Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
Speaker 2: with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day
Speaker 2: for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics
Speaker 2: from our global headquarters in New York City. We are
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine
Speaker 2: am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or
Speaker 2: anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 3: Begin this hour with stocks rising and bond heels falling
Speaker 3: after Kevin Worsh made it clear the Central Bank will
Speaker 3: not tolerate high inflation. Ed yourd any of your Denny research,
Speaker 3: calling Worsh a quote hawk in Dove's clothing, writing we
Speaker 3: thought he was a dove who favored lowering the federal
Speaker 3: funds rate. Instead, he hammered home a strict orthodox message
Speaker 3: on inflation with a strong commitment to price stability and.
Speaker 1: Joins us now for more at great to see. Thank
Speaker 1: you for being here.
Speaker 3: So is this more of an Alan Greenspan rather than
Speaker 3: say and Alan Burns.
Speaker 4: I really can't answer that because I have a test
Speaker 4: force working on that. We all it's very green span.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's you know, not a lot of information,
Speaker 4: a lot of ambiguity, and you know, occasionally some surprises.
Speaker 4: So he started right off the bat with the surprise.
Speaker 4: You know, it's kind of like he had an interview
Speaker 4: with the President Trump and yes, told him everything that
Speaker 4: he wanted. Yes, we're going to lower interest rates, SAI
Speaker 4: is created, creating productivity. Then as soon as he got
Speaker 4: the job, it's like the old worsh concerned about price stability.
Speaker 4: He mentioned price stability over and over again. Not only that,
Speaker 4: but he pretty much committed to two percent. He didn't
Speaker 4: finagel that too much at all.
Speaker 3: Mike readif RBC said, by their account, inflation was mentioned
Speaker 3: by Kevin Walsh nineteen times. The character four times where
Speaker 3: he mentioned the labor market is this, and the labor
Speaker 3: market is looking right exactly. There is no mention mandate
Speaker 3: or a sense that maybe there's some weakness there in
Speaker 3: conflict in the dual mandate.
Speaker 1: Is this all talk and not action?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: I Mean, if you.
Speaker 3: Were skeptical, you would say this is somebody who wants
Speaker 3: to job on the market. You're seeing the move that
Speaker 3: he wanted in the flattening of the yield curve, and
Speaker 3: then he won't necessarily.
Speaker 4: I think he's hoping that he'll be lucky because so far,
Speaker 4: so good. I mean, the price of oils coming down,
Speaker 4: as you mentioned, the price of gasolines coming down. We
Speaker 4: are going to see the headline inflation used coming down substantially.
Speaker 4: And if he's lucky and the recent inflation surge doesn't
Speaker 4: spread into the rest of the inflation numbers, then he
Speaker 4: may very well just kind of sit back and let
Speaker 4: that all happen, and then he'll say, well, look, things
Speaker 4: are going in the right direction. We don't have to
Speaker 4: do anything, and at the same time signal that down
Speaker 4: the road, maybe the productivity story will come back as
Speaker 4: a reason to lower rates, but right now it may
Speaker 4: be do nothing fed for a while.
Speaker 5: What if we see a labor market does weaken, Now,
Speaker 5: what's his reactionary function going to be?
Speaker 4: Well, he kind of locked himself in. I mean, you know,
Speaker 4: he didn't say very much except on price stability. He
Speaker 4: said that over and over again, and I think that
Speaker 4: if you get a weaker labor market, he's going to
Speaker 4: be called on. If he suddenly becomes very liberal, you know,
Speaker 4: in the mandate and said, well, people are getting hurt.
Speaker 4: We've got to focus on the unemployment rate. He basically
Speaker 4: said that in order to have a healthy economy, in
Speaker 4: order to have a healthy labor market, you have to
Speaker 4: have a price stability, which, by the way, is deja
Speaker 4: vu all over again, because that's what Powell had been
Speaker 4: saying for quite some time.
Speaker 5: Do you think he was the one that threw out
Speaker 5: the proposal of discussing a rate cut at the meeting
Speaker 5: just so he can, you know, when he has breakfast
Speaker 5: with the Treasury Secretary say, look I threw it out
Speaker 5: there and I was pushed back.
Speaker 1: We don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, it's a good conspiracy.
Speaker 1: Theory, right, could work.
Speaker 4: It makes sense. You know. You can go back to
Speaker 4: the President said, hey, I was the one who you
Speaker 4: know well, but he said he didn't vote on the dutlot,
Speaker 4: so you know, I don't know where he is on
Speaker 4: all that.
