WEBVTT - BBO Columnist Mohamed El-Erian Talks CPI Report

0:00:02.360 --> 0:00:06.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.

0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 2>We begin with our top story, the latest CPI print

0:00:09.680 --> 0:00:12.719
<v Speaker 2>boosting expectations for a twenty five basis point come from

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:15.640
<v Speaker 2>the FED next week. Muhammad al Aeron of Queen's College,

0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:19.360
<v Speaker 2>Cambridge writing on X that he sees a quote ankorless paradigm,

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 2>one that is crying out for the stabilization influence that

0:00:22.560 --> 0:00:25.799
<v Speaker 2>usually comes from a dominant economic narrative rather than the

0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:29.240
<v Speaker 2>current ping pong one and or forward policy guidance as

0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:33.680
<v Speaker 2>opposed to this era of FED excessive data dependency. Muhammad

0:00:33.720 --> 0:00:34.839
<v Speaker 2>has a lot to say, and he's with us for

0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 2>the next few hours to say it. Muhammed, good morning

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:38.919
<v Speaker 2>to you, Good morning John. Fantastically catch up with you, sir,

0:00:38.960 --> 0:00:41.680
<v Speaker 2>particularly your observation yesterday about what's developing in the bond

0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:43.920
<v Speaker 2>market at the front end of the curve, the swings

0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 2>we saw on the two year. Can you share your

0:00:46.040 --> 0:00:47.800
<v Speaker 2>observations with our audience right now?

0:00:47.880 --> 0:00:48.640
<v Speaker 3>What was that about?

0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 4>So we saw a twenty basis points round trip in

0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:55.000
<v Speaker 4>the two year. Twenty basis points. That's a lot for

0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:59.080
<v Speaker 4>that maturity, and we learned two things. One is that

0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:05.800
<v Speaker 4>we have excessive data point dependence. All that happened yesterday

0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:08.680
<v Speaker 4>in the infation report, as people know, is that monthly

0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:11.640
<v Speaker 4>core came slightly harder than expected. Everything else was aligned,

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:14.039
<v Speaker 4>and yet we move ten basis points up.

0:01:14.640 --> 0:01:15.119
<v Speaker 3>And then we.

0:01:15.120 --> 0:01:17.960
<v Speaker 4>Discovered a second technical, which is money on the sideline

0:01:18.000 --> 0:01:21.959
<v Speaker 4>being put to work quickly, and that I think is

0:01:22.000 --> 0:01:25.559
<v Speaker 4>our reality, is that we don't have a dominant economic view,

0:01:26.080 --> 0:01:29.640
<v Speaker 4>so we get swung all over. But the stabilizer right

0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:33.560
<v Speaker 4>now is this technical of cash on the sideline. Now,

0:01:33.600 --> 0:01:38.119
<v Speaker 4>financial conditions are good stabilizers with two very important qualifications.

0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:42.920
<v Speaker 4>They are volatile and they have as much perception as reality.

0:01:43.360 --> 0:01:45.840
<v Speaker 4>So we are going to continue with this volatile world

0:01:45.959 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 4>until we restore either dominant economic paradigm or we saw

0:01:50.200 --> 0:01:51.760
<v Speaker 4>the power forward policy guidance.

0:01:52.480 --> 0:01:55.160
<v Speaker 1>You could argue that even in the face of all

0:01:55.160 --> 0:01:58.920
<v Speaker 1>of this volatility, it shows how strong the economic system

0:01:59.040 --> 0:02:02.920
<v Speaker 1>is that there wasn't some sort of significant disruption. Isn't

0:02:02.920 --> 0:02:04.920
<v Speaker 1>that sort of the ultimate stress test that when the

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:07.760
<v Speaker 1>benchmark rate swings around by twenty basis points you don't

0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:11.960
<v Speaker 1>see any massive selling, Why is it more pernicious than

0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:13.240
<v Speaker 1>it might seem on the surface.

