WEBVTT - Instant Reaction: Jay Powell on Fed Policy

0:00:01.320 --> 0:00:05.000
<v Speaker 1>This is the sixth meeting of the FOMC. It's done.

0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:07.080
<v Speaker 2>To him, it is done. And we just wrapped up

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.320
<v Speaker 2>listening to Fed Shair J. Powell talking about the decision

0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:14.200
<v Speaker 2>and the economy and what's to come. Well, you know what, Carol,

0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:16.840
<v Speaker 2>The Fed leaves rates unchanged, signals one more rate hike

0:00:16.920 --> 0:00:19.319
<v Speaker 2>this year. Power says Central Bank to proceed carefully on

0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:21.000
<v Speaker 2>a rate path, carefully how many?

0:00:21.239 --> 0:00:22.840
<v Speaker 1>It was like a drinking game every time he said

0:00:22.880 --> 0:00:23.600
<v Speaker 1>careful or careful.

0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:24.919
<v Speaker 2>Hope you weren't drinking during that.

0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Wow, maybe some water you had.

0:00:26.360 --> 0:00:28.200
<v Speaker 2>Been you would be drinking a lot. And then to

0:00:28.280 --> 0:00:31.360
<v Speaker 2>your treasury yields, they went flat after that initial surge.

0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:33.519
<v Speaker 1>Unbelievable. All right, So let's get to it.

0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:36.159
<v Speaker 3>I will say, the Fed chief saying that there's so

0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:38.640
<v Speaker 3>much uncertainty around the timing of rate cuts, and that

0:00:38.680 --> 0:00:40.720
<v Speaker 3>was something I felt like in the press conference that

0:00:40.760 --> 0:00:42.800
<v Speaker 3>reporters were trying to pin him down to and he

0:00:42.840 --> 0:00:45.720
<v Speaker 3>would not be pinned. Although it does feel like higher

0:00:45.760 --> 0:00:47.760
<v Speaker 3>for longer, all right, So let's get to it. Let's

0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 3>get some analysis, because we did get an upbeat, upbeat,

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:53.760
<v Speaker 3>I should say, an update on those economic projections from

0:00:53.800 --> 0:00:55.760
<v Speaker 3>the Federal Reserve, and that was certainly something we were

0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:59.640
<v Speaker 3>all focused on what we have with us or who

0:00:59.680 --> 0:01:02.840
<v Speaker 3>we have this a former Bloomberg colleague, Eylanina Shalaeva, senior

0:01:02.920 --> 0:01:05.080
<v Speaker 3>US economist at BNP, parried about on zoom in New

0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:09.760
<v Speaker 3>York City and in Bloomberg Economics US economist Stuart Paul.

0:01:09.760 --> 0:01:12.520
<v Speaker 3>He's here in our Bloomberg Interactive Broker studio, Stuart, I

0:01:12.520 --> 0:01:15.840
<v Speaker 3>do want to start with you. What are or were

0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:18.360
<v Speaker 3>the key points of today's decision and what Jay Powell

0:01:18.480 --> 0:01:20.560
<v Speaker 3>chose to stress in that press conference.

0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:22.960
<v Speaker 4>So Powell is definitely stressing that he's going to be

0:01:23.000 --> 0:01:25.399
<v Speaker 4>maintaining a higher for longer posture. I think that some

0:01:25.400 --> 0:01:27.880
<v Speaker 4>of the confusion that came from the press conferences that

0:01:27.920 --> 0:01:31.520
<v Speaker 4>this is just a generally hawkish summary of economic projections.

0:01:31.560 --> 0:01:35.880
<v Speaker 4>That's really the content of today's F ONEC decision is

0:01:35.880 --> 0:01:39.840
<v Speaker 4>the summary of economic projections showing far fewer cuts in

0:01:39.840 --> 0:01:43.480
<v Speaker 4>twenty twenty four, more optimistic GDP growth path. But for

0:01:43.520 --> 0:01:46.480
<v Speaker 4>some reason, Powell, when he took to the podium, said

0:01:46.480 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 4>that a soft lending is not his base case. It's

0:01:49.440 --> 0:01:51.960
<v Speaker 4>almost as I was very surprised.

0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>What does that mean? That means things are better.

0:01:55.640 --> 0:01:58.720
<v Speaker 2>It's tim I mean, I took it as bad news.

0:01:58.960 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 2>I took it as you know, think aren't as good

0:02:00.640 --> 0:02:01.639
<v Speaker 2>as people think.