Speaker 3: So when you take a look at some of the
Speaker 3: projections coming out of a number of different Wall Street houses,
Speaker 3: some have been raising their expectations for a rate hike
Speaker 3: this year. You saw that with Deutsche Bank saying that
Speaker 3: with less communication, they can be more nimble and rate
Speaker 3: hike rates sooner, even City Group, which has been on
Speaker 3: the more dubbish side pushing back the potential for a
Speaker 3: rate cut. If there are rate hikes, does that curtail
Speaker 3: the Roaring twenty twenties and some of the enthusiasm.
Speaker 1: That we're seeing in equities?
Speaker 3: Yes your story, yeah, so does it does affect?
Speaker 4: And last time I was here, I think John mentioned
Speaker 4: that we were six years into the Roaring twenty twenties.
Speaker 4: If you just counted, we're actually seven years into the
Speaker 4: Roaring twenty twenties. And so if I get this year right,
Speaker 4: I only have three more to go. And every year
Speaker 4: there's you know, it's a roller coaster ride. You get
Speaker 4: all sorts of things to worry about. Maybe that's the
Speaker 4: next worry is something we're worrying that. You know, if
Speaker 4: the FED actually has to raise interest rates, then I
Speaker 4: won't that spoiled the Roaring twenty twenties the party we're in,
Speaker 4: And I don't think so. I think I think the
Speaker 4: economy has demonstrated its resilience. People have been kind of
Speaker 4: getting all bent out of shape about the bond yld
Speaker 4: being back up. It's back to four and a hare percent,
Speaker 4: that's kind of normal. I think the bondial is normalized.
Speaker 4: I think FED policy is normalized. I mean, I think,
Speaker 4: you know, worsh can just kind of leave things alone
Speaker 4: here for a while because the economy is performing just fine.
Speaker 3: Those are two different things, though, leaving it alone versus
Speaker 3: hiking rates two different things, and understandably people are watching
Speaker 3: what he does, not what he actually says. At the
Speaker 3: same time, if you do think about hiking two times
Speaker 3: this year, which even Bob Michael of JPMorgan was talking
Speaker 3: about yesterday, how much does that in fact look potentially
Speaker 3: some of what we're saying.
Speaker 4: Look, when the apparel numbers came out real strong, we
Speaker 4: kind of reiterate at our position that there was not
Speaker 4: going to be any rate cuts this year and that
Speaker 4: the FED would probably switch to a tightening bias at
Speaker 4: this meeting, which is exactly what happened. They didn't go
Speaker 4: from easy an easy bias in April to a neutral bias.
Speaker 4: They went right to a tightening bias. And so we
Speaker 4: got that right. And but the thing that really surprised
Speaker 4: me is how hawkish that a worsh came across. If
Speaker 4: the FED were in a position where they had to
Speaker 4: raise rates. It'd be a quarter fifty basis points. It
Speaker 4: wouldn't be a big deal in my humble opinion, and
Speaker 4: the bond market might actually rally on that. Back in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four, then the fedal overer the Fed funds
Speaker 4: right by one hundred basis points. I said, you know,
Speaker 4: I think you're making a mistake here because the economy
Speaker 4: is resilient and you haven't gotten down to two percent.
Speaker 4: And the bond market agreed with me, my bond vigilanti friends.
Speaker 4: The bond yal went up one hundred basis points. And
Speaker 4: even last year they cut sertenty five basis points on
Speaker 4: the Fed funds rate in the bond yield, where is
Speaker 4: it any four and a half percent? So they haven't
Speaker 4: accomplished anything. So lowering rates hasn't helped, but they may conclude. Look,
Speaker 4: the thing that really came across to me is that,
Speaker 4: and he said it. Wor said, look, we haven't we
Speaker 4: haven't gotten down to our two percent inflation target in
Speaker 4: over five years. And he said he committed the committee
Speaker 4: to get down to get inflation down to two percent,
Speaker 4: So you know, how are you going to do that
Speaker 4: without raising interest rates. So I think the market's got
Speaker 4: it right now when we thought that there would be
Speaker 4: a tightening bias and there could be an increase. If
Speaker 4: the FED really wants to get it down to two percent,
Speaker 4: that may be necessary.
Speaker 5: But what about the FED policy on the housing market,
Speaker 5: because he said that's one area he does think it's restrictive.
