WEBVTT - Bloomberg Surveillance TV: June 17th, 2026 0:00:02.360 --> 0:00:09.920 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. 0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.440 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along 0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.680 with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day 0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:22.280 for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics 0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:24.880 from our global headquarters in New York City. We are 0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:27.680 live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine 0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.280 am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or 0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:33.919 anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg 0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:35.840 Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. 0:00:36.200 --> 0:00:40.240 George Conkalvis of MUFG writing, inflation concerns have been misplaced 0:00:40.520 --> 0:00:43.320 and rates may have seen the high prints for twenty six. 0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:46.560 That plus worsh talking hikes off the table is about 0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:50.200 to unleash a bond rally. George joins us here this morning. George, 0:00:50.240 --> 0:00:53.840 great to see you. Happy happy day if you celebrate 0:00:54.040 --> 0:00:56.440 a real question about how much this bond market can 0:00:56.520 --> 0:00:59.080 rally given some of the inflationary pressures. 0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:00.360 That yes are tied to oil, but all of some 0:01:00.480 --> 0:01:01.279 other issues as well. 0:01:01.360 --> 0:01:01.600 Yeah. 0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:04.280 Look, I think we are entering a summer of the 0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:06.080 bond market. I think we probably have seen the high 0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:09.640 prints for rates for a whole host of reasons. Look, 0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:13.240 oil prices, even in the midst of like literally a 0:01:13.280 --> 0:01:16.840 billion plus barrels of less production getting through the straight upfomoves, 0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:20.240 managed to stay contained. Right, So, like this idea that 0:01:20.280 --> 0:01:22.200 you're going to see like a second wave of higher 0:01:22.200 --> 0:01:23.679 oil prices, I don't buy that. 0:01:23.720 --> 0:01:26.280 We don't buy that. We've been skeptical of the move 0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:26.759 in general. 0:01:27.000 --> 0:01:30.000 And inflation has largely come from the inflation from the 0:01:30.000 --> 0:01:33.840 oil shock, and then some second order around the effects 0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:37.400 around some sort of pricing search charges that were added 0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:39.720 to core prices. But in general, there's not a really 0:01:39.760 --> 0:01:41.920 an inflation problem. Look at wages, Look at the way 0:01:41.920 --> 0:01:45.040 that the jobs markets behaving. It's still low paying jobs. 0:01:45.080 --> 0:01:47.720 You're not seeing the sort of impulse of inflation. We 0:01:47.800 --> 0:01:49.480 think that we've kind of seen the high end rates. 0:01:49.960 --> 0:01:52.400 So we'll get to the economic discussion later, because there's 0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:55.160 a lot of divergence even within pros and about exactly 0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:57.320 whether all of that is true in terms of wages 0:01:57.360 --> 0:02:00.000 and some other aspects. Do you think that Kevin Warresh 0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:04.280 truly can unleash the summer of bonds given the fact 0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:08.000 that ultimately he's really squaring off against credibility on one 0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:10.960 hand and the overhang of what could be coming from 0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:11.839 the White House and the other. 0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:12.440 Look, I think. 0:02:12.480 --> 0:02:14.880 Everyone has to temper their enthusiasm, including myself, because we 0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:17.359 have Let's see what happens with the MU and if 0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:20.160 that gets gets done, is a done deal by tomorrow? 0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:22.359 I think? Right, So, like let's see a men or 0:02:22.400 --> 0:02:27.079 of Friday, Let's see what happens there. But I think 0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:28.079 you know we're gonna. 