0:02:01.920 --> 0:02:04.760
<v Speaker 4>Well, we hear Bloomberg Economics think that there is some

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:07.920
<v Speaker 4>softness underneath the surface. I think that if we're trying

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:10.280
<v Speaker 4>to analyze the intent of the FED chairman here, we

0:02:10.400 --> 0:02:13.560
<v Speaker 4>have to think that he's trying to invoke some sort

0:02:13.560 --> 0:02:16.960
<v Speaker 4>of a memory of vulgar which is that he's willing

0:02:17.000 --> 0:02:20.080
<v Speaker 4>to do what's necessary to break the back of inflation. Yes,

0:02:20.160 --> 0:02:24.360
<v Speaker 4>he's optimistic about growth. That's why we or the median

0:02:24.440 --> 0:02:27.040
<v Speaker 4>member of the FMC at least is optimistic about growth.

0:02:27.400 --> 0:02:29.960
<v Speaker 4>That's what helps to explain the median projection for the

0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:33.680
<v Speaker 4>FED funds rate maintaining that higher for longer posture ending

0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:36.720
<v Speaker 4>twenty twenty four at five point one percent five to

0:02:36.760 --> 0:02:39.359
<v Speaker 4>five and a quarter range. And if the Fed is

0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:42.239
<v Speaker 4>ever going to have to rain in inflation, maybe something

0:02:42.320 --> 0:02:44.840
<v Speaker 4>might have to crack. That's what I think that he

0:02:44.919 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 4>was alluding to when he says that a soft landing

0:02:47.360 --> 0:02:48.959
<v Speaker 4>isn't necessarily his base case.

0:02:48.960 --> 0:02:52.239
<v Speaker 3>In Bloomberger Economic Sana Wong writing officials also completely scrapped

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:55.440
<v Speaker 3>a recession forecast for this year, so definitely taking that

0:02:55.520 --> 0:02:56.160
<v Speaker 3>off the table.

0:02:56.240 --> 0:02:59.280
<v Speaker 2>Heyil Initialieteva, come on in here a senior US economist

0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:03.360
<v Speaker 2>at BNPP, but also our former colleague here at Bloomberg, Leane,

0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:06.040
<v Speaker 2>how did you read into that comment from Fed J Powell?

0:03:06.480 --> 0:03:09.040
<v Speaker 2>He would not call this soft landing a baseline expectation.

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:10.240
<v Speaker 2>What's your interpretation of that?

0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:14.960
<v Speaker 5>I think I think, you know, the Chair is alluding

0:03:15.040 --> 0:03:19.480
<v Speaker 5>to some event risk here, and I think there is

0:03:19.560 --> 0:03:23.120
<v Speaker 5>a lot of things that could go wrong from now on. Yes,

0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:26.800
<v Speaker 5>the you know, economic growth looks really strong if you

0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:30.360
<v Speaker 5>look at the recent data, but we have a confluence

0:03:30.919 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 5>of significant negative risks coming all at the same time

0:03:36.200 --> 0:03:38.400
<v Speaker 5>in the in the fourth quarter of this year, you

0:03:38.480 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 5>have student loan repayments restart, you have a possible shutdown,

0:03:43.880 --> 0:03:48.320
<v Speaker 5>excess savings are depleting. So there are significant risks to

0:03:48.480 --> 0:03:53.040
<v Speaker 5>the soft lending scenario that is reflected in the summer

0:03:53.120 --> 0:03:59.240
<v Speaker 5>of economic projections. They're really seeing stronger growth, lower unemployment

0:03:59.360 --> 0:04:03.920
<v Speaker 5>rate at the same time, much lower inflation. I think

0:04:04.640 --> 0:04:09.360
<v Speaker 5>the event risks that will make them be cautious at

0:04:09.400 --> 0:04:10.280
<v Speaker 5>the following meeting.

0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:15.080
<v Speaker 3>If you could have asked a question to the FED chair, Ylena,

0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:15.880
<v Speaker 3>what would it have been.

0:04:17.480 --> 0:04:22.720
<v Speaker 5>I think I wanted to hear a much clearer explanation

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:26.919
<v Speaker 5>of what he thinks about policy legs. He alluded to

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:30.599
<v Speaker 5>that a little bit in the opening remarks, but you

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:36.400
<v Speaker 5>know the extent of how much policy previous policy tightening

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:41.880
<v Speaker 5>impacted economic growth. I would like to get a better

0:04:41.920 --> 0:04:46.560
<v Speaker 5>sense of that. It seems like Chair himself believes that

0:04:47.080 --> 0:04:50.680
<v Speaker 5>policy LICs have not fully percolated through the economy and

0:04:50.800 --> 0:04:55.440
<v Speaker 5>more impact is coming, you know.