Speaker 4: Well, at the same time he's talking about reducing the
Speaker 4: balance sheet and particularly focusing on fed's been talking for
Speaker 4: a while about reducing the mortgage backed securities down to zero.
Speaker 4: That's not going to help, uh, the housing market. I
Speaker 4: don't think they've got an answer for that, you know.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's it's a shotgun, it's not a rifle.
Speaker 4: They there, there's and there's only so much the FED
Speaker 4: can do. I'm a believer that, you know, if the
Speaker 4: FED is not in our face as much as it
Speaker 4: was when Palell was around, I mean, I really don't
Speaker 4: mind less less communication. I finally finally had been calling
Speaker 4: in the Federal Open Mouth Committee.
Speaker 1: Are you on the task force? As this is my
Speaker 1: first question, Eroyd, are you on a task force? Which
Speaker 1: one stay with us?
Speaker 2: Mulple Impex surviance coming up after this.
Speaker 6: My whole life is all about deals.
Speaker 1: That's all I if it did is make deals.
Speaker 6: If they don't honor the agreements, who will probably go
Speaker 6: back to bombing them.
Speaker 3: Here's the latest, President Donald Trump signing an interim peace
Speaker 3: deal with Iran last night. Norman rule of csis writing
Speaker 3: the reported US or on deal is best understood as
Speaker 3: a high value pause in the current military phase of
Speaker 3: the conflict, not a durable strategic settlement. The deal buys time,
Speaker 3: it does not by trust. Norman joins us now from
Speaker 3: more Norman, wonderful to get your perspective.
Speaker 1: Can you just elaborate on that.
Speaker 3: Why do you think that this fourteen point deal is
Speaker 3: simply a placeholder and not necessarily a roadmap for what's
Speaker 3: to come?
Speaker 7: Good morning. The deal certainly has drawn a fair amount
Speaker 7: of criticism from both opponents and supporters of the administration
Speaker 7: for its language, but it provides a mechanism for the
Speaker 7: administration to transfer the process from a military conflict which
Speaker 7: had no longer provided options for a low cost way
Speaker 7: to restore access to the straight and to achieve its
Speaker 7: previous goals, into a diplomatic process. Now, the diplomatic process
Speaker 7: may not offer any optimism for its success, but the
Speaker 7: diplomatic process immediately relieves pressure on the World Energy Mark
Speaker 7: and the world economies and sort of reshuffles the deck
Speaker 7: of options for the administration. Now, in terms of what
Speaker 7: the Iranians will get out of this, absolutely they will
Speaker 7: get some financial relief. But in fairness, the three hundred
Speaker 7: billion dollar fund is described as a plan. There's absolutely
Speaker 7: no reason to believe that anyone in their right mind
Speaker 7: will donate money to this, given the fact that money
Speaker 7: will be hostage to Iran's policy future sanctions, and that
Speaker 7: Gulf states have been victims of Iranian attacks and are
Speaker 7: devoting most of their investments to their own economies. And
Speaker 7: my last point that I would make on this is
Speaker 7: that this process itself is tenuous, and the President and
Speaker 7: the administration will need to improve early on that this
Speaker 7: process is narrow, it is a reversible and it is
Speaker 7: achieving something besides giving the Iranians additional liquidity Norman.
Speaker 5: Given the fact that it is narrow, what happened to
Speaker 5: the president's own red lines that he's spoken about for years?
Speaker 7: Well, his red lines that he mentioned again in the
Speaker 7: press conference yesterday will remain threefold. First, and ron cannot
Speaker 7: have a pathway to a nuclear weapon that remains part
Speaker 7: of this process, and indeed that's the primary effort of
Speaker 7: upcoming talks. Now we've talked about missiles, and his statement
Speaker 7: yesterday is that Ron can have a normal complement of
Speaker 7: missiles that any country in the world might have. That's
Speaker 7: not an ICBM, that's not an intermediate range ballistic missiles,
Speaker 7: but that would be a defensive compliment that any country
Speaker 7: would have, and that's got to be worked out with
Speaker 7: its neighbors. And last day, Ron's got to do something
Speaker 7: about its militias that it can't have a process. The
Speaker 7: sense is that there's conversations that are going on on
Speaker 7: the side of the steel that will work that out.
Speaker 7: But that's a complicated regional diplomatic issue that they don't
Speaker 7: want to put in the same basket as their initial
Speaker 7: discussions with the already very hard nuclear issues.