0:02:13.639 --> 0:02:16.400
<v Speaker 4>So I do think the financial system has been strengthened

0:02:16.600 --> 0:02:19.519
<v Speaker 4>and in particular the banks, and we are in a

0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:21.640
<v Speaker 4>much better place than we were in the past. So

0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:23.760
<v Speaker 4>you don't get the massive balance sheet effects. You don't

0:02:23.800 --> 0:02:27.280
<v Speaker 4>get the sort of virtuous cycles good the cycles good

0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:30.679
<v Speaker 4>or bad that can happen from that. But don't forget

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:32.960
<v Speaker 4>that we are the benchmark for the rest of the world,

0:02:34.000 --> 0:02:36.799
<v Speaker 4>and we cause quite a few spillovers that the rest

0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:38.639
<v Speaker 4>of the world says, you know what, enough now, we've

0:02:38.639 --> 0:02:40.800
<v Speaker 4>had enough of this, Please get you act together.

0:02:41.320 --> 0:02:43.680
<v Speaker 1>I was surprised at Jackson Hall to your point, there

0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:46.440
<v Speaker 1>wasn't more of a discussion, at least not out loud,

0:02:46.760 --> 0:02:49.040
<v Speaker 1>about what the neutral rate is. Essentially that sort of

0:02:49.080 --> 0:02:51.359
<v Speaker 1>paradigm shift that you're looking for, some sort of real

0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:55.240
<v Speaker 1>discussion of what this Fedure Reserve is willing to accept

0:02:55.240 --> 0:02:58.360
<v Speaker 1>in terms of inflation and a benchmark rate. That's it

0:02:58.360 --> 0:03:00.240
<v Speaker 1>sounds like they just don't agree on once. So how

0:03:00.280 --> 0:03:01.760
<v Speaker 1>can they come up with one if they don't really

0:03:01.760 --> 0:03:03.760
<v Speaker 1>have that certainty. And frankly, if the market can't agree

0:03:03.760 --> 0:03:05.400
<v Speaker 1>on one either, is it better just to have one

0:03:05.720 --> 0:03:06.520
<v Speaker 1>even if it's wrong.

0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:09.240
<v Speaker 4>So, as usual, you're getting me to front run my

0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:10.520
<v Speaker 4>financial times of at.

0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:11.800
<v Speaker 3>Tomorrow, that's what you hear. Film.

0:03:11.800 --> 0:03:16.160
<v Speaker 4>That's so I think, Lisa, you're absolutely right. But it's

0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:18.520
<v Speaker 4>not just that we don't know what the destination is.

0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:20.480
<v Speaker 4>We don't know what the journey is.

0:03:21.520 --> 0:03:22.280
<v Speaker 3>We don't know.

0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:27.600
<v Speaker 4>What risk mitigation mindset actually means operationally. And also there's

0:03:27.639 --> 0:03:31.880
<v Speaker 4>disagreement as how quickly will FED official go from backward

0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:35.920
<v Speaker 4>looking data dependence to forward leaning. So we have these

0:03:35.920 --> 0:03:39.480
<v Speaker 4>disagreement both within the FOMC and also between the market

0:03:39.920 --> 0:03:42.960
<v Speaker 4>and the end what seems to be the consensus if

0:03:43.000 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 4>there is one on the FED. So this is for me,

0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:48.080
<v Speaker 4>it's a fascinating time, but it is also a very

0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:48.840
<v Speaker 4>confusing time.

0:03:49.240 --> 0:03:52.120
<v Speaker 1>So amongst all those confusion, what do you want to

0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>hear from Jpowell next week?

0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 4>So what I'd like to hear and what I expect

0:03:56.680 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 4>to hear, is that he's going to cut by twenty

0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:02.440
<v Speaker 4>five basis points. Beyond that, it's more what I'd like

0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:04.600
<v Speaker 4>to hear than what I expect to hear. I'd like

0:04:04.640 --> 0:04:07.600
<v Speaker 4>to get a sense of where he thinks the neutral raders.

0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:11.440
<v Speaker 4>I'd like to get a sense of where he sees

0:04:11.560 --> 0:04:15.600
<v Speaker 4>the balance of risks. The market right now has modeled

0:04:15.600 --> 0:04:20.159
<v Speaker 4>the FED as a single mandate FED maximum employment. FED

0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:22.480
<v Speaker 4>official tell us no, no, no, we're do mandate FED.