0:04:55.440 --> 0:04:57.040
<v Speaker 3>And Stuart, I want to ask you, you know, process of

0:04:57.080 --> 0:04:59.640
<v Speaker 3>getting inflation to two percent has a long way to go.

0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:01.599
<v Speaker 3>So do I read that as yep, we're not at

0:05:01.640 --> 0:05:04.320
<v Speaker 3>two percent yet, so we get that, Chair Powell? Or

0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:06.800
<v Speaker 3>is it that that also means you guys still have

0:05:07.000 --> 0:05:11.239
<v Speaker 3>work to do and so cooler jets everybody who's thinking

0:05:11.279 --> 0:05:12.960
<v Speaker 3>of Fed cuts.

0:05:13.480 --> 0:05:17.480
<v Speaker 4>You know, the projected path for the Fed funds rate

0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:20.440
<v Speaker 4>target range, at least for the median voter on the FMC,

0:05:21.120 --> 0:05:25.200
<v Speaker 4>seems to be almost separate apart from the economic fundamentals

0:05:25.200 --> 0:05:27.560
<v Speaker 4>that they're showing in their projections. We're not getting to

0:05:27.600 --> 0:05:31.120
<v Speaker 4>the two percent core PC target until twenty twenty six.

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:38.240
<v Speaker 4>So yes, the core PC forecast was modestly revised down

0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 4>for twenty twenty three. But we also see growth being

0:05:40.240 --> 0:05:43.440
<v Speaker 4>revised up, we see unemployment being revised down, labor markets

0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 4>staying tighter for staying tighter for longer. That's not the

0:05:47.880 --> 0:05:50.479
<v Speaker 4>higher for longer, the tighter for longer that the Fed

0:05:50.520 --> 0:05:55.200
<v Speaker 4>had been looking for. Right, So to those fundamental economic projections,

0:05:55.520 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 4>those forecasts scream one more rate hike to you. I mean,

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:02.760
<v Speaker 4>it's seams as though, it's to Lena's point that maybe

0:06:02.760 --> 0:06:06.360
<v Speaker 4>these optimistic projections are just that, maybe they're just a

0:06:06.360 --> 0:06:08.279
<v Speaker 4>little bit of a wish and something or crack in

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:11.599
<v Speaker 4>the background. Maybe it's something fundamental like Lena was talking

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:15.080
<v Speaker 4>about that we've written about extensively. Maybe it's something like liquidity,

0:06:15.320 --> 0:06:18.960
<v Speaker 4>and we haven't heard anything about QT in multiple press conference.

0:06:19.000 --> 0:06:20.920
<v Speaker 2>Well, Jelena story rais is a really good point. I mean,

0:06:20.920 --> 0:06:23.839
<v Speaker 2>how seriously can you take the dot plot out two years.

0:06:23.880 --> 0:06:26.120
<v Speaker 2>It's one thing to you know, take the dot plot

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:28.520
<v Speaker 2>projections out for the remainder of the year, but it's

0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:30.720
<v Speaker 2>an entirely different thing to look at it for the

0:06:30.800 --> 0:06:33.200
<v Speaker 2>end of twenty twenty five. How do you look at

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:35.799
<v Speaker 2>different times there versus what they're saying.

0:06:37.040 --> 0:06:39.919
<v Speaker 5>I think I think you really have to take it

0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:43.240
<v Speaker 5>with a grain of salt. Even going into the next year.

0:06:43.720 --> 0:06:47.600
<v Speaker 5>You know, we did notice that the range of projections

0:06:47.640 --> 0:06:51.040
<v Speaker 5>for twenty twenty four narrowed, but it's still a very

0:06:51.080 --> 0:06:57.640
<v Speaker 5>wide range of totally different projections. And even this year,

0:06:58.040 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 5>I think the fact that the fit downgraded inflation projections,

0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:07.039
<v Speaker 5>but they still, I think in all of you are

0:07:07.400 --> 0:07:11.960
<v Speaker 5>very high relative to what will likely happen. So in

0:07:12.000 --> 0:07:15.640
<v Speaker 5>this sense, you know, if inflation surprises to the downside

0:07:15.760 --> 0:07:18.600
<v Speaker 5>closer to the end of the year, that will give

0:07:19.280 --> 0:07:25.480
<v Speaker 5>them a way out of the lost projected hike of

0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:28.720
<v Speaker 5>the cycle. We we think that they will they have

0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:30.200
<v Speaker 5>reached the terminal rate.

0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:33.440
<v Speaker 3>Is there a word that you seize on in terms

0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:36.440
<v Speaker 3>of what came out of J. Powell's mouth today, Elena?

