Wall
Speaker 1: Street pricing in right now, beginning of a red cut cycle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I've been I've been very open about saying unless
Speaker 1: I see meaningful further weakness, I view the the adjustments
Speaker 1: needed as tactical. They should be limited, restrain, modest. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I don't see this is the beginning of a
Speaker 1: rate cunning cycle. But we may need to make some adjustment.
Speaker 1: And for me, the reality check on that is when
Speaker 1: I look at the Fed Funds rate, I don't I
Speaker 1: don't worry as much about the debate between once and
Speaker 1: tens twos intends and how that's moving. I look at
Speaker 1: the Fed Funds rate versus the entire treasury curve, and
Speaker 1: the whole treasury curve has moved down in the last
Speaker 1: three or four months. The Fed Funds rate is now
Speaker 1: above every rate along the treasury curve, including the thirty year.
Speaker 1: That for me is a reality check that says, maybe
Speaker 1: policy is tighter than I might have thought three or
Speaker 1: four months ago, and we may need to make an adjustment.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a good, uh, good second check
Speaker 1: for me, which I am cognizant enough so they December
Speaker 1: a rate increase might have been a mistake, you know.
Speaker 1: Um uh, my own view is if you ask me
Speaker 1: on a what my forecast was for the economy, I
Speaker 1: would have said two and a half percent growth, and
Speaker 1: if I was wrong, the risks were to the upside.
Speaker 1: So in April I would have said I had my concerns,
Speaker 1: but no, I think policy setting is about right. We
Speaker 1: then had the China issue. We then had the threat
Speaker 1: against Mexico, which might have been more significant to number
Speaker 1: of businesses I talked to. We've had recent intensification, and
Speaker 1: now in light of these events since May one, now
Speaker 1: I think, uh, there's a there's an argument in improving argument,
Speaker 1: increasing argument that maybe the policy setting needs to be adjusted,
Speaker 1: but it's as a result of other policies away from
Speaker 1: monetary policy. Why was the Mexico threat worse than the
Speaker 1: China threat? So it's interesting the China threat clearly affected
Speaker 1: businesses here if you had a market you sold to China,
Speaker 1: like agricultural, or if you had logistics and supply chains
Speaker 1: that Mexico is central the so many companies in this
Speaker 1: country in terms of logistics and supply chains. When that
Speaker 1: threat occurred, even though we had a trade agreement not ratified,
Speaker 1: but a trade agreement that really for the businesses I
Speaker 1: talked to, Even though it didn't actually happen, it was
Speaker 1: so significant to their business that after that, most of
Speaker 1: them I talked to tell me they've now internalized that
Speaker 1: trade uncertainty is sort of a fact of life now.
Speaker 1: I think before that threat, they had thought, if we
Speaker 1: can resolve some of these agreements, maybe we'll settle down.
Speaker 1: I think the Mexico threat help business internalize. I think
Speaker 1: trade uncertainty is gonna be with us. And what I
Speaker 1: saw businesses do is become more cautious in terms of
Speaker 1: capex expansion plans. And I think that caution is still
Speaker 1: here today. Well that's not a cost of credit issue,
Speaker 1: nor is it a demand issue. So tell me how
Speaker 1: monetary policy, you guys making a rate cut is going
Speaker 1: to help any of this. Yeah, So to your to
Speaker 1: that point, if I talk to businesses today, every one
Speaker 1: of them says to me, probably without exception, listen, availability
Speaker 1: and cost the capital is not my problem. You know.
Speaker 1: Monetary policy, you guys, are not my problem. My problem
Speaker 1: is trade uncertainty and other issues related to that that
Speaker 1: are having challenging impacts on my business. Uh, here's the issue.
Speaker 1: If you look out over the horizon, and the job
Speaker 1: of a central banker is not to look at what
Speaker 1: the situation is today, is to look at what it's
Speaker 1: going to be over the next X number of months.
Speaker 1: If the policy setting is too tight, um then eventually
Speaker 1: you're going to see credit tighten. You'll see that, ultimately,
Speaker 1: I believe, tighten financial conditions, which will impact the economy.
Speaker 1: I think my job is to look ahead and balance
Speaker 1: these risks and to try to make risk management decisions
Speaker 1: so that the policy setting is more appropriate, because I
Speaker 1: know if it's too tight, it may seem innocuous for
Speaker 1: a number of months, but eventually I think that will
Speaker 1: lead my own years that will lead to a tightening
Speaker 1: and financial conditions down the road, even though we don't
Speaker 1: see attorny. But are you a hammer in search of
Speaker 1: a nail here? In this instant people expect the FED
Speaker 1: rate cut to solve the economy's problems, and it's not
Speaker 1: going to do that. So quite the contrary, And you've
Speaker 1: probably heard me say, I've been very vocal in saying
Speaker 1: the full crimer the center of gravity and US economic policy.