0:02:27.840 --> 0:02:30.440 Start off at two o'clock into two thirty, right two o'clock, 0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:33.280 We're going to see did a Kevin Woies participate in 0:02:33.280 --> 0:02:35.799 the dot plot submission process? Like that's gonna be a 0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.799 big deal. Uh, And like what are the dots telling us? 0:02:39.240 --> 0:02:40.880 Is there going to be like a removal of the 0:02:40.919 --> 0:02:44.400 easing bias at the first first blush? I think this 0:02:44.440 --> 0:02:46.360 is going to be a kind of gradual toe in 0:02:46.600 --> 0:02:49.240 to becoming more like a change at the FED. But 0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:51.680 we don't see a drastic change of the FED starting 0:02:51.680 --> 0:02:53.920 off today. But we do think that you know, this 0:02:54.000 --> 0:02:56.400 is gonna He's just start pivoting the FED differently, and 0:02:56.440 --> 0:03:00.520 that's gonna rearrange the focus and less forward guidance and 0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:04.680 a shift from focusing on other policies towards rate policy. 0:03:05.240 --> 0:03:08.120 I think that if inflation truly has peaked, if oil 0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:10.880 is peaked, if rates have peaked, then you're going to 0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:12.880 see you can open up a window to cut rates 0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:13.679 at the end of the year. 0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:15.600 Does the labor market need to weaken further? 0:03:15.880 --> 0:03:17.280 I mean, it's not weak now, but does it need 0:03:17.280 --> 0:03:19.400 to weaken for him to be able to cut interest rates? 0:03:19.400 --> 0:03:20.760 I mean, I think we have to realize we have 0:03:20.800 --> 0:03:23.280 to look back and see if the labor data actually 0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:25.359 is honest, and we've had two years in a row 0:03:25.440 --> 0:03:28.880 of massive revisions every single year. The later we get 0:03:28.919 --> 0:03:30.920 in the year, we'll get more clarity on the true 0:03:30.919 --> 0:03:32.959 health of the jobs market. So it doesn't have to 0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:34.600 necessarily weaken it. I think it just has to be 0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:38.000 a combination of it's not strong as people think it is, 0:03:38.360 --> 0:03:41.040 and to the inflation story probably has peaked. It gives 0:03:41.080 --> 0:03:42.720 a window for the Fed to cut but. 0:03:42.960 --> 0:03:44.360 They're not going to get back to the two percent 0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:47.200 target this year. So what is going to the catalyst 0:03:47.240 --> 0:03:49.720 for them to really have that confidence? Given the fact 0:03:49.720 --> 0:03:51.840 that there are a lot of members on the committee 0:03:51.920 --> 0:03:55.640 that are concerned that basically inflation is prices are still 0:03:55.680 --> 0:03:57.560 too high and the labor market's not weak enough to 0:03:57.600 --> 0:03:58.320 have this bias. 0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:00.000 Look, there's a whole host that thing. 0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:02.000 I mean it depending on how you look at the 0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:04.840 data and you look at real pure cores, you can 0:04:04.840 --> 0:04:08.680 get down towards you know, mid mid twes by the 0:04:08.760 --> 0:04:11.440 end of the year, and into projecting into twenty twenty seven, 0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:13.600 you can start to get into the twos. So I 0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:16.360 think it's not about and plus, by the way, we 0:04:17.040 --> 0:04:19.760 defences eased the last two years with inflation well above 0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:23.000 their target, right, So it's more about what's your understanding 0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:26.120 of neutral? And that's why I think today's a we 0:04:26.160 --> 0:04:28.560 get to dop plot most likely how the dop plot 0:04:28.560 --> 0:04:31.920 looks like, and then what is the glide path from 0:04:32.000 --> 0:04:33.920 this year, which we think they're going to remove the 0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:37.760 one potential cut that was in the last forecast or projections, 0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:41.120 and what is the path towards neutral, Because like they've 0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:43.960 been very gingerly moving up neutral rate abound three and 0:04:44.000 --> 0:04:46.120 one eighth, are they going to move that up now 0:04:46.279 --> 0:04:48.359 at Kevin Warsh's first meeting, that would make no sense. 0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:50.800 So like they had to get down to neutral or 0:04:50.839 --> 0:04:52.160 redefine what neutral is. 0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:54.880 Well, that's something people are looking for. What is inflation? 0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:57.520 If you could choose your inflation, is it an inflation 0:04:57.560 --> 0:04:58.839 target that we're going to care more about? 0:04:59.000 --> 0:05:00.359 I'll choose one inflation target. 