0:07:38.040 --> 0:07:38.920
<v Speaker 5>In a sense.

0:07:40.400 --> 0:07:42.120
<v Speaker 3>You know, you know, sometimes he uses a word over

0:07:42.120 --> 0:07:44.120
<v Speaker 3>and over. Sometimes there's a phrase and we all kind

0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:46.840
<v Speaker 3>of you know, that's to be transitory, It used to

0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:48.320
<v Speaker 3>be transitory data dependent.

0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:48.560
<v Speaker 6>Right.

0:07:48.560 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 3>How many times have we said that? Is there anything

0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:52.560
<v Speaker 3>that came out of his mouth that you thought, Okay,

0:07:52.600 --> 0:07:53.760
<v Speaker 3>this is kind of where.

0:07:53.960 --> 0:07:57.640
<v Speaker 5>Dake a dependency? But that has been their mantra for

0:07:57.640 --> 0:08:00.800
<v Speaker 5>for quite some time. I think that they just want

0:08:00.880 --> 0:08:04.600
<v Speaker 5>to be cautious with those, you know, steaky words.

0:08:04.840 --> 0:08:06.920
<v Speaker 3>How about for your Stewart, Was there something there?

0:08:07.200 --> 0:08:07.320
<v Speaker 7>No?

0:08:07.520 --> 0:08:09.400
<v Speaker 4>The thing that really stood out to me was that

0:08:10.080 --> 0:08:12.960
<v Speaker 4>that J. Pewell didn't seem to strike, at least not

0:08:13.080 --> 0:08:18.600
<v Speaker 4>to me, a single hawkish or dubbish tone. Usually, at

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:21.880
<v Speaker 4>least over the past few years, when the FOMC makes

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:24.240
<v Speaker 4>a decision, so in this case, the hold rate steady,

0:08:25.600 --> 0:08:28.800
<v Speaker 4>he'll end up striking a more hawkish tone to compensate

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:30.880
<v Speaker 4>for the pause and raids, or if they were to hike,

0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:33.520
<v Speaker 4>he ends up coming out a little bit dubvish during

0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:36.240
<v Speaker 4>the press conference to sort of tone down any sort

0:08:36.240 --> 0:08:39.120
<v Speaker 4>of market reaction to the actual decision itself. That was

0:08:39.160 --> 0:08:42.040
<v Speaker 4>not the case today during the press conference, at least

0:08:42.080 --> 0:08:42.800
<v Speaker 4>not to my ear.

0:08:42.920 --> 0:08:44.840
<v Speaker 2>What did you hear? To my ear?

0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:48.320
<v Speaker 4>He sounded a little bit cautious. He used the word

0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:53.160
<v Speaker 4>cautious multiple times, and they were just the same way

0:08:53.200 --> 0:08:58.040
<v Speaker 4>that we see this sort of break between the fomc's

0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:01.280
<v Speaker 4>medium forecast for the funds rate itself and it's forecast

0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:04.000
<v Speaker 4>for the economic projections. It seems that there wasn't a

0:09:04.000 --> 0:09:06.240
<v Speaker 4>cohesive narrative at least not to me when I was

0:09:06.240 --> 0:09:07.440
<v Speaker 4>listening to the Price conference.

0:09:07.559 --> 0:09:10.439
<v Speaker 7>It's interesting, right, Okay, to Stewart's point, if I mean,

0:09:11.240 --> 0:09:15.000
<v Speaker 7>there's a lot of risk management approach in what they're

0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:18.120
<v Speaker 7>doing right now, not that they have achieved the goal,

0:09:18.440 --> 0:09:21.760
<v Speaker 7>but they're very cautiously moving along.

0:09:22.080 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 5>It's risk management that is driving the decision at the point.

0:09:25.760 --> 0:09:28.439
<v Speaker 3>All right, So okay, where do we go from here?

0:09:28.640 --> 0:09:31.000
<v Speaker 3>And I guess it's you know, Elena, what are the

0:09:31.040 --> 0:09:32.719
<v Speaker 3>next kind of focal points for you? Is it just

0:09:32.800 --> 0:09:34.680
<v Speaker 3>we're going to go from data point to data point?

0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:37.559
<v Speaker 3>I mean, how do you think about November?