Speaker 1: They do not monetary policy. Uh, it's trade uncertainty, it's
Speaker 1: probably immigration policy to some extent, it's policies that relate
Speaker 1: to improve skill training, UH, infrastructure spending, but particularly for
Speaker 1: the insuring, trade policy and immigration policy, policies that could
Speaker 1: help us grow the workforce. That's the center of gravity
Speaker 1: and US economic policy. It's not that monetary policy doesn't
Speaker 1: have a key role to play, but it's not the
Speaker 1: full crimb of economic policy. And I regularly call that
Speaker 1: out because no, I don't believe monetary policy is causing
Speaker 1: if we have a slowdown, I don't think it's causing
Speaker 1: the slowdown. And if we have a severe slowdown, I
Speaker 1: don't think monetary policy See isn't going to be enough
Speaker 1: to arrest it either, But it still has a key
Speaker 1: role to play, and so we've got to make good
Speaker 1: decisions about it to play that key role. You probably
Speaker 1: know more about Wall Street than anybody else. I'm a
Speaker 1: fed given your background at Goldban Sacks. UH. Do you
Speaker 1: worry that by cutting rates you're going to just encourage
Speaker 1: financial shall we say, misallocations? So, um, you always worry,
Speaker 1: And this is one of the reasons why I've said,
Speaker 1: even though I'm open to an adjustment, UH, either in
Speaker 1: September over the next few meetings, I'd prefer not to
Speaker 1: have to make any adjustment because if you lower the
Speaker 1: Fed Funds rate, it reduced save, it reduce the rate
Speaker 1: for savers, it encourages risk taking. UM. Now, I will
Speaker 1: also acknowledge if you look ahole along the whole treasury
Speaker 1: curve to some extent, that horse has already left the bar.
Speaker 1: And I mean for investors, Uh, your fixed income alternatives
Speaker 1: have all declines substantially. The only rate that hasn't declined
Speaker 1: with it is the Fed Funds rate. So I think, uh,
Speaker 1: to some extent, the incentive to increase debt or leverage,
Speaker 1: which I've called out, that's already there because the treasury
Speaker 1: curve is where most businesses borrow. A number of them
Speaker 1: borrow on floating rate basis, but but a lot of
Speaker 1: them to fund share repurchase or mergers use the treasury curve.
Speaker 1: So I'm balancing that and I'm concerned about it. But
Speaker 1: I think most importantly, my my foremost in my mind
Speaker 1: right now is can we take steps that will help
Speaker 1: moderate this sloaning we're seeing, or help with the global
Speaker 1: slowing which might transmit to the United States and manufacturing
Speaker 1: weakness that that that appears could seep into the rest
Speaker 1: of the economy. That's those are the issues I'm trying
Speaker 1: to balance. But can't you be seen as if you're
Speaker 1: trying to bring FED funds down to the treasury curve
Speaker 1: being led around by Wall Street. I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: bring it down to the treasury curve, but I think
Speaker 1: the treasury curve being low is a signal that maybe
Speaker 1: a monetary policy is two tight. So no, we're not
Speaker 1: going to be led around by Wall Street. I think
Speaker 1: the curve is far more driven, not by monetary policy. Again,
Speaker 1: but if I watched the curve extremely carefully, been watching
Speaker 1: markets carefully for my whole adult life, the big moves
Speaker 1: in the treasure curve haven't been, to my eye, haven't
Speaker 1: been response to monetary policy. Action or rhetoric have been
Speaker 1: in response to trade uncertainty and other economic policies away
Speaker 1: from monetary policy. Last question, do you think we can
Speaker 1: talk ourselves into recession? Well? Yes, Psychology is a critical
Speaker 1: part of the economy, and I noticed that the August
Speaker 1: consumer sentiment numbers were a little bit weaker. And I
Speaker 1: think if you have continued uncertainty, um, if you have
Speaker 1: intensification of trade uncertainty or trade and not just with China,
Speaker 1: I mean more broadly with other countries globally uh visa
Speaker 1: the United States. Consumers pay attention to that and and
Speaker 1: this chain of events I mentioned earlier about weakness and
Speaker 1: manufacturing seeping to other parts of the economy eventually affecting
Speaker 1: the jobs market. Consumers are watching that chain of events too,
Speaker 1: and a very cognizant of in their own industry. And
Speaker 1: so sure, yet the psychology con turned negative and affect
Speaker 1: the economy, and we have to be cognizant of that.