0:04:22.640 --> 0:04:25.000
<v Speaker 4>Let's not forget the inflation component. I'd like to know

0:04:25.040 --> 0:04:25.760
<v Speaker 4>where he is on this.

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:29.120
<v Speaker 3>Do you want to hear more descent within the Fed? Yeah?

0:04:29.160 --> 0:04:31.760
<v Speaker 4>I would like. I mean I admired the Bank of England.

0:04:31.800 --> 0:04:33.599
<v Speaker 4>The last decision was five to four. You had a

0:04:33.600 --> 0:04:36.360
<v Speaker 4>situation where it was six to one. I think that's

0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:40.720
<v Speaker 4>important because that conveys the uncertainty. Yes, they should have

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:44.720
<v Speaker 4>more descent. I think they viewed dissent as weakness. Most

0:04:44.720 --> 0:04:48.279
<v Speaker 4>of us view dissent as having a really important information

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:50.440
<v Speaker 4>content that has to be priced into markets.

0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:52.599
<v Speaker 2>I remember a series of votes at the Bank of England,

0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:54.560
<v Speaker 2>maybe a decade or seagam, So you remember this take

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:57.839
<v Speaker 2>when the committee was out voting King a governor.

0:04:57.960 --> 0:04:59.440
<v Speaker 3>King was leading the central Bank. Think of the time.

0:04:59.480 --> 0:05:01.479
<v Speaker 2>He wanted to win trees QE and you had people

0:05:01.520 --> 0:05:03.680
<v Speaker 2>on the NPC voting against him. Not only that, there

0:05:03.680 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 2>were more people voting against him than voting with him.

0:05:06.200 --> 0:05:08.400
<v Speaker 2>That's a scenario we don't see at the Federal Reserve.

0:05:08.680 --> 0:05:11.279
<v Speaker 2>You had a warning coming into the September meeting, and

0:05:11.320 --> 0:05:13.520
<v Speaker 2>I remember it at the start of summer. You wanted

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:16.040
<v Speaker 2>them to reduce interest rates in July, but you acknowledged

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:19.760
<v Speaker 2>that the difference between going into September versus July wasn't

0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:22.479
<v Speaker 2>that great. But you had one fear if we got

0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:24.840
<v Speaker 2>one hot CPI print, they might get distracted.

0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:27.479
<v Speaker 3>Was that what we got yesterday? How distracted might they be?

0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:30.520
<v Speaker 4>I don't think that much, because it was just one

0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:36.719
<v Speaker 4>element in a broadly consistent data release that certainly was

0:05:36.800 --> 0:05:40.360
<v Speaker 4>very close to consensus forecast. But if we had missed

0:05:41.040 --> 0:05:44.320
<v Speaker 4>on headline, if we had missed on core, if the

0:05:44.400 --> 0:05:47.679
<v Speaker 4>base effects weren't as favorable as they are right now,

0:05:48.839 --> 0:05:51.320
<v Speaker 4>you would have seen a total mess in the marketplace.

0:05:51.800 --> 0:05:53.000
<v Speaker 3>So that was my.

0:05:53.000 --> 0:05:56.920
<v Speaker 4>Concern is that, as much as they don't want to

0:05:57.040 --> 0:06:00.760
<v Speaker 4>admit it, they are not just data depending, their single

0:06:00.839 --> 0:06:04.919
<v Speaker 4>point data dependent, and that's pretty scary for policy setting.

0:06:05.120 --> 0:06:07.080
<v Speaker 2>That's certainly how the market sees it, because it guarded

0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:09.760
<v Speaker 2>the conversation away from fifty and back towards twenty five.

0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:11.920
<v Speaker 2>How do you think they'll look to frame this rate

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:15.040
<v Speaker 2>cup when they deliver it a week yesterday. Will they

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:17.320
<v Speaker 2>call it a mid cycle adjustment? Will they say it's

0:06:17.360 --> 0:06:20.159
<v Speaker 2>the beginning of a journey back to neutral, whatever neutral is.