0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:42.840
<v Speaker 5>So we only get one with cpr CPI report and

0:09:42.880 --> 0:09:46.800
<v Speaker 5>one more PEDROLS report before the November meetings. So I

0:09:46.800 --> 0:09:49.840
<v Speaker 5>mean they're saying they're data dependent, but there's really not

0:09:50.000 --> 0:09:52.720
<v Speaker 5>that much data they're going to get. I think what

0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:56.640
<v Speaker 5>will keep them on hold at the next meeting is

0:09:56.720 --> 0:09:59.719
<v Speaker 5>really the event risk. So again I mentioned a lot

0:09:59.720 --> 0:10:05.760
<v Speaker 5>of things that are coming that could influence the decision

0:10:05.880 --> 0:10:09.040
<v Speaker 5>to be even more cautious in the medium to in

0:10:09.120 --> 0:10:12.200
<v Speaker 5>the near term. But I think by the time they

0:10:12.280 --> 0:10:15.120
<v Speaker 5>get to the end of the year to the December meeting,

0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:18.960
<v Speaker 5>they will we will probably get a lot of data

0:10:19.200 --> 0:10:23.800
<v Speaker 5>showing a significant slow down in economic roles in and

0:10:24.240 --> 0:10:27.960
<v Speaker 5>even further slow down in the labor market, and eventually

0:10:28.080 --> 0:10:33.280
<v Speaker 5>that would stop them from going another time as they

0:10:33.320 --> 0:10:35.760
<v Speaker 5>are projecting in the Summary of Economic Projections.

0:10:35.800 --> 0:10:38.280
<v Speaker 2>Stuet I like the way that Yolena described event risk,

0:10:38.400 --> 0:10:40.400
<v Speaker 2>these things that we talk about that the Fed absolutely

0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:41.320
<v Speaker 2>has no control over.

0:10:41.360 --> 0:10:41.719
<v Speaker 6>Something that J.

0:10:41.880 --> 0:10:45.320
<v Speaker 2>Powell said, you know, higher oil prices, u AW strikes,

0:10:45.320 --> 0:10:48.880
<v Speaker 2>student loan payments starting up. Once again, what's the biggest

0:10:48.880 --> 0:10:50.480
<v Speaker 2>event risk on your radar right now?

0:10:52.240 --> 0:10:55.560
<v Speaker 4>Well, I'm not sure this is entirely an event itself.

0:10:55.600 --> 0:10:58.640
<v Speaker 4>It is a catalyst at starting, but it's well signaled,

0:10:58.679 --> 0:11:00.280
<v Speaker 4>right we know that it's in loan repay are going

0:11:00.320 --> 0:11:03.600
<v Speaker 4>to be starting. In fact, student borrowers have started those

0:11:03.640 --> 0:11:08.200
<v Speaker 4>repayments already, and flows into the Department of Education's coffers

0:11:08.200 --> 0:11:11.840
<v Speaker 4>within the Treasury have already reached pre pandemic flows, so

0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:16.040
<v Speaker 4>that typically shaved that should based on typical flows into

0:11:16.040 --> 0:11:18.640
<v Speaker 4>the Department of Education shave off something like fifty basis

0:11:18.679 --> 0:11:21.480
<v Speaker 4>points from PC spending on a monthly basis. I think

0:11:21.520 --> 0:11:24.480
<v Speaker 4>that that's probably I think that that's what's biggest to

0:11:24.520 --> 0:11:28.880
<v Speaker 4>me other things like the UAW strike. Imagine that that's

0:11:29.440 --> 0:11:33.480
<v Speaker 4>temporary shave something like one percentage point off of industrial production.

0:11:34.000 --> 0:11:35.600
<v Speaker 4>That's the sort of thing that you get back though

0:11:35.600 --> 0:11:38.320
<v Speaker 4>when they fire up the assembly lines again. Same thing

0:11:38.400 --> 0:11:42.200
<v Speaker 4>goes with the government shutdown. We would not even see

0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:46.960
<v Speaker 4>that show up in the establishment survey if if any

0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:50.160
<v Speaker 4>sort of federal agency still keeps workers on its payrolls,

0:11:50.520 --> 0:11:54.400
<v Speaker 4>at least insofar as those workers will receive back pay

0:11:54.559 --> 0:11:56.560
<v Speaker 4>when they are brought back to work at the end

0:11:56.559 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 4>of a shutdown. Even a government shutdown wouldn't wouldn't hurt

0:12:00.920 --> 0:12:05.520
<v Speaker 4>nonfarm payroll growth that much. But the extent to look

0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:08.920
<v Speaker 4>the Board of Governors is sitting there on Constitution Avenue.

0:12:08.920 --> 0:12:10.760
<v Speaker 4>It's the sort of thing that they would see firsthand

0:12:10.800 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 4>when economic activity within the district slows to a halt

0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:17.280
<v Speaker 4>during a government shutdown. So it's the sort of thing

0:12:17.320 --> 0:12:19.680
<v Speaker 4>they can feel very scary to policymakers, right.