Speaker 1: Robert Caplan, Dallas FED, thank you very much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thank this morning. We'll send it back to you in
Speaker 1: New York. That was Bloomberg's Michael McKee speaking with Dallas
Speaker 1: FED President Robert Kaplan. We're gonna be hearing from Cleveland
Speaker 1: FED President Laretta Muster in just a few moments. She's
Speaker 1: in Jackson Hole, Wyoming for the Kansas City FEDS Annual Symposium.
Speaker 1: She's sitting down with Michael McKee a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about what the FED can do to counter the uncertainty
Speaker 1: and markets, as well as what they are willing to do.
Speaker 1: So let us head over now to Bloomberg's very own
Speaker 1: Michael McKee, Thank you very much, and we'd like to
Speaker 1: welcome Lorettamester, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland,
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Television and Radio worldwide. Good morning to you,
Speaker 1: and thank you for coming out on a chilly morning
Speaker 1: here in the mountains of Wyoming. Uh. You have said
Speaker 1: that if the economy the data come in about as
Speaker 1: they have been, you don't necessarily see a need for
Speaker 1: another rate cut in September. But monetary policy works with
Speaker 1: long and variable lags, as we know, and now it
Speaker 1: appears with these additional tariffs from China coming on this morning,
Speaker 1: the trade wars aren't going to be going away anytime soon.
Speaker 1: So when you look at the economy six eight months
Speaker 1: from now, are you still confident that you don't need accommodation. Well,
Speaker 1: that's the key question, right is is we know trade
Speaker 1: policy uncertainty has been weighing on the outlook. You know,
Speaker 1: we talked to our business contacts. We've seen already business
Speaker 1: spending the weekend because of that tariff situation and the
Speaker 1: uncertainty around the tariff situation. And as this continues, we
Speaker 1: have to keep monitoring whether firms are going to continue
Speaker 1: to react the way they have and with caution whether
Speaker 1: it will begin to spill over in their hiring plans
Speaker 1: as well as they're spending plans, and whether that will
Speaker 1: then spill over to the consumer sector. And so I'm
Speaker 1: very focused on those risks to the outlook. So again,
Speaker 1: you do have to be forward looking, and that's a
Speaker 1: key risk, a downside risk of the outlook going forward,
Speaker 1: and I'm very attuned to that. And you know, when
Speaker 1: I talk to my contact, that's one of the key
Speaker 1: things that I'm asking, Are you changing investment plans? Are
Speaker 1: you continue on your hiring plans? Wages are moving up,
Speaker 1: which is a good thing. Consumers have been very robust
Speaker 1: in terms of their spending over this period of uncertainty,
Speaker 1: and that's the kind of thing that we need to
Speaker 1: keep watching. But again, I want to take the time
Speaker 1: that we have until the next steff I'm seeing in
Speaker 1: and beyond to continue with the assessings. And if it
Speaker 1: does turn out that those risks are manifesting themselves in
Speaker 1: a wider um across the wider part of the economy
Speaker 1: and things are stepping down, then right, that's an argument
Speaker 1: for why we might need to recalivate our policy downward
Speaker 1: because you by doing nothing in that scenario, you in
Speaker 1: a sense or tightening policy. And so that's the key
Speaker 1: question again. I think it's very important and we watch
Speaker 1: the data. Um if we were ever data dependent before,
Speaker 1: we have to be uber data dependant now and really
Speaker 1: be reacting to what's happening in the economy, not just
Speaker 1: as changes in sentiment, because uncertainty causes people to be
Speaker 1: sort of like, oh, I'm a little bit concerned about
Speaker 1: what's going forward, but are they actually making decisions based
Speaker 1: on that uncertainty And in that case then we might
Speaker 1: have to move things. What a business leaders telling you
Speaker 1: do they say things have gotten worse than they might
Speaker 1: be seeing a step down because of the impact of
Speaker 1: what's going on. So every business contact I talked to
Speaker 1: across a wad Strath always mentioned trade policy, uncertainty, UM
Speaker 1: and the teariffs as being something that there is a
Speaker 1: concern of theirs. The majority of the firms that I
Speaker 1: talked to still say they're on their plan for investment
Speaker 1: for the year. They're certainly still seeing tight labor markets.