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:21.719
<v Speaker 3>How do you think they're going to frame this decision?

0:06:22.040 --> 0:06:25.080
<v Speaker 4>I suspect it will be what's called the Dovish twenty

0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:28.200
<v Speaker 4>five base points, which means this is the first of many,

0:06:28.960 --> 0:06:32.640
<v Speaker 4>and we may we may be inclined to go even

0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 4>more if the labor market weakens. There was this phrase

0:06:38.680 --> 0:06:42.720
<v Speaker 4>in the Jackson Hall speech that was really important. We

0:06:42.760 --> 0:06:45.360
<v Speaker 4>don't want to see the labor market get any weaker.

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:49.920
<v Speaker 4>That is a very strong statement from the fair chair.

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:52.400
<v Speaker 4>Whether everybody else is there, we don't know.

0:06:53.320 --> 0:06:54.960
<v Speaker 1>Let's say they do what you want and they come

0:06:54.960 --> 0:06:56.480
<v Speaker 1>out they see, this is what neutral is, this is

0:06:56.520 --> 0:06:58.520
<v Speaker 1>our journey, this is our mandate, this is what we're

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:01.520
<v Speaker 1>going to do. And how much have they lost control

0:07:01.560 --> 0:07:03.880
<v Speaker 1>of the plot anyway, just simply because there are other

0:07:03.920 --> 0:07:07.640
<v Speaker 1>factors at play. You think about, for example, fiscal coming

0:07:07.640 --> 0:07:11.040
<v Speaker 1>out and potentially disrupting things, Think about international investment with

0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:14.800
<v Speaker 1>an auction that's necessarily negative, that kind of forces their hand.

0:07:14.840 --> 0:07:17.680
<v Speaker 1>How much do they have ability to set the narrative

0:07:18.200 --> 0:07:20.600
<v Speaker 1>with such a prescriptive tone right now?

0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:23.840
<v Speaker 4>So they certainly should be incorporating fiscal They must be

0:07:23.920 --> 0:07:26.960
<v Speaker 4>doing this. They certainly should be incorporating q QT. I mean,

0:07:26.960 --> 0:07:29.760
<v Speaker 4>we haven't talked about qt QT is ongoing on that.

0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:33.000
<v Speaker 4>They should certainly should be doing that, and that should

0:07:33.080 --> 0:07:36.680
<v Speaker 4>be reflected in what they say. I hope they're doing

0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:39.120
<v Speaker 4>this internally. I just think they got so burnt in

0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:42.840
<v Speaker 4>twenty twenty one because they did take a forward leaning

0:07:42.920 --> 0:07:44.960
<v Speaker 4>view and they were completely wrong. That they don't want

0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:45.760
<v Speaker 4>to make another mistake.

0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:48.880
<v Speaker 1>What if they say this is a victimless crime. We're

0:07:48.920 --> 0:07:51.320
<v Speaker 1>not seeing a problem from this that essentially they're getting

0:07:51.320 --> 0:07:53.800
<v Speaker 1>it right, and the markets are generally you hear traders

0:07:53.840 --> 0:07:56.960
<v Speaker 1>actually say, actually, Powell is doing a pretty good job,

0:07:57.400 --> 0:07:58.920
<v Speaker 1>so why should they change it?

0:07:59.240 --> 0:08:02.040
<v Speaker 4>What would your argument, Well, first we go back to

0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:04.040
<v Speaker 4>the amount of volatility we've had in fixed income.

0:08:04.360 --> 0:08:07.320
<v Speaker 3>It has been unusual, Lisa, I know, I know. I

0:08:07.360 --> 0:08:08.080
<v Speaker 3>watched it every day.

0:08:08.120 --> 0:08:09.040
<v Speaker 1>We were talking yesterday.

0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:13.400
<v Speaker 4>It was crazy, okay, and that has adverse external effects.

0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:17.160
<v Speaker 4>It undermines also the credibility of the US as the

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:19.640
<v Speaker 4>benchmark for many others, and we are in a world

0:08:19.640 --> 0:08:22.440
<v Speaker 4>in which countries are building little pipes around the US.