0:12:20.040 --> 0:12:22.040
<v Speaker 3>I always think about with these kind of things, it's

0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:25.000
<v Speaker 3>either kind of a one off if it ends quickly. Right.

0:12:25.280 --> 0:12:28.640
<v Speaker 3>The longer these things lag on, I assume the economic

0:12:28.679 --> 0:12:32.079
<v Speaker 3>impact is so much greater. Elan It was kind of fun,

0:12:32.120 --> 0:12:34.440
<v Speaker 3>I guess to kind of watch J Powell deal with,

0:12:34.520 --> 0:12:36.120
<v Speaker 3>you know, trying to be pressured into like when do

0:12:36.160 --> 0:12:38.760
<v Speaker 3>we cut rates? Like when does it come? He says,

0:12:38.800 --> 0:12:40.680
<v Speaker 3>going into twenty twenty four. The time will come at

0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:43.400
<v Speaker 3>some point, and I'm not saying when to cut interest rates,

0:12:43.960 --> 0:12:46.760
<v Speaker 3>So he's very careful about that. How do you think

0:12:46.800 --> 0:12:50.280
<v Speaker 3>about when we will start to cut rates?

0:12:52.000 --> 0:12:56.480
<v Speaker 5>So in all of you, you know, we will sleep

0:12:56.600 --> 0:13:01.760
<v Speaker 5>into a recession, and that will be a modest recession

0:13:01.800 --> 0:13:06.520
<v Speaker 5>in our view, but still that should push the FED

0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 5>to start cutting rates. Another consideration is something that came

0:13:12.240 --> 0:13:15.959
<v Speaker 5>up during the press conference is the level of real rates.

0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:22.360
<v Speaker 5>So if inflation continues to slow down and it falls rapidly,

0:13:22.880 --> 0:13:26.560
<v Speaker 5>that would push real rates much higher from where they

0:13:26.559 --> 0:13:29.680
<v Speaker 5>are right now. They're already in a restrictive territory, and

0:13:30.160 --> 0:13:34.280
<v Speaker 5>the FED will just not want to keep pushing real

0:13:34.360 --> 0:13:38.520
<v Speaker 5>rates even higher into the restrictive policy stands. So at

0:13:38.559 --> 0:13:42.560
<v Speaker 5>some point the FED will have to cut nominal rates

0:13:42.640 --> 0:13:46.280
<v Speaker 5>just to keep real rates from rising further. So and

0:13:46.480 --> 0:13:49.760
<v Speaker 5>we think that that time will come sometime in the

0:13:49.800 --> 0:13:50.840
<v Speaker 5>middle of next year.

0:13:53.960 --> 0:13:55.960
<v Speaker 4>I think that that's generally right. I think it's in

0:13:56.000 --> 0:13:58.640
<v Speaker 4>the middle of next year. I wouldn't be surprised to

0:13:58.679 --> 0:14:01.480
<v Speaker 4>see something like twenty five basis points of meetings starting

0:14:01.520 --> 0:14:05.880
<v Speaker 4>from June July. And it's exactly that. It's to maintain

0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:09.679
<v Speaker 4>that constant spread between printed inflation and nominal policy rates,

0:14:10.280 --> 0:14:14.160
<v Speaker 4>so that monetary policy stays sufficiently restricted but not excessively restrictive.

0:14:14.960 --> 0:14:17.840
<v Speaker 4>I think that just tim to your question earlier, thinking

0:14:17.840 --> 0:14:20.960
<v Speaker 4>about any sort of catalyst that could be shocking, that

0:14:20.960 --> 0:14:26.680
<v Speaker 4>could materially change policy decisions. It seems as though people

0:14:26.720 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 4>have entirely stopped discussing liquidity, and they entirely stopped discussing

0:14:31.560 --> 0:14:35.120
<v Speaker 4>the consequences of QT. But the bank term funding program

0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:38.800
<v Speaker 4>has maintained essentially a constant balance. Banks are still continuing

0:14:38.840 --> 0:14:41.920
<v Speaker 4>to borrow from the federal home loan banks, and we're

0:14:42.040 --> 0:14:47.040
<v Speaker 4>still seeing we're still seeing deposits leaving the banking system

0:14:47.120 --> 0:14:48.880
<v Speaker 4>because rates are materially higher.

0:14:49.320 --> 0:14:52.880
<v Speaker 2>If you're talking about the out, the fallout from the

0:14:52.920 --> 0:14:54.520
<v Speaker 2>regional bank crisis.