Speaker 1: They're still trying to hire um and they're increasing wages
Speaker 1: to retain and to attract workers. The larger firms that
Speaker 1: have more multinational connections are affected by both the slow
Speaker 1: down and global growth and the trade policy and certain
Speaker 1: and they're reassessing their plans. So again it's sort of
Speaker 1: a mixed picture. But I would say that our firms,
Speaker 1: at least in the fourth district, and we have you know,
Speaker 1: exposure to manufacturing entiree, have been more robust and been
Speaker 1: able to actually respond pretty well to this uncertainty. They're
Speaker 1: very concerned about it. And you know, we have the
Speaker 1: next potential leg here of the expansion of the terrorists
Speaker 1: to the consumer side. I think that could be a
Speaker 1: catalyst for for changes and plans, but we haven't seen
Speaker 1: it yet, and I'd like to wait until we actually
Speaker 1: get some more information on how firms are reacting to
Speaker 1: that before responding in advance to it. Suppose you have
Speaker 1: to respond, Suppose you cut rates. This isn't a demand
Speaker 1: issue or a cost of credit issue. So how does
Speaker 1: monetary policy help. Well, it would be a demand issue
Speaker 1: at that point if firms stopped spending, right and then
Speaker 1: they stop hiring. You know, we're weak in their hiring
Speaker 1: and we see consumers pulling back because of the caution
Speaker 1: that is a demand issue, and in that case, lower
Speaker 1: interest rates as the equilibrium rate and the economy goes
Speaker 1: down as the appropriate thing to do. But again, we
Speaker 1: need to be looking at that hard data, looking at
Speaker 1: the information we gained from our business context. I think
Speaker 1: this information that we're gaining from Main Street, when we're
Speaker 1: going on and talking to businesses and talking to consumers
Speaker 1: and talking to labor market participants is going to be
Speaker 1: very important to us as we evaluate how we go
Speaker 1: forward here. When you look at what's happened on global
Speaker 1: Wall Street and the pricing in of many rate cuts
Speaker 1: going forward, do you worry that if too much burden
Speaker 1: is being placed on you and the FED to save
Speaker 1: the economy. So there's no doubt that bond investors have
Speaker 1: a more pessimistic view of the U S economy than
Speaker 1: perhaps some of the economists students and I do UM
Speaker 1: and have to take a signal from that. We can't
Speaker 1: just ignore what's happening there. Um. But there's also other
Speaker 1: reasons that those bond yields are down. One is that
Speaker 1: the US is a safe haven flow and that relatively speaking,
Speaker 1: our economy is doing better than other places and in
Speaker 1: the global economy. UM. I think the you know, the FED.
Speaker 1: My my main focus always when I'm sending policy is
Speaker 1: where are we where is the economy relative to our
Speaker 1: dual mandate goals. They're the beacons that we try to
Speaker 1: strive for, and we set our policy in order to
Speaker 1: hit those goals. And that's how we can do monetary policy,
Speaker 1: I think in the best way, systematically focusing on those goals,
Speaker 1: looking at the data, doing the best evaluation we kind
Speaker 1: of where the economy is going, and making sure that
Speaker 1: our monetary policy is appropriate for hitting those goals and
Speaker 1: maintaining those goals. There's other policies that can be brought
Speaker 1: to bear um in the economy. We know, work force
Speaker 1: development issues are something very relevant in the fourth district
Speaker 1: of course, you know, making sure that people have the
Speaker 1: skill sets to actually take the jobs that are available
Speaker 1: and to train for the future jobs. So there's other
Speaker 1: policies that can be you know, brought to bear to
Speaker 1: make sure that in the long run, our economy is
Speaker 1: healthy and that everyone can participate in a healthy economy.
Speaker 1: But again, monetary policy, dual mandate goals, that's got to
Speaker 1: be our focus. You work for a long time concerned
Speaker 1: that inflation would break out as the economy expanded, have
Speaker 1: you given up on that idea? So I think inflation
Speaker 1: actually is in a pretty good spot. We're clearly, you know,
Speaker 1: below our mandate, but you know, we've been pretty stable
Speaker 1: on the price front. And new research actually coming out
Speaker 1: of the Cleveland fin which looked at a cyclical fact
Speaker 1: parts of the inflation prices, and the cyclical part actually
Speaker 1: shows that as a labor markets have gotten tighter, those
Speaker 1: cyclical prices have been moving up. So I'm more confident
Speaker 1: that we're going to see this gradual increase of inflation
Speaker 1: back to our goal um because it does seem to
Speaker 1: be behaving the way we do. We may have to
Speaker 1: wait a little longer because there is a large part
Speaker 1: of inflation that is real a cycle well doesn't move
Speaker 1: with the labor market because of other factors that affect prices.
Speaker 1: So again, I think patient is called for. I'm not
Speaker 1: that concerned that we've been below target for quite a while.
Speaker 1: I think there's ways to explain that in terms of
Speaker 1: how deep the recession wasn't going forward, and I think
Speaker 1: inflation is pretty much moving up back along path well.