0:05:00.400 --> 0:05:03.240 How about anyone who's invested either Incursor or SpaceX and 0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:04.680 the new billionaires that have been minted. 0:05:04.720 --> 0:05:07.040 There's some inflation there. Given the fact that. 0:05:07.320 --> 0:05:09.560 Markets have absolutely been on a tear, how does that 0:05:09.640 --> 0:05:12.920 factor into the Fed's assessment of current conditions? 0:05:13.839 --> 0:05:17.520 I mean, look, the going is great when it's going. 0:05:18.600 --> 0:05:20.599 The question is how does it look like at the 0:05:20.640 --> 0:05:22.640 end of the year. We've had moments where we have 0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:25.039 these massive u fourth moves like we're in right now, 0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:27.360 and then they peter out and they burn out. So 0:05:27.400 --> 0:05:29.599 the question is is if the momentum continues and stocks 0:05:29.600 --> 0:05:32.479 continue to make new highs, yes, then you're building in 0:05:32.520 --> 0:05:35.279 financial conditions easing, which takes pressure off the FEN to 0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:37.960 do anything, or like, at least in their calculus, it 0:05:38.000 --> 0:05:40.440 would be less of a need to ease. But that's 0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:42.200 really a judgment call on where you think markets are 0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:42.600 going to be at. 0:05:42.560 --> 0:05:43.080 The end of the year. 0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:45.640 If you put this another way, is the summer of 0:05:45.640 --> 0:05:47.800 the bond going to be also the summer of the 0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:50.400 stock Because we've seen correlations between stocks and box bonds 0:05:50.480 --> 0:05:53.560 essentially good at one right, they've been directly correlated rather 0:05:53.560 --> 0:05:57.200 than diversely correlated as they have been historically. Why wouldn't 0:05:57.240 --> 0:05:59.720 any additional bond rally just continue to fuel and even 0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:01.839 bigger remove in the equity market. 0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:05.120 I mean, for like the long duration type sectors like technology, 0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:07.520 it probably would, right, I mean, until something breaks that 0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:10.279 correlation down completely, it probably would have kind of a 0:06:10.279 --> 0:06:14.360 self reinforcing mechanism. But you know, I do think that, 0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:15.960 you know, as we get towards the end of the 0:06:16.040 --> 0:06:20.040 year and we realize that our more optimistic collectively the 0:06:20.080 --> 0:06:21.360 market's more optimistic view. 0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:23.480 On the macro is proven wrong. 0:06:23.839 --> 0:06:26.040 You're going to see the bomb market end up winning 0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:27.279 out versus the stock market. 0:06:27.640 --> 0:06:30.360 Stay with us, multilintex Divanan's counting. 0:06:30.160 --> 0:06:42.160 Up off to this, Stephen Cook of the Council on 0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:45.560 Foreign Relations writing, clearly the President was done and grabbed 0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:47.640 the deal before him. He is going to spin it 0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:50.839 as a victory, but it heavily favors Roan. This raises 0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:52.560 the question why do we even. 0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:52.800 Go to war? 0:06:52.920 --> 0:06:55.080 Stephen joins us Now for more, Stephen why do you 0:06:55.160 --> 0:06:57.120 say that this is giving a win to a run 0:06:57.360 --> 0:06:59.440 given that we don't really know all the details yet. 0:07:00.640 --> 0:07:03.480 Well, we have a fairly good sense of what is 0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:05.520 going to be in this deal based on what's been 0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:10.760 leaking out to Bloomberg to be English and a variety 0:07:10.800 --> 0:07:13.320 of other news outlets, and what we've seen so far 0:07:13.840 --> 0:07:16.640 would suggest that the Iranians will retain their right to 0:07:16.880 --> 0:07:21.200 enrich uranium, They'll be able to export oil immediately, the 0:07:21.280 --> 0:07:24.440 blockade will be lifted, although the Iranians are saying that 0:07:24.560 --> 0:07:26.680 there will be freedom of navigation through the straight up 0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:29.080 worm moves, but only for sixty days and then they 0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:33.760 will levy a surcharge on transit through that waterway. Then, 0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:40.400 of course, there's nothing in the document about dismantling proxies. Yes, 0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:43.280 giving up the highly enricheranium, but if they can enricheranium, 0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:48.120 they can replace that stock of highly enricheranium. Basically, the 0:07:48.240 --> 0:07:50.280 United States walks away from this with a lot of 0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:54.920 tactical battlefield achievements, but what can only be described as 0:07:54.920 --> 0:07:55.920 a strategic defeat. 