Speaker 5: The vice president, he was making the rounds doing some interviews,
Speaker 5: as the reporter said that Ron's regen is quote a
Speaker 5: much different group of people for whom quote something has
Speaker 5: fundamentally transformed norm Do you see any evidence that this
Speaker 5: is really a new regime.
Speaker 7: Well, they're a new generation. They were raised in a
Speaker 7: different world of post two thousand and three worldview, So
Speaker 7: certainly they have a different perspective. But there's no evidence
Speaker 7: whatsoever that they believe that Uron should not be a
Speaker 7: regional Hegemen, that they don't believe that they have a
Speaker 7: right to and a reason to run malicious such as
Speaker 7: Hezbollah and the who theis, and that they won't remain
Speaker 7: a threat to their neighbors in the near term. But
Speaker 7: clearly there are conversations going on between the administration and
Speaker 7: some elements in the Iranian government that have given the
Speaker 7: administration reason to believe this may be the case. The
Speaker 7: trick is the administration needs to demonstrate somewhat early on
Speaker 7: in the process that this process is proving that is,
Speaker 7: that possibility may be realized.
Speaker 3: Norm do you think that this realigns the US in
Speaker 3: the region. It seems like the Gulf nations are happy
Speaker 3: that the kinetic conflict will at least cease for now.
Speaker 3: At the same time, Israel is pretty upset because of their.
Speaker 1: Goals have not been reached. Do you think this.
Speaker 3: Aligns the US more closely with Gulf nations and further
Speaker 3: away from Israel.
Speaker 7: Well, let's look at Israel's goals. Iran's nuclear program has
Speaker 7: been devastated. Iran's missile program has been severely damaged. Now
Speaker 7: at the same time, the regime remains in place. The
Speaker 7: militias are no more active than they were prior to this.
Speaker 7: The question I think for Israel is how long would
Speaker 7: that conflict continue? And there are people in Israel and
Speaker 7: the United States would like this conflict to continue, and
Speaker 7: that's an ideological position. Now within the Gulf, they're paying
Speaker 7: the price for that conflict with the missile striking their population.
Speaker 7: There's no evidence the Gulf States as a group oppose
Speaker 7: the deal the President is put forward, and the United
Speaker 7: States is seen as the indispensable security partner of the GCC.
Speaker 7: It may not be sufficient to be the only partner,
Speaker 7: but it is the indispensable partner, and it leaves this
Speaker 7: conflict much closer to all of these of the GCC states.
Speaker 3: Do you think that buying time means sixty days or
Speaker 3: do you think that buying time means till the end
Speaker 3: of the year.
Speaker 7: Yes, I think the answer is it could be either,
Speaker 7: but it's going to depend upon events. And that's important
Speaker 7: because all it takes would be some sort of high
Speaker 7: casualty event. It might take place. God forbid in Lebanon,
Speaker 7: which remains a separate arena from this. Neither Israel nor
Speaker 7: the Lebanese has below or parties to this agreement, although
Speaker 7: Lebanon is mentioned in the agreement. And some sort of
Speaker 7: event could take place during the discussions which could take
Speaker 7: these conversations out of joint and move this into a
Speaker 7: different sort of dynamic. But the administration is going to
Speaker 7: look for some way to show that the Iranians are
Speaker 7: moving in the right direction, and that will take time. Remember,
Speaker 7: nothing moves fast and talks with Iran no matter which
Speaker 7: administration is dealing with him. And these issues are issues
Speaker 7: that every administration has spent years struggling to work with Iran.
Speaker 7: So it would be unfair to have to expect that
Speaker 7: the Trump administration could achieve any of this quickly.
Speaker 2: Stay with US MULTILINPEX diviance.
Speaker 3: Coming up off to this, Claudia sam of New Century Advisors, writing,
Speaker 3: I think it was a mistake by Warsh not to
Speaker 3: participate in the statement of economic projections Orshe is leaving
Speaker 3: huge blanks in his communication. The dot plots days may
Speaker 3: be numbered, but it was critical for credibility. Claudia joins
Speaker 3: US now for more Claudia, great to see you always
Speaker 3: love getting your perspective.
Speaker 1: Let's start there. Why was it a mistake not to
Speaker 1: put a dot on that plot?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 6: Well, I think this statement ended with a very forceful
Speaker 6: this committee will deliver price stability, which leads to a
Speaker 6: natural question of how are you going to do that?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 6: But how are you going to deliver? And then summary
Speaker 6: of economic projections. It is not perfect. It's often misunderstood,
Speaker 6: but that is actually the exercise of the dot plot.