Speaker 1: As one of the bigger inflation hawks on the open
Speaker 1: market committee. What do you think of the idea of
Speaker 1: letting the economy run a little hot and asymmetric higher
Speaker 1: inflation rate for a while. There are various strategies to
Speaker 1: do that, but it all comes down to letting inflation
Speaker 1: run above your target, right. So I don't character myself
Speaker 1: characterize myself as a hawk. I'm trying to always balance
Speaker 1: our dual mandate goals in terms of price stability and
Speaker 1: full employment, and trying to calorate policy to hit those
Speaker 1: in a balanced way. Um So again, I do think
Speaker 1: that it's important that we always focus on those goals
Speaker 1: and take a balanced approach when we approach those. I
Speaker 1: always want to strive. If I had to pick an
Speaker 1: animal to be an owl, wh hopefully the question here
Speaker 1: is always whether you're a hawkr Adef. So I'm the
Speaker 1: ornithologist here trying to figure these things out. Do you
Speaker 1: worry though, that people are getting too used to the
Speaker 1: idea that there is no inflation in the economy? Obviously
Speaker 1: the FED keeps a very close eye on inflation expectations
Speaker 1: both consumers and markets. Have you lost control of inflation?
Speaker 1: So I don't believe we have. I think in the
Speaker 1: long run, inflation is a monetary phenomenon. I do think
Speaker 1: that some of the dynamics and inflation have changed, and
Speaker 1: in fact that Cleveland Fed has established a Center for
Speaker 1: Inflation research precisely because there's a lot about the dynamics
Speaker 1: that we still need to know about. I'm confident that,
Speaker 1: you know, inflation will move back up to target, and
Speaker 1: I'm confident that the Federal Reserve is going to set
Speaker 1: our policy rate to try to hit those dual mandate
Speaker 1: goals and maintain them. Do you leave the policy rate
Speaker 1: as low as it is or even lower for as
Speaker 1: far as the eye can see. So, you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of research that's gone into what we're the
Speaker 1: actual interests ad in the economy, the equaliment interest rate
Speaker 1: in the economy is, and there is real good reasons
Speaker 1: to think that it's lower now than it was in
Speaker 1: the past. Demographic reasons, uh, demand for safe haven assets
Speaker 1: or safe assets, and so there's a reason to think
Speaker 1: that interest rates are going to be lower going forward
Speaker 1: than they were in the past. And so, yes, interest
Speaker 1: rates likely will be lower than in the past. And
Speaker 1: then the question is, well, how do you manage monetary
Speaker 1: policy around then That's part of what the Framework Study
Speaker 1: of the FED is all about that we've been doing
Speaker 1: for the last year or so. Really is okay if
Speaker 1: we're in a low interest rate environment, what's the best
Speaker 1: way for the FED to actually set policy to hit
Speaker 1: our domandate goals? And do you have an answer yet?
Speaker 1: I think there's certain things you can do. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you know, when you think about the inflation
Speaker 1: UH rate, and you know the conversation we've been having
Speaker 1: about you know, how we hit the goal where we go,
Speaker 1: you know, just thinking about it in terms of instead
Speaker 1: of a point estimate like two percent, maybe think about
Speaker 1: it as a range, not necessarily making up for past
Speaker 1: d v A ations, but thinking about it in terms
Speaker 1: of a range, and that may actually be a better
Speaker 1: way to communicate where we are relative to our goal
Speaker 1: and going forward, given the precision with which right the
Speaker 1: measurements are, and how we can hit that and maintain
Speaker 1: it over time. One of the questions that's come up
Speaker 1: is whether or not we can talk ourselves into recession.
Speaker 1: You have a lot of tweets coming out of Washington,
Speaker 1: you have negative comments coming out of companies with earning season,
Speaker 1: and of course you have Wall Street UH absent that
Speaker 1: would we be in trouble. We're at a very lengthy
Speaker 1: recession recovery now. So it's an interesting thing that you
Speaker 1: bring that up because I've had a number of business
Speaker 1: contexts use that exact same thing. I think we're talking
Speaker 1: ourselves into a recession, and they're basing that on the
Speaker 1: fact that they look at their order book and they
Speaker 1: look at their loan demand, and they look at you know,
Speaker 1: depending on what sect that they're in, and they say, look,
Speaker 1: I look at things and I think, you know, we're
Speaker 1: about on trend. I think the growth is on trend.
Speaker 1: And yet they turn on the television and they read
Speaker 1: what's happening in the financial markings. They're saying, wow, you know,
Speaker 1: people are really cautious. So there is this difference between
Speaker 1: perceptions and sentiment and the reality on the ground so far.