0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:58.640 Stephen I also noticed that there is no language when 0:07:58.680 --> 0:08:01.400 it comes to Iron's ballistic missile program. Has the Trump 0:08:01.400 --> 0:08:04.240 administration given up their three red lines, which has always 0:08:04.360 --> 0:08:08.840 been for years, nuclear ballistic missiles, and money to proxies. 0:08:10.440 --> 0:08:12.720 Yes, indeed they have given it up. There is nothing 0:08:12.880 --> 0:08:16.800 that we know of regarding ballistic missiles. The United States 0:08:16.840 --> 0:08:18.360 and the Israelis did a lot of damage to the 0:08:18.400 --> 0:08:21.280 ballistic missile program. But the fear is is that all 0:08:21.360 --> 0:08:24.760 of these resources that can flow into Iran, including the 0:08:24.840 --> 0:08:28.640 revenue from immediately exporting oil, can be devoted to reconstructing 0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:32.480 their capacity to build ballistic missiles. And it is one 0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:34.960 of the biggest ballistic missile programs in the world. 0:08:35.520 --> 0:08:37.480 So the first point and Tyler brought this up. 0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:41.040 According to the text Bloomberg has its hand on when 0:08:41.080 --> 0:08:43.880 it comes to the MoU means that this would include 0:08:44.000 --> 0:08:46.439 a permanent end to the war on all fronts quote 0:08:46.520 --> 0:08:47.640 including Lebanon. 0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:50.440 Is israel An agreement. 0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:52.240 With this absolutely not. 0:08:53.040 --> 0:08:56.160 The Israelis maintained that they will not give to run 0:08:56.679 --> 0:09:01.160 a veto over their security. But the Israelis are in 0:09:01.200 --> 0:09:04.839 a very difficult position if his belaw attacks and the 0:09:04.960 --> 0:09:09.160 Israelis respond. In a neighborhood of bear Root, for example, 0:09:09.600 --> 0:09:12.080 the Iranians will threaten to close the Straight of removes 0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:15.080 once again putting tremendous pressure on the global economy as 0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:18.560 we've seen over the course of this war. But Israelis 0:09:18.679 --> 0:09:22.120 are in an election season and Prime Minister Nitaio is 0:09:22.400 --> 0:09:25.199 not going to give up the fight in Lebanon, which 0:09:25.280 --> 0:09:29.679 is actually quite popular among Israelis. As President Trump's popularity 0:09:29.679 --> 0:09:32.160 among Israelis has dropped precipitously. 0:09:31.559 --> 0:09:33.719 In recent weeks, there is a sense right now that 0:09:33.800 --> 0:09:34.720 everyone's buying time. 0:09:35.040 --> 0:09:36.520 It seems like the Iranian regime is. 0:09:36.559 --> 0:09:39.000 Buying time to try to survive, and it seems like 0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:41.960 some Middle Eastern nations are buying time to create alternative 0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:45.439 roots from the Strait of Removes to export some of 0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:48.560 their supplies. The UAE this morning saying that they're planning 0:09:48.640 --> 0:09:52.000 to cut the dependency on the Strait of Hermoves to zero, 0:09:52.440 --> 0:09:54.720 saying that even if the Strait of Removes does reopen, 0:09:55.000 --> 0:09:57.440 nothing will change that plan. How much is this going 0:09:57.520 --> 0:10:00.520 to be an interim type deal for months, maybe years, 0:10:00.600 --> 0:10:03.160 trying to get enough through well nations in the region 0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:04.400 figure out workarounds. 0:10:05.280 --> 0:10:07.000 Yeah, I think that's a very important point. 0:10:07.120 --> 0:10:10.520 The Emordis and the Saudis certainly have options to build 0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:12.959 their way out of the Strait of Removes. The cut 0:10:13.000 --> 0:10:16.880 there is the Kuwaitis, the Bahrains absolutely do not have 0:10:17.080 --> 0:10:19.320 the ability to do with the Saudis and the Amorantis, 0:10:19.360 --> 0:10:23.240 so just by geography, so there'll be some countries that 0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:28.480 will be able to see this as an interim deal, 0:10:28.520 --> 0:10:30.839 and there are others of the pressure on it in 0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:34.240 order to see through so that they can navigate through 0:10:34.400 --> 0:10:37.640 the Strait of Removes. Their economies are absolutely dependent upon it. 0:10:38.600 --> 0:10:40.959 There is a big question though, whether we will get 0:10:41.000 --> 0:10:45.480 beyond this sixty day period of the MoU There's lots 0:10:45.520 --> 0:10:48.400 to be worked out here, especially on the nuclear front 0:10:48.600 --> 0:10:51.199 that took the Obama administration a couple of years. The 0:10:51.320 --> 0:10:53.640 President is suggesting that this is going to happen in 0:10:53.720 --> 0:10:56.640 sixty days, But overall, I think you're quite right, Lisa. 0:10:57.960 --> 0:11:00.240 The straight up remouves is something that is now seen 0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:02.760 as a problem for countries in the region, and they're 0:11:02.800 --> 0:11:06.520 going to do everything possible they can to ease their 0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:07.439 reliance on it. 0:11:07.760 --> 0:11:10.719 Twenty months, JCPOA took twenty months. Stephen, how long do 0:11:10.760 --> 0:11:11.600 you think this could take? 0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:15.720 Well, I think it can take quite some time unless 0:11:15.800 --> 0:11:21.120 the President really goes back on his red lines, there's 0:11:21.160 --> 0:11:24.199 every indication to suggest that he will, and the US 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:28.880 intelligence community has warned the president that their Iranians are 0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:31.440 unlikely to give up their nuclear program. 0:11:32.000 --> 0:11:34.760 Stay with US, Multlinpex Savannah's coming up. 0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:47.800 After this, and former Boston FED President Eric Rosengren expecting 0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:50.800 no forward guidance from Warsha's statement, writing the new chair 0:11:50.920 --> 0:11:53.560 is likely to want to emphasize at this meeting a new, 0:11:54.080 --> 0:11:56.079 less transparent communication style. 0:11:56.520 --> 0:11:58.719 Eric joins us now for more. Eric, great to see you, 0:11:58.800 --> 0:12:01.880 Thank you for being with us. Can we take anything 0:12:02.400 --> 0:12:04.400 from Kevin Worsh's first. 0:12:04.200 --> 0:12:06.840 Appearance on the board of the FMC back in two 0:12:06.880 --> 0:12:09.720 thousand and six to twenty eleven that we can pull 0:12:09.800 --> 0:12:12.920 forward to today as guidance over how he will really 0:12:13.320 --> 0:12:15.080 preside over this Central Bank. 0:12:16.120 --> 0:12:19.280 Well, I think he's made pretty clear that he thinks 0:12:19.360 --> 0:12:25.719 that previous fmcs have over communicated and that it's been 0:12:25.760 --> 0:12:29.680 a bit confusing, with a number of voices sometimes giving 0:12:29.800 --> 0:12:33.079 discordant opinions. So I think he's going to try to 0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:37.840 slow down the amount of speeches made by members. He's 0:12:37.960 --> 0:12:43.360 probably going to redraft the statement so that it's very 0:12:43.520 --> 0:12:48.679 factual and doesn't provide any forward guidance, and this is 0:12:48.800 --> 0:12:53.320 normally a meeting where the Summary of Economic Projections has provided, 0:12:53.720 --> 0:12:57.199 which includes a dot plot that gives the participants expectations 0:12:57.240 --> 0:12:59.800 off where interest rates will go. It will be in 0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:03.440 how he handles if they go through with that. It'll 0:13:03.520 --> 0:13:06.960 be interesting to see how he handles that, because even 0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:10.000 if there's no forward guidance in the statement, if they 0:13:10.160 --> 0:13:12.120 put the dot plot out, it's going to give some 0:13:12.280 --> 0:13:15.920 indication that many members of the FMC think the next 0:13:16.000 --> 0:13:16.600 move ought to be. 0:13:16.679 --> 0:13:17.360 Up not down. 0:13:17.679 --> 0:13:19.520 You said, if they put the dot plot out, do 0:13:19.559 --> 0:13:21.080 you think that there's a chance that they won't. 0:13:22.520 --> 0:13:24.600 I mean, at the first meeting he said there's going 0:13:24.679 --> 0:13:28.120 to be a regime change. I expect this meeting is 0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:32.440 mostly going to be about communications. Communications within the committee, 0:13:33.080 --> 0:13:37.880 communications about the statement, communications with the press conference, and 0:13:38.200 --> 0:13:40.599 at a very minimum, I think he's probably going to 0:13:40.640 --> 0:13:45.439 seek to de emphasize the Summary of Economic Projections and 0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:49.400 the dot plot with the hope that eventually it goes away. 0:13:49.520 --> 0:13:54.400 But when you talk about regime change sometimes is fairly quick. 0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:57.120 So it will be interesting to see what happens at 0:13:57.160 --> 0:13:59.680 the press conference and what actually is released publicly. 0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:01.720 Eric you also said he's going to try to slow 0:14:01.760 --> 0:14:04.240 down the number of speeches. How does he do that 0:14:04.320 --> 0:14:08.800 while also making sure he's gaining consensus amongst his new colleagues. 0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:12.720 I mean, I think it is a challenge, particularly given 0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:16.400 the president that many presidents probably have quite a lot 0:14:16.440 --> 0:14:18.440 of speeches that they've already agreed to give, as well 0:14:18.480 --> 0:14:21.240 as some of the governors. But I think he's just 0:14:21.360 --> 0:14:23.760 going to emphasize that he doesn't want to see forward 0:14:23.800 --> 0:14:28.520 guidance in any of the speeches, and that the forward 0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:31.360 guidance has often been misleading and misdirect at the market, 0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:36.560 and he thinks that both in statements and speeches, people 0:14:36.600 --> 0:14:39.320 should stick to the facts and explaining the policy that 0:14:39.480 --> 0:14:40.960 was just taken well. 0:14:41.160 --> 0:14:43.520 Is Warsh himself also going to speak less? And if 0:14:43.560 --> 0:14:46.160 that's the case, and Jonathan Farroh has brought up this 0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:48.720 point a lot, doesn't he just outsource how he's thinking 0:14:48.840 --> 0:14:51.080 to other members of the committee and then they will 0:14:51.120 --> 0:14:51.680 define him. 0:14:52.520 --> 0:14:54.960 I mean, he's indicated he thinks that the chair as 0:14:55.000 --> 0:14:58.520 well as everybody should speak less. We'll see how difficult 0:14:58.600 --> 0:15:01.920 that is, particularly if they're expecting to make significant changes. 0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:04.200 But I think if he does that, it's going to 0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:07.840 be in the context of the entire committee speaking less 0:15:08.000 --> 0:15:10.000 frequently and less. 0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:13.680 With less forward guidance than they have in the past. 0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:15.920 It seems like a lot of people have moved past 0:15:15.960 --> 0:15:18.240 forward guidance anyway, at least in markets, they've been looking 0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:20.480 at other metrics in terms of inflation, in terms of 0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:24.200 understanding exactly how tight the label market is. Do you 0:15:24.280 --> 0:15:27.480 expect any guidance for at least how the FED measures 0:15:27.520 --> 0:15:31.080 inflation Given the criticisms in the past that Fed Shair 0:15:31.160 --> 0:15:34.280 Kevin worsh has had about the exact metric. 0:15:34.160 --> 0:15:37.800 Used, the chair may talk about that in this comments. 0:15:39.520 --> 0:15:44.360 Usually those kind of discussions takes several meetings. The staff 0:15:44.520 --> 0:15:49.800 usually provides briefings, and there are a lot of economists 0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:52.400 that would work on the issue of what are the 0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:56.920 best measures of inflation, what's the best way to forecast inflation? 0:15:57.560 --> 0:15:59.560 So I would be surprised if that came out at 0:15:59.600 --> 0:16:02.800 this meet I think that probably will take several meetings 0:16:02.920 --> 0:16:05.720 before he would introduce anything different there. 0:16:06.080 --> 0:16:08.360 Do you think it's bad for the FED to communicate. 0:16:07.920 --> 0:16:11.640 Less It wouldn't be my first choice. I think that. 0:16:13.240 --> 0:16:15.400 During a period of regime change, if there really is 0:16:15.520 --> 0:16:19.720 regime change, then you need to explain what you're doing 0:16:19.800 --> 0:16:22.200 and why you're doing it, particularly if it's different than what. 0:16:23.760 --> 0:16:25.600 The previous two or three chairs have been doing. 0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:29.160 Do you think that the interpretation will be some sort 0:16:29.240 --> 0:16:31.960 of overly dubvish position. Do you think the implication will 0:16:32.000 --> 0:16:34.200 be sort of political or do you think the implication 0:16:34.280 --> 0:16:37.720 will just be more uncertainty, potentially having the opposite effect 0:16:37.840 --> 0:16:40.600 more volatility and leading to tighter financial conditions. 0:16:41.640 --> 0:16:45.200 I mean, Kevin has in the past talked about wanting 0:16:45.240 --> 0:16:46.800 to go back to the day where there's a little 0:16:46.800 --> 0:16:50.840 more mystique to monetary policy and not being quite as 0:16:50.920 --> 0:16:54.280 transparent in general. I think the challenge with that is 0:16:54.440 --> 0:16:58.200 both the public and investors are now very well informed 0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:00.600 about what the FED does and how the that effects 0:17:00.640 --> 0:17:02.960 the economy. So I don't think we can go back 0:17:03.000 --> 0:17:05.639 to where we were under green Span or Paul Volger, 0:17:06.760 --> 0:17:10.119 and I think that Kevin's thinking may evolve on this 0:17:10.240 --> 0:17:10.760 over time. 0:17:11.560 --> 0:17:15.080 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you the best 0:17:15.119 --> 0:17:18.440 in markets, economics, and geopolitics. You can watch the show 0:17:18.520 --> 0:17:21.399 live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to 0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:25.280 nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify 0:17:25.480 --> 0:17:27.720 or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the 0:17:27.720 --> 0:17:30.120 Bloomberg terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.