0:08:22.480 --> 0:08:25.400
<v Speaker 4>We don't want to enable that process further. That's the

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:27.640
<v Speaker 4>first issue. The second issue is we have a major

0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:32.400
<v Speaker 4>reconciliation in our future. We have the treasury part of

0:08:32.400 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 4>the fixed income market that is signaling quite a high

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:38.840
<v Speaker 4>probability of recession. We have the credit part of the

0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:42.360
<v Speaker 4>fixed income market that is signaling a very high probability

0:08:42.400 --> 0:08:46.120
<v Speaker 4>of a soft lending. Now, if liquidity doesn't reconcile these

0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:49.640
<v Speaker 4>two things, there's going to be even more volatility in

0:08:49.679 --> 0:08:53.199
<v Speaker 4>this marketplace, and at some point volatility spills back to

0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:55.520
<v Speaker 4>the real economy. And the only thing keeping this whe

0:08:55.640 --> 0:08:57.160
<v Speaker 4>economy going right now is the labor market.

0:08:57.240 --> 0:08:59.200
<v Speaker 2>I'm sitting here laughing because we need to kind of

0:08:59.200 --> 0:09:02.000
<v Speaker 2>find what you said. Market participants that think Powell are

0:09:02.040 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 2>doing a great job. They're the bullish once. Yes, let's

0:09:04.480 --> 0:09:06.480
<v Speaker 2>be very clear about that. Actually are still near all

0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:08.280
<v Speaker 2>time highs. If we weren't there, I think they'd have

0:09:08.360 --> 0:09:09.840
<v Speaker 2>something different to say about where we were.

0:09:09.960 --> 0:09:11.560
<v Speaker 1>Maybe their data point depending as well.

0:09:11.640 --> 0:09:14.199
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there's data point is the S and P five hundred.

0:09:14.800 --> 0:09:16.880
<v Speaker 2>You mentioned where the bond market is and where markets

0:09:16.880 --> 0:09:18.320
<v Speaker 2>are and how their price they want to pick up

0:09:18.320 --> 0:09:20.360
<v Speaker 2>on the amount of demand we've seen for some issuance.

0:09:20.600 --> 0:09:22.040
<v Speaker 3>We had a Guild issue last week.

0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:25.240
<v Speaker 2>Record order Book had an Italian issue this week record

0:09:25.320 --> 0:09:27.920
<v Speaker 2>order book. We've seen a similar dynamic in US high

0:09:27.920 --> 0:09:30.679
<v Speaker 2>grade corporate debt in America, particularly last week, two very

0:09:30.679 --> 0:09:34.400
<v Speaker 2>busy days, lots of demand. Credit spread said very very tight.

0:09:34.600 --> 0:09:37.360
<v Speaker 2>Can you reconcile what each part of the fixed income

0:09:37.400 --> 0:09:39.880
<v Speaker 2>market is talentis right now and whether you can make

0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:40.400
<v Speaker 2>sense of it?

0:09:40.720 --> 0:09:44.280
<v Speaker 4>And we had yesterday a treasury auction with massive indirect demand.

0:09:45.040 --> 0:09:47.320
<v Speaker 4>I can only reconcile it by the tone of cash

0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:49.840
<v Speaker 4>US on the sideline and the fear that if you

0:09:49.840 --> 0:09:53.560
<v Speaker 4>don't get into and lock industrates now, you will lose

0:09:54.600 --> 0:09:57.240
<v Speaker 4>interest income in the future. So every time we have

0:09:57.280 --> 0:09:59.880
<v Speaker 4>a backup in rates, people rush back in. I mean,

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.560
<v Speaker 4>yesterday's dynamic was fascinating for me, that the speed of

0:10:03.600 --> 0:10:06.600
<v Speaker 4>the round trip was significant.

0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:08.800
<v Speaker 2>We've seen it a few times, and then last week Mohammed,

0:10:08.840 --> 0:10:09.760
<v Speaker 2>We're lucky to have you