Speaker 1: But I do think that, you know, if firms do
Speaker 1: take into account, oh things are more you know, uncertain
Speaker 1: than I've seen in the past, that can have a
Speaker 1: real impact on investment, spending, hiring, etcetera. Going forward. And
Speaker 1: that's a key rosk that we need to be a
Speaker 1: tuned to be going forward. Laretta Ester, thank you very
Speaker 1: much from the Cleveland Federal Reserve. Thanks for joining us,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. How's Bloomberg Michael mckeeb sitting down
Speaker 1: with Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester. We are now going
Speaker 1: to hear from Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker. He's in
Speaker 1: Jackson Hole, Wyoming for Kansas Cities Annual Kids at Kansas
Speaker 1: City FEDS Annual SYMPOSI. I'm sitting down with Bloomberg's own
Speaker 1: Michael McKee, talking about some of these issues, the FEDS
Speaker 1: reaction function in light of trade tensions. Let's hid to
Speaker 1: Mike McKee. Thank you very much, and again welcome to
Speaker 1: all of our viewers and listeners on Bloomberg Television and
Speaker 1: radio worldwide. And thank you to Patrick Harker for joining
Speaker 1: us this morning on a chilly morning here, we're only
Speaker 1: a few minutes away from j Pal's speech and we
Speaker 1: can't preempt him. But yesterday you said you'd be happy
Speaker 1: to leave rates where they are if the economy stays
Speaker 1: about where it is. But this morning we had further
Speaker 1: evidence from China that we may see the trade war
Speaker 1: extend for quite some time. Policy works with long and
Speaker 1: variable lags, as they always say, so when you look
Speaker 1: out eight months to a year, can you say you
Speaker 1: would be you would want to stay on hold, or
Speaker 1: do you need to act now to get ahead of
Speaker 1: something now? I think right now we are where we
Speaker 1: need to be. That said, there are clearly these downside
Speaker 1: rest of the economy, and I think we would have
Speaker 1: to act as appropriate if those come to fruition or
Speaker 1: even look like they're coming to fruition. The biggest concern
Speaker 1: I have right now is when you talk to business leaders.
Speaker 1: Nobody I talked to says that the cost of capital
Speaker 1: is inhibiting business investment, and that has been the drag
Speaker 1: on the economy right now. Is business investment not the consumer?
Speaker 1: The consumer has been the hero of the American economy.
Speaker 1: So if that's true, right the business investment is not
Speaker 1: being held back by the cost of capital, US reducing
Speaker 1: interest rates will have no effect. What's holding it back
Speaker 1: is uncertainty around policy, particularly trade policy. So is there
Speaker 1: anything for the FED to do at this moment? Are
Speaker 1: you feeling pressured to be the savior of the economy
Speaker 1: because you're the only game in town? So I think
Speaker 1: we have to act as appropriate when we see the
Speaker 1: economy having a shock. I don't see that right now,
Speaker 1: So I don't think we need to act right now.
Speaker 1: Do you anticipate from what your business contacts are telling
Speaker 1: you that the economy is going to deteriorate or are
Speaker 1: they kind of on hold too? A lot of them
Speaker 1: are on hold. I mean perfectly reasonable. If you're sitting
Speaker 1: in a board right now, a corporate board, not to
Speaker 1: make a big bet until some of this uncertainty resolves itself.
Speaker 1: It's an absolutely reasonable thing to do. What are they
Speaker 1: telling you about their economic outlook in the absence of
Speaker 1: trade wars? Would they be expanding? Yeah? What we hear
Speaker 1: is if the especially around manufacturing, right, if we had
Speaker 1: more certainty around manufacturing, particularly globally. I mean there are
Speaker 1: clear global risks, but those export lead economies like Germany
Speaker 1: are facing large challenges right now because of this uncertainty. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if that resolved itself, I think people would be making
Speaker 1: those investments. There's enough demand in the economy. Look at
Speaker 1: the consumer. The American consumer continues to buy. Would the
Speaker 1: consumer be the last person though, to feel the change.
Speaker 1: If you're waiting for retail sales to fall off or
Speaker 1: you're gonna then get a signal that's too late now?
Speaker 1: But why is the consumer buying? Because the job market
Speaker 1: continues to be strong, right, the labor markets continue to
Speaker 1: be strong, and so household incomes continue to be strong. Well,
Speaker 1: you've got to reaction function that has been based on
Speaker 1: the idea for decades of controlling inflation and keeping inflation down.
Speaker 1: Inflation has gone away as far as most people are
Speaker 1: concerned right now, and unemployment keeps going lower and lower.
Speaker 1: Do you need to change the way you look at
Speaker 1: the economy now? I think look, inflation clearly is a conundrum.