0:14:54.240 --> 0:14:57.080
<v Speaker 4>Well even preceding the regional bank crisis is a consequence

0:14:57.120 --> 0:15:00.760
<v Speaker 4>of quantitative tightening. The other aspect of monitor Harry policy

0:15:00.840 --> 0:15:04.720
<v Speaker 4>that's operating just sort of in the background. There is

0:15:05.400 --> 0:15:08.200
<v Speaker 4>an attempt to soak up liquidity at the FED. And

0:15:08.800 --> 0:15:11.640
<v Speaker 4>though we always focus on the Fed's dual mandate price

0:15:11.640 --> 0:15:15.240
<v Speaker 4>stability in full employment or maximum employment, the sort of

0:15:15.280 --> 0:15:17.440
<v Speaker 4>thing that could pop up in the background is a

0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:20.440
<v Speaker 4>liquidity event, and those sort of events tend to be

0:15:20.480 --> 0:15:23.920
<v Speaker 4>pretty convex. We don't really have the foresight of saying,

0:15:24.320 --> 0:15:26.480
<v Speaker 4>you know, student loan payments are starting in October.

0:15:26.480 --> 0:15:26.760
<v Speaker 6>Again.

0:15:27.040 --> 0:15:30.080
<v Speaker 4>They happen when they happen, and I'm surprised that it's

0:15:30.080 --> 0:15:31.560
<v Speaker 4>the sort of thing that doesn't come up in press

0:15:31.560 --> 0:15:32.480
<v Speaker 4>conferences anymore.

0:15:32.720 --> 0:15:35.560
<v Speaker 2>I mean, COVID happened when it happened. March twenty twenty

0:15:35.600 --> 0:15:37.360
<v Speaker 2>happened when it happened. These are things that you know,

0:15:37.360 --> 0:15:39.040
<v Speaker 2>if you go back to twenty nineteen and the summary

0:15:39.040 --> 0:15:42.440
<v Speaker 2>of economic projections, then right, nobody was foreseeing something like this,

0:15:42.480 --> 0:15:44.640
<v Speaker 2>an event risk like this causing the FED to drop

0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:45.360
<v Speaker 2>rates to zero.

0:15:46.120 --> 0:15:48.680
<v Speaker 1>No, exactly exactly, I mean, I don't know.

0:15:49.120 --> 0:15:51.840
<v Speaker 3>I mean, you think about this year, y Lane, and

0:15:51.840 --> 0:15:53.440
<v Speaker 3>I feel like we've been all over the map right

0:15:53.480 --> 0:15:55.840
<v Speaker 3>when it comes to we thought kind of the world

0:15:55.920 --> 0:15:57.840
<v Speaker 3>was coming to an end MIDI end, you know, with

0:15:57.880 --> 0:15:58.920
<v Speaker 3>the regional bank crisis.

0:15:58.960 --> 0:16:00.240
<v Speaker 1>But you know, we've dealt with.

0:16:00.440 --> 0:16:01.960
<v Speaker 3>Crypto over the last year. I mean, there's been a

0:16:02.000 --> 0:16:03.720
<v Speaker 3>lot of things that have certainly come at this market.

0:16:03.760 --> 0:16:06.000
<v Speaker 3>But you know, here we have an environment where you

0:16:06.040 --> 0:16:09.040
<v Speaker 3>see certainly equity strategises continuing just to kind of ratchet

0:16:09.120 --> 0:16:12.000
<v Speaker 3>their estimates higher. But at the same time, you know,

0:16:12.080 --> 0:16:14.040
<v Speaker 3>I'm looking at in stocks right now or down to

0:16:14.080 --> 0:16:17.040
<v Speaker 3>their lows of the session, but I'm looking at you know,

0:16:17.800 --> 0:16:21.560
<v Speaker 3>the rate moves today, your two year at five point one, four,

0:16:22.280 --> 0:16:25.360
<v Speaker 3>ten year at four point three, I mean, five years

0:16:25.360 --> 0:16:28.680
<v Speaker 3>at four point what five three? I mean, are these

0:16:28.720 --> 0:16:31.440
<v Speaker 3>the rates that we should anticipate will continue to see

0:16:31.520 --> 0:16:33.280
<v Speaker 3>certainly going into twenty twenty four.

0:16:34.680 --> 0:16:37.000
<v Speaker 5>Well, at some point the fact we'll have to cut

0:16:37.080 --> 0:16:42.080
<v Speaker 5>rates and we will see some movement on that front.

0:16:42.280 --> 0:16:42.520
<v Speaker 6>Right.

0:16:42.680 --> 0:16:45.520
<v Speaker 5>I think one thing I would like to highlight though,

0:16:45.720 --> 0:16:50.280
<v Speaker 5>is all these things that we mentioned in our discussion,

0:16:50.360 --> 0:16:54.000
<v Speaker 5>like such as student loans and strikes and you know,

0:16:54.040 --> 0:16:57.040
<v Speaker 5>the depletion of excess savings. We should not forget about that,

0:16:57.080 --> 0:16:59.400
<v Speaker 5>even though we've been talking about it for a long time.

0:17:00.120 --> 0:17:04.640
<v Speaker 5>Those things make the economy more vulnerable to exogenous shocks.

0:17:04.920 --> 0:17:08.680
<v Speaker 5>So some type of liquidity events and other things that

0:17:08.720 --> 0:17:12.640
<v Speaker 5>Stuart mentioned, so like I think that the slow down

0:17:12.720 --> 0:17:16.280
<v Speaker 5>in the economy to the point at which it approaches

0:17:16.359 --> 0:17:21.359
<v Speaker 5>somewhat some stall speed, that makes the economy really vulnerable

0:17:21.440 --> 0:17:26.040
<v Speaker 5>to something that could happen that we cannot anticipate. And

0:17:26.080 --> 0:17:29.399
<v Speaker 5>that's an important point, and this is something that we

0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:30.240
<v Speaker 5>should be watching.

0:17:30.760 --> 0:17:32.840
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean there's a lot on the place.

0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:35.439
<v Speaker 3>It's certainly a lot covered by j Powell today, but

0:17:35.520 --> 0:17:37.040
<v Speaker 3>a lot for us to kind of continue to moll

0:17:37.080 --> 0:17:39.800
<v Speaker 3>over and we'll see how the financial markets continue to

0:17:39.840 --> 0:17:42.119
<v Speaker 3>read it. Guys, Thank you so much, really appreciate it.

0:17:42.160 --> 0:17:43.840
<v Speaker 3>I know you guys have had a busy afternoon watching

0:17:43.880 --> 0:17:45.640
<v Speaker 3>all of this. So great to get you.

0:17:45.720 --> 0:17:47.280
<v Speaker 2>Was here late last night. I saw you on TV

0:17:47.359 --> 0:17:48.760
<v Speaker 2>late last night. What you were getting?

0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:49.240
<v Speaker 1>Are you doing a.

0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:51.680
<v Speaker 4>Previa Australia Daybreak?

0:17:51.800 --> 0:17:53.480
<v Speaker 2>Oh yeah, somebody's got to do it.

0:17:53.520 --> 0:17:55.080
<v Speaker 1>A lot of central banks right now, right.

0:17:55.520 --> 0:17:58.120
<v Speaker 4>Somebody needs to talk about starts and permit, somebody needs

0:17:58.119 --> 0:18:01.440
<v Speaker 4>to talk about what to anticipate from the face. It's

0:18:01.480 --> 0:18:04.560
<v Speaker 4>been a busy day for us. Lena, we miss you

0:18:04.640 --> 0:18:11.520
<v Speaker 4>here at Bloomberg. Eliza says, hello over there, you guys too, well,

0:18:11.520 --> 0:18:12.600
<v Speaker 4>you know what, we love it when you get to

0:18:12.640 --> 0:18:13.000
<v Speaker 4>join us.

0:18:13.160 --> 0:18:15.560
<v Speaker 2>Lena and on FED Day at any time. So it's

0:18:15.560 --> 0:18:16.920
<v Speaker 2>awesome to have you back with us.

0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:19.439
<v Speaker 1>Totally, totally all right, be well, Kilena Shilett.

0:18:19.440 --> 0:18:21.920
<v Speaker 3>You have a senior US economist at BNP Pariba as

0:18:22.000 --> 0:18:24.719
<v Speaker 3>you know, a former Bloomberg colleague and Stuart Paul, us

0:18:24.760 --> 0:18:26.320
<v Speaker 3>economist at Bloomberg Economics.

0:18:26.840 --> 0:18:31.480
<v Speaker 6>This is the Bloomberg Business Week podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,

0:18:31.640 --> 0:18:35.320
<v Speaker 6>and anywhere else you get your podcast. Listen live weekday

0:18:35.359 --> 0:18:39.000
<v Speaker 6>afternoons from three to six Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,

0:18:39.040 --> 0:18:42.359
<v Speaker 6>the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App.

0:18:42.400 --> 0:18:45.480
<v Speaker 6>You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube

0:18:45.600 --> 0:18:47.800
<v Speaker 6>and always on the Bloomberg journalone