Speaker 6: It's actually each individual is like the FOMC there, what
Speaker 6: is the appropriate path for federal funds rate? What's the
Speaker 6: right monetary policy to get us to the dual mandate
Speaker 6: that price stability? You know, two percent is where all
Speaker 6: those forecasts end in twenty twenty eight. That's because of
Speaker 6: they're working their way towards price stability and they adjust
Speaker 6: their federal funds rate to get there. So they're like
Speaker 6: putting together plans individually. And Kevin Worrish didn't participate in
Speaker 6: that exercise, and he didn't flesh out in the press
Speaker 6: conference his views of what a plan could be of
Speaker 6: how to get to that price stability.
Speaker 3: And this is partly by design, right, I mean He
Speaker 3: talked about how he wanted the market to be one
Speaker 3: of the key metrics that they.
Speaker 1: Do look at, and that the market.
Speaker 3: He wants to have clarity, a focus on the data
Speaker 3: without trying to interpret how the FED would look at
Speaker 3: the data.
Speaker 1: And then respond to the Fed's response to the And
Speaker 1: what do you make of that argument?
Speaker 6: I think it's going to be a tough sell. And honestly,
Speaker 6: I can you know set aside. He doesn't want to
Speaker 6: talk about plans, he doesn't want to talk about the future. Okay,
Speaker 6: that's a debate to have about communication. But what was
Speaker 6: really striking is he didn't want to talk about the
Speaker 6: decision they made this week. I mean, they say they
Speaker 6: want price stability. They voted unanimously to hold rate steady.
Speaker 6: How is that in service of price stability?
Speaker 1: Are you saying he didn't think they should have hiked
Speaker 1: this meeting?
Speaker 6: No, I think they should have explained why they chose
Speaker 6: to hold rate steady. I agree with that decision, but
Speaker 6: it is it's like totally pointless that I agree with it.
Speaker 6: I want to hear what the FED chair thinks about it,
Speaker 6: what the committee thinks about it. Why was that the
Speaker 6: right decision? We know from the summary of economic projections
Speaker 6: that many of them think it's going to be appropriate
Speaker 6: to raise rates later. Many of them don't think it
Speaker 6: will be like, tell me about why you decided to
Speaker 6: do what you did today. It's communications also about accountability,
Speaker 6: understanding who these people are that are making these big decisions.
Speaker 6: Don't They don't have a crystal ball, but I really
Speaker 6: do expect them to explain what they're doing right now
Speaker 6: and show their work.
Speaker 5: Is it potentially that Kevin Morris views as a slippery
Speaker 5: slope to then be an individual that's up there on
Speaker 5: the podium giving forward guidance which he doesn't agree with.
Speaker 6: Again, I don't, you know, don't tell me about the future,
Speaker 6: but I feel like there's some hiding behind the dargon.
Speaker 6: And I will say, first press conference right like this,
Speaker 6: you know, unevenness out of the gate, totally understandable. But
Speaker 6: I do think there's room for adjustment. And if you
Speaker 6: just want to talk about the decision that was made today, fine,
Speaker 6: but do talk about that. And yes, I think it's important,
Speaker 6: you know, the slippery slope, okay, fine, but the service
Speaker 6: of accountability is important and we do need to I think,
Speaker 6: have some insights onto the discussions that they're having and
Speaker 6: how they're weighing the data and what they're thinking about,
Speaker 6: because honestly, right now, monetary policy is tough, right, so
Speaker 6: we should have some insights into the debate that they're
Speaker 6: having about those policies we did.
Speaker 3: We're going to get more information about how they plan
Speaker 3: to communicate going forward. What's the potential consequence of this
Speaker 3: approach in markets?
Speaker 1: Is it more volatility?
Speaker 3: Is it just more uncertainty expressed in other ways? How
Speaker 3: do you filter this into being potentially pernicious in a
Speaker 3: way that maybe people don't understand.
Speaker 6: Markets are going to fill in the blanks, right, They're
Speaker 6: going to try to come up with some views. That's
Speaker 6: going to mean we're going to have more uncertainty about
Speaker 6: what the Federal Reserve is going to do, which is
Speaker 6: going to lead to potentially more volatility and interest rates
Speaker 6: and investors are going to want to be compensated for
Speaker 6: that uncertainty, right, So it does come at a cost,
Speaker 6: and so you know, there's no free lunch here in
Speaker 6: terms of how the Fed interacts with markets. And you know,
Speaker 6: I just we had a FED long ago that liked
Speaker 6: to surprise markets and didn't give a lot of information
Speaker 6: and the recent regime may not be perfect, but we
Speaker 6: moved away from that. The FED surprising markets for a
Speaker 6: lot of good reasons, and I think backtracking into that
Speaker 6: is could cause a lot of problems down the road.
Speaker 3: We did learn something pretty crucial and this added to
Speaker 3: the hawkish message that the market took from the statement
Speaker 3: and frankly the statement of economic projections in particular, which
Speaker 3: is that nine of the eighteen members of the FBC
Speaker 3: saw the next move as a hike later this year.
Speaker 3: That's new and that's significant. How do you interpret that?
Speaker 3: Do you think that that's the appropriate stance?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 6: And what those individuals are saying is not necessarily expect hikes,
Speaker 6: but they think that's appropriate. That is going to be
Speaker 6: necessary to get us back to price stability. That's a
Speaker 6: really important statement. Again, I think we here speeches will
Speaker 6: get this fleshed out with individuals thinking. But they also
Speaker 6: said in the statement that you know a big part
Speaker 6: of what's happening with inflation are supply shocks related to energy.
Speaker 6: The textbook is or in energy supply shocks, the FED
Speaker 6: should look through it. The FED shouldn't be raising rates
Speaker 6: into that. So it's telling you something to have a
Speaker 6: group of FED officials say, you know what, we've had
Speaker 6: enough of these supply shocks. It's spread out over time.
Speaker 6: We need to be raising rates to rain this. And
Speaker 6: even if it goes against you know, the textbook response
Speaker 6: to one supply shock individually, that is a big shift
Speaker 6: in monitor policy. And it was a very divided committee.
Speaker 6: You had the other half not going down that route.
Speaker 6: So there's a lot going on in the committee in
Speaker 6: these debates, and you know, it would be nice to
Speaker 6: understand a little bit more about what what the exact
Speaker 6: debates are. The dots are hard to read from the outside.
Speaker 5: Speaking of the SEP though, And I know you think
Speaker 5: it was a mistake for Warsh not to participate. Do
Speaker 5: you think it's a signal that potentially the dot plock
Speaker 5: go away one day?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 6: It could, but the you know you need I think
Speaker 6: the tool, the communication is important. There may be a
Speaker 6: better way to do it, you know, I think it's
Speaker 6: it's very helpful to get a sense of, you know,
Speaker 6: how how candy members react to data, how they think
Speaker 6: about weighing inflation or unemployment. Maybe the dot plot is
Speaker 6: not the best way to do this. I think the
Speaker 6: committee in their Framework review. We're clear there are some
Speaker 6: flaws with it, but nobody had a better idea. I
Speaker 6: think that's the thing is that, you know, you just
Speaker 6: deleting information. Deleting tools is not going to be very satisfying.
Speaker 6: Improving them is going to be awesome. So if Kevin
Speaker 6: Oworsh can lead to real improvements, I think that'd be
Speaker 6: something to be excited about. But that's going to take time,
Speaker 6: and this committee has really thought hard about the issue.
Speaker 6: It's not simple to answer these questions. But we'll see
Speaker 6: where the task force and then the Committee how they
Speaker 6: weigh the ideas that the task force come up with.
Speaker 3: Claudia, do you think that Jerome Powell will stay on
Speaker 3: for longer due to some of the scope of changes
Speaker 3: that are currently underway?
Speaker 6: So I take Jerome Powell at his word that he is,
Speaker 6: you know, his decision to stay on is very much
Speaker 6: tied with these concerns about independence, concerns about the building,
Speaker 6: the review of the building renovation, and so when he
Speaker 6: feels like, you know, those issues have been resolved to
Speaker 6: his satisfaction, then I would expect him to go. I
Speaker 6: didn't see anything in this is like a protest vote
Speaker 6: of Kevin worsh I mean, it sounded like everyone on
Speaker 6: the committee is really trying to set the new chair
Speaker 6: up for success.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Sevendans podcast, bringing you the best
Speaker 2: in markets, economics, an gio politics. You can watch the
Speaker 2: show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am
Speaker 2: to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple,
Speaker 2: Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.