Speaker 1: That is, we don't really understand why it's been low
Speaker 1: for so long and just but it's not necessarily the case.
Speaker 1: And we see this around the world that if you
Speaker 1: have a more accommodative monetary policy, you're going to suddenly
Speaker 1: move inflation. That's not happened in other countries. And said,
Speaker 1: there's some underlying trends with the economy that are different
Speaker 1: today than before that we continue to try and understand
Speaker 1: in that situation where there's uncertainty, I don't think we
Speaker 1: should move precipitously in either direction. I think we should
Speaker 1: stay the course and see how things unfold. We do
Speaker 1: worry that Wall Street or Global Wall Street as it were,
Speaker 1: might overreact to FED rate cuts and miss allocate capital. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean one of the concerns as financial stability, that is,
Speaker 1: with rates going even lower, leverage rising, and that is
Speaker 1: a concern for the economy. Do you see it anywhere yet?
Speaker 1: A little bit in leverage lending, But it's something we
Speaker 1: need to keep her. It's only something I'm watching. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't say it's a situation that weren't any action at
Speaker 1: this point. One of the things that came out of
Speaker 1: the minutes this week was the idea that the FED
Speaker 1: should be acting, at least some people on the committee
Speaker 1: think so. To try to bring inflation up interest rates
Speaker 1: though we're at zero for seven years didn't work. So
Speaker 1: how much validity does that argument have anymore? So again,
Speaker 1: I think we're there's some underlying transfer inflation, but if
Speaker 1: you look at the latest CPI print, it's moving in
Speaker 1: the right direction. We are moving around two and we're
Speaker 1: close enough in my mind where I don't think we
Speaker 1: need to take action at this point. Well, as a
Speaker 1: FED continues, it's a review. One of the issues that's
Speaker 1: come up is do you let the economy run hut
Speaker 1: that inflation run above target for a while to make
Speaker 1: up how do you feel about that? So, yeah, average
Speaker 1: inflation targeting of some form. So that's an appealing idea
Speaker 1: in theory. In practice it's a little difficult because you
Speaker 1: are asking a future committee to act in a way
Speaker 1: that the current committee wants it to act, and that's
Speaker 1: very difficult. But if you let that happen, do you
Speaker 1: worry that inflation could get out of control again? Or
Speaker 1: are you fairly sanguine about the prospects for prices? So
Speaker 1: at this point I don't see inflation running out of
Speaker 1: control in most scenarios. Of course there are a few,
Speaker 1: but generally no, I don't see that as a risk
Speaker 1: right now, Well, then what is the FITS reaction function
Speaker 1: going to be? What are you gonna look at? So
Speaker 1: I can't speak to the FED. I can only speak
Speaker 1: for myself. And again I look at a strong labor
Speaker 1: market and rising wages, again slowly but rising wages. Look
Speaker 1: at inflation, and one of the things we continue to
Speaker 1: factor in is the financial stability question. When you look
Speaker 1: at the labor market and you see slowing hiring um
Speaker 1: still above the replacement rate. But is that because companies
Speaker 1: can't find workers or because they're getting more caut Is
Speaker 1: I think a mix of it too. But what I
Speaker 1: hear more than they're getting cautious is they just can't
Speaker 1: find the people, and not just people of the skilled positions.
Speaker 1: We often focus on those by just talking to a
Speaker 1: major homebuilder who said, I can't find people to carry
Speaker 1: bricks and sticks on the site, right, and so I'm
Speaker 1: limited in terms of how many homes I can build.
Speaker 1: So is this about as good as it gets that?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, it's been surprising in a
Speaker 1: good way that we're bringing more people off the sidelines
Speaker 1: into the American economy. That's a good thing for the
Speaker 1: person and for the American economy. And I think there
Speaker 1: may be a little bit more to run, probably not
Speaker 1: a lot more to run. So have you changed your
Speaker 1: economic outlook based on the trade wars, based on what's happening?
Speaker 1: Not yet. I mean, we we have predicted going back
Speaker 1: to trained growth to percent growth with the employment numbers
Speaker 1: coming down to about a hundred hundred and ten thousand
Speaker 1: a month. Now, we haven't changed that because the volatility
Speaker 1: in the policy itself, it's hard to predict and hard
Speaker 1: to put into any model. Well, if you haven't changed
Speaker 1: your views, Uh, where do you think the proper setting
Speaker 1: for monetary policy is Several participants in the Open Market
Speaker 1: Committee deliberations have told me, you look at the FED
Speaker 1: funds rate above the Yeel curve, and that just tells
Speaker 1: you you're too tight. Now, I think we're about where
Speaker 1: we need to be in terms of I think we're
Speaker 1: about neutral right now. Do you think that it is
Speaker 1: a problem that we're going to see slowing in funding
Speaker 1: in financial conditions, if uh, tightening of financial conditions, if
Speaker 1: the current settings stay, it's a risk, and it's a
Speaker 1: risk of monitoring, but right now I'm not forecasting that now.
Speaker 1: So you don't see the markets as disrupting at this point. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of altill the market, for sure, and
Speaker 1: the people watching them that interrupting the path of the economy.
Speaker 1: Now not at this point. I think the larger risk
Speaker 1: is this policy on certainty, particularly trade on certainty, and
Speaker 1: there's nothing you can do. But there's nothing we need
Speaker 1: to react as appropriate to that. But no, we can't.
Speaker 1: We don't drive that policy. Do you worry if you're
Speaker 1: trying to react that you're gonna be too late? Well,
Speaker 1: if I knew what it was and we could plan,
Speaker 1: but right now again, the volatility in the actual policy
Speaker 1: is too great for me to predict. How hard is
Speaker 1: it for you to do your job on a daily
Speaker 1: basis given the tweeted criticism of the FED. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean in the room when you're making policy decisions,
Speaker 1: because every FED person will tell you it doesn't affect us.
Speaker 1: But you go out and you talk to your constituents,
Speaker 1: do you do you detect a change in attitude among
Speaker 1: people these days? The main thing I hear when I'm
Speaker 1: out and about, and I was out and about in
Speaker 1: my district all summer meeting with people is the concern
Speaker 1: that FED independence is being threatened. I mean, everybody I
Speaker 1: talked to you said that FED, even though we're not
Speaker 1: perfect and we don't always make perfect decisions, that independence
Speaker 1: of the Federal Reserve is absolutely critical for the American economy.
Speaker 1: You're not hearing people come up to you and say,
Speaker 1: you guys are the bad guys. I don't hear much
Speaker 1: of that now. In fact, all summer, I didn't hear
Speaker 1: any of that. How much of a threat do you
Speaker 1: think there is to the FED independence? Is this more
Speaker 1: of a media creation than anything else? No, I think
Speaker 1: we are a creature of Congress, and we are responsible
Speaker 1: to Congress, and and so Congress could change the laws.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's in the foreseeable future, but we
Speaker 1: have to recognize that Congress has the absolute right to
Speaker 1: do that. But we need every day to earn the
Speaker 1: trust of the American people by acting on their behalf.
Speaker 1: The last question is the same question I put to
Speaker 1: all of your colleagues, and that is do you worry
Speaker 1: we can talk ourselves into recession? Yeah? I mean, I
Speaker 1: think the lack of animal spirits, you know, if that diminishes,
Speaker 1: that's real. I don't sense that that is widespread right now.
Speaker 1: I think there are some concerns, particular manufacturing. Although our
Speaker 1: last manufacturing business outlooks survey out of Philadelphia was good.
Speaker 1: So while even across the board manufacturing looks like it's weakening,
Speaker 1: there are pockets where it's still strong. So you're optimistic
Speaker 1: about where we go from here. I think we're I'm
Speaker 1: cautiously optimistic, is the way I would say, Well, what
Speaker 1: does cautiously optimistic mean? How much of a threat do
Speaker 1: you think is well? I think if again, particularly if
Speaker 1: it's policy uncertainty around trade, UH gets worse, we would
Speaker 1: have to act as appropriate. You keep using the same
Speaker 1: phrase that j Pile uses as zoos conferences and things
Speaker 1: like that. You mean cutting rates at that point, even
Speaker 1: if you think it doesn't work, Uh, well, yeah, because
Speaker 1: if it starts to affect the consumer. Right, So, on
Speaker 1: the business side, I don't think it had that channel
Speaker 1: is not very strong. But if it starts to affect
Speaker 1: the consumer and consumer confidence, because the consumer is the economy,
Speaker 1: that would have a real impact. So if we could
Speaker 1: do something in a way that would restore confidence to
Speaker 1: the consumer and put a little bit more money in
Speaker 1: their pocket through refinancing or whatever, that would be a
Speaker 1: good thing. You think they would respond then to lower
Speaker 1: interest rates. People respond to refinancing their mortgages for sure.
Speaker 1: Does there much of that left? It depends on where
Speaker 1: the rates are, right, all right, Pat Harker, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for the Philadelphia said thank you for joining
Speaker 1: us on Bloomberg Radio to Television this morning. We'll send
Speaker 1: it back to you. That's Bloomberg's Michael McKee speaking with Philotaph.
Speaker 1: You've fed President Patrick Harker. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio