WEBVTT - Powell's Testifies and Impeachment Hearings (Podcast)

0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Penel Podcast. I'm Paul swing you,

0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:07.680
<v Speaker 1>along with my co host Lisa Brahma wits. Each day

0:00:07.720 --> 0:00:10.240
<v Speaker 1>we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:12.520
<v Speaker 1>you and your money, whether at the grocery store or

0:00:12.560 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg penl podcast on Apple

0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:17.959
<v Speaker 1>podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:20.520
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg dot com. Or we'll have a FED Chairman

0:00:20.640 --> 0:00:23.440
<v Speaker 1>j Pal speaking in front of Congress today. We already

0:00:23.440 --> 0:00:27.520
<v Speaker 1>got his comments released earlier this morning, saying essentially that

0:00:28.200 --> 0:00:31.040
<v Speaker 1>the FED policy is in a good place right now,

0:00:31.080 --> 0:00:33.800
<v Speaker 1>but there are risks out there. To get a preview

0:00:33.800 --> 0:00:35.760
<v Speaker 1>what we might hear from FED Chairman Power, we welcome

0:00:35.840 --> 0:00:39.879
<v Speaker 1>Diane swamp Grant Thornton, Chief Economist. Diane, thanks so much

0:00:39.920 --> 0:00:42.600
<v Speaker 1>for joining us here. You've got to look at some

0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:44.479
<v Speaker 1>of the comments from FED Chairman Poal. What do you

0:00:44.520 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>think we might hear from him? Well, the key issue

0:00:47.200 --> 0:00:49.720
<v Speaker 1>is one they're on the sidelines until they see a

0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:52.720
<v Speaker 1>major change in the outlook for growth, and that could

0:00:52.720 --> 0:00:55.160
<v Speaker 1>be anything from an escalation of the trade war with

0:00:55.320 --> 0:00:59.320
<v Speaker 1>China to some kind of escalation in geopolitical tensions like

0:00:59.360 --> 0:01:02.240
<v Speaker 1>what's going on in Hong Kong. Depending on that plays out,

0:01:02.520 --> 0:01:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that could have an economic impact as well, and that's

0:01:05.040 --> 0:01:08.199
<v Speaker 1>something that they're watching closely. Was interesting that he talked

0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:12.120
<v Speaker 1>so much about fiscal policy in his prepared remarks, warning

0:01:12.160 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 1>that you know, we're gonna need that fiscal space down

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:16.480
<v Speaker 1>the road because the said doesn't have a lot of

0:01:16.480 --> 0:01:19.440
<v Speaker 1>tools to counter a recession should we get there. And

0:01:19.480 --> 0:01:22.840
<v Speaker 1>this is something that other FED chairman have constantly sort

0:01:22.880 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>of gone on. He's joined the band legon of other

0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:27.960
<v Speaker 1>FED chairman on this talking about fiscal policy, the need

0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:32.080
<v Speaker 1>for um sustainable fiscal policy, and also the need to

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:35.160
<v Speaker 1>provide help when the economy does falter. This is something

0:01:35.520 --> 0:01:38.119
<v Speaker 1>we only saw in the early stages in the post

0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:41.240
<v Speaker 1>crisis period. In fact, then fiscal policy became a hurdle

0:01:41.520 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>for the economy as all the burden was shifted on

0:01:44.080 --> 0:01:46.880
<v Speaker 1>to the shoulders of the subtle reserve. And they know

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:49.800
<v Speaker 1>the dangers of that. They've already experienced the dangers of that,

0:01:50.200 --> 0:01:54.280
<v Speaker 1>and they're worried also about the unintended consequences of too

0:01:54.320 --> 0:01:56.720
<v Speaker 1>low rates for too long, and that's something he mentioned

0:01:56.760 --> 0:02:00.160
<v Speaker 1>as well in his prepared remarks. And that's corporate at

0:02:00.280 --> 0:02:03.320
<v Speaker 1>He's concerned about the lofty levels of debt were now

0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:06.280
<v Speaker 1>taking on and that that may be a threat to

0:02:06.440 --> 0:02:09.360
<v Speaker 1>the economy when we have a downturn, making any downturn

0:02:09.720 --> 0:02:12.920
<v Speaker 1>worse than it otherwise. Would be the headline though, is J.

0:02:13.080 --> 0:02:15.959
<v Speaker 1>Powell makes no news? He's successful, right? I mean that's

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:18.520
<v Speaker 1>going to be the headline today. Artful dodger, Yes, the

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:23.040
<v Speaker 1>artful dodger. Okay, that's that's in Washington. Would you want

0:02:23.040 --> 0:02:25.160
<v Speaker 1>to make news today if you're the Fed chairman? I

0:02:25.200 --> 0:02:28.320
<v Speaker 1>don't think. And you know what, he has competition. He

0:02:28.360 --> 0:02:31.239
<v Speaker 1>has competition. So it's so he's in a good spot

0:02:31.600 --> 0:02:34.280
<v Speaker 1>right now. I am wondering, though about the CPI data

0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:38.120
<v Speaker 1>that we got today showing that without energy and food

0:02:38.639 --> 0:02:42.400
<v Speaker 1>it actually is decelerating. How concerning is that to you? Well,

0:02:42.440 --> 0:02:45.080
<v Speaker 1>I think it's really hard as the unevenness of inflation

0:02:45.160 --> 0:02:47.560
<v Speaker 1>for the Federal Reserve. What we're seeing is, you know,

0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 1>you've got a lot of inflation and medical care costs

0:02:50.160 --> 0:02:53.359
<v Speaker 1>and medical services that's a over five percent from a

0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:55.840
<v Speaker 1>year ago now where you've got a deceleration and many

0:02:55.880 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 1>other categories. There's a big drop in apparel prices. That's

0:02:59.200 --> 0:03:02.160
<v Speaker 1>been something that's ongoing. We also saw the reversal and

0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:04.959
<v Speaker 1>new and used car prices, and this is something that

0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:07.239
<v Speaker 1>you know, the FED for the moment has sort of

0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:09.720
<v Speaker 1>sidelined a bit and said, hey, you know, we were

0:03:09.720 --> 0:03:12.480
<v Speaker 1>worried about inflation being too low. We're gonna wait on

0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:15.200
<v Speaker 1>the legs on these three rate cuts we saw and

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 1>see if that pushes inflation up gets a little more

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:19.720
<v Speaker 1>heat in the economy. They're certainly willing to take that

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:23.280
<v Speaker 1>in terms of wages, and if that translates into more inflation,

0:03:23.560 --> 0:03:26.720
<v Speaker 1>that would be welcome news for the Federal Reserve. That said,

0:03:27.000 --> 0:03:31.200
<v Speaker 1>this ongoing stickiness in the low inflation environment, although it's

0:03:31.280 --> 0:03:33.639
<v Speaker 1>high for some people, those people who are on fixed

0:03:33.639 --> 0:03:36.040
<v Speaker 1>incomes and have to pay for medical costs more as

0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:38.800
<v Speaker 1>a larger show of their budget, they're really screaming right now.

0:03:38.800 --> 0:03:40.840
<v Speaker 1>On the other side of it, we're not seeing the

0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:43.200
<v Speaker 1>wage games you really want for workers, and that's what

0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:46.320
<v Speaker 1>the FED is really striving for. So, Diane, we've seen

0:03:46.360 --> 0:03:48.560
<v Speaker 1>really over the last year developed a scenario where the

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:53.160
<v Speaker 1>consumer increasingly is carrying this economy as we see weakness

0:03:53.160 --> 0:03:56.839
<v Speaker 1>and manufacturing sector business investment. How long do you think

0:03:56.960 --> 0:03:59.920
<v Speaker 1>that trend can continue, well, you know something's got to

0:04:00.080 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 1>of either business sector has to come back a bit

0:04:03.760 --> 0:04:06.920
<v Speaker 1>and show up the foundation of growth going forward, so

0:04:06.960 --> 0:04:09.640
<v Speaker 1>we get some productivity gains, we get some movement up

0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:12.200
<v Speaker 1>in that or consumers are going to take it on

0:04:12.240 --> 0:04:14.440
<v Speaker 1>the chain if businesses pull back more and have the

0:04:14.480 --> 0:04:18.520
<v Speaker 1>second shooting drop, and that is actual cuts in hiring.

0:04:18.680 --> 0:04:21.360
<v Speaker 1>And that's something we're really watching closely because there really

0:04:21.440 --> 0:04:25.080
<v Speaker 1>was a very important shift that went on this summer

0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:27.240
<v Speaker 1>and in this year, and that was a slowdown in

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:30.760
<v Speaker 1>payroll growth, but also the overall job openings are down

0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:32.680
<v Speaker 1>four months in a row from a year ago, still

0:04:32.720 --> 0:04:36.039
<v Speaker 1>at lofty levels. That's great. Firms are reporting it's easier

0:04:36.080 --> 0:04:39.320
<v Speaker 1>to higher than it was um earlier in the cycle.

0:04:39.400 --> 0:04:41.880
<v Speaker 1>All of a sudden, that loosening of the labor markets

0:04:41.880 --> 0:04:45.000
<v Speaker 1>to the exact opposite that we want this late at

0:04:45.160 --> 0:04:47.599
<v Speaker 1>a game, at the stage in the business cycle. We

0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:50.760
<v Speaker 1>want to see a little more heat and less fragility

0:04:50.800 --> 0:04:53.239
<v Speaker 1>in the business cycle in terms of the labor market.

0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:56.080
<v Speaker 1>And that's what so far has been really holding consumers

0:04:56.120 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 1>up is the fact the labor market is still there,

0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:01.240
<v Speaker 1>not as many wage gains and in raises as they like,

0:05:01.560 --> 0:05:03.960
<v Speaker 1>but frankly, low prices at the pump compared to a

0:05:04.000 --> 0:05:06.560
<v Speaker 1>year ago are helping them out. Huge sentiment shift in

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:10.840
<v Speaker 1>the market right now from bearished bullish, with a feeling

0:05:10.920 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>that the disinflation, the deflationary trade is overdone. Do you

0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:19.200
<v Speaker 1>think that there is data to support that. I think

0:05:19.240 --> 0:05:22.400
<v Speaker 1>the disinflationary trade, it's not clear that that's overdone yet.

0:05:22.440 --> 0:05:24.280
<v Speaker 1>We've got to see the effects of tar of sound

0:05:24.360 --> 0:05:27.360
<v Speaker 1>consumer products. That's still in the pipeline. But I think

0:05:27.520 --> 0:05:30.840
<v Speaker 1>more importantly though, is we've got a global situation that's

0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:33.719
<v Speaker 1>still weak, and the market seems to trade on you know,

0:05:34.000 --> 0:05:37.039
<v Speaker 1>yes or no answers. Is the global economy slowing further

0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:39.640
<v Speaker 1>at the moment? No, um, but it could. It looks

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:42.000
<v Speaker 1>like it's plateau ing at the bottom or bottoming out

0:05:42.000 --> 0:05:43.960
<v Speaker 1>in some areas, But we don't know if there's another

0:05:44.000 --> 0:05:46.520
<v Speaker 1>step down or if it's going to step up. My

0:05:46.600 --> 0:05:48.920
<v Speaker 1>own concerns is that we're very limited in how much

0:05:48.920 --> 0:05:52.400
<v Speaker 1>stimulus we can provide, and that China remains a real

0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:54.760
<v Speaker 1>wild card, not only with the trade agreement but just

0:05:54.839 --> 0:05:58.360
<v Speaker 1>growth itself. In China. It continues to weaken and surprise

0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:00.640
<v Speaker 1>on the downside, and that's something it seems to be

0:06:00.640 --> 0:06:03.520
<v Speaker 1>discounted in financial markets. This isn't like the japan trade

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 1>war in the China is the second largest economy in

0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:09.160
<v Speaker 1>the world with tentacles and almost every other economy in

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:11.440
<v Speaker 1>the world. So the ripple effects may not be through

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:15.200
<v Speaker 1>what we worry about in financial markets directly, but indirectly

0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:17.680
<v Speaker 1>through growth. Dian Swank, thank you so much for being

0:06:17.720 --> 0:06:36.280
<v Speaker 1>with us. Diane Swonk as Grant Thornton Chief Economist. Well,

0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:38.919
<v Speaker 1>there's a really cool article on the terminal today that

0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:41.679
<v Speaker 1>really caught my eye. The title in particular, the FED

0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:44.880
<v Speaker 1>is losing its grip on US interest rates once again.

0:06:44.920 --> 0:06:47.240
<v Speaker 1>I thought the Fed was doing a great job. Alex

0:06:47.279 --> 0:06:50.000
<v Speaker 1>Harris covers all things effects and rates for Bloomberg News.

0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:52.159
<v Speaker 1>What's going on here? I was about to give the

0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>big pat on the back to the Fed for getting

0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:57.159
<v Speaker 1>is nice offt Landing. Well, I mean, here's the thing,

0:06:57.279 --> 0:06:59.839
<v Speaker 1>you know, so there's like policy tool kit that the

0:07:00.200 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 1>works with to sort of keep the FED funds rate

0:07:02.680 --> 0:07:05.120
<v Speaker 1>within that band, which is right now one and a

0:07:05.160 --> 0:07:08.800
<v Speaker 1>half percent to one in three quarters per cent um.

0:07:08.839 --> 0:07:12.360
<v Speaker 1>But you know, part of the unintended consequence with you know,

0:07:12.440 --> 0:07:16.680
<v Speaker 1>these liquidity injections, these repo operations, treasury bill purchases, is

0:07:16.680 --> 0:07:19.440
<v Speaker 1>that it's helped push the FED funds rate a bit

0:07:19.560 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 1>lower than it might otherwise be. And so now, like

0:07:24.160 --> 0:07:27.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, with the previous adjustments, you know, when FED

0:07:27.760 --> 0:07:29.840
<v Speaker 1>funds was too close to the top of the range, Well,

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:31.720
<v Speaker 1>now we're at a point where it's a little too

0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:34.560
<v Speaker 1>close to the bottom of the range. Now people are wondering,

0:07:34.640 --> 0:07:38.720
<v Speaker 1>while if they were making adjustments to interest on excess

0:07:38.720 --> 0:07:41.280
<v Speaker 1>reserves rate, which is one of their tools and the toolkit,

0:07:41.680 --> 0:07:44.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, when we're getting so close to the top,

0:07:44.920 --> 0:07:47.520
<v Speaker 1>can we expect something similar in the bottom to ensure

0:07:47.600 --> 0:07:50.680
<v Speaker 1>that Fed funds, you know, doesn't risk breaching that bottom,

0:07:50.920 --> 0:07:53.960
<v Speaker 1>that bottom boundary, and instead, you know stage okay, hold

0:07:53.960 --> 0:07:56.440
<v Speaker 1>on a second. So for people who don't necessarily count

0:07:56.480 --> 0:08:00.680
<v Speaker 1>themselves as interest rate wonks, the larger takeaway here as

0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:04.160
<v Speaker 1>I listened to you, maybe again going back to the

0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:07.400
<v Speaker 1>repot issues and going back to this question, is the

0:08:07.400 --> 0:08:11.280
<v Speaker 1>Fed's balance sheet too small considering how big the market

0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:14.240
<v Speaker 1>for US treasuries has gotten. It's a really good question,

0:08:14.280 --> 0:08:16.920
<v Speaker 1>and it's whether or not there's enough liquidity and you know,

0:08:17.000 --> 0:08:20.240
<v Speaker 1>some people would say, no, there's no risk of that

0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:23.440
<v Speaker 1>breach on the lower boundary because there's not enough liquidity

0:08:23.480 --> 0:08:25.480
<v Speaker 1>back in the system. And I think Powell also brought

0:08:25.480 --> 0:08:28.120
<v Speaker 1>this up at the very end of his written testimony

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:31.720
<v Speaker 1>that will hear shortly UM is that no, we're fine,

0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:34.880
<v Speaker 1>We're working on getting our reserves back into the system. Um.

0:08:34.960 --> 0:08:37.800
<v Speaker 1>But you know there's still liquidity. Too much. Liquidity is

0:08:37.800 --> 0:08:40.600
<v Speaker 1>not the issue yet. There is a question heading into

0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:43.320
<v Speaker 1>year end, are we going to see another repo market

0:08:43.320 --> 0:08:46.720
<v Speaker 1>disruption akin to what we saw in September. Given the

0:08:46.760 --> 0:08:49.320
<v Speaker 1>fact that we haven't come up with a permanent solution yet,

0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:52.400
<v Speaker 1>I think we'll see some sort of disruption. I think

0:08:52.440 --> 0:08:55.040
<v Speaker 1>that's being anticipated. Part of the reason is you have

0:08:55.160 --> 0:08:57.840
<v Speaker 1>these regulatory factors at the end of the year of

0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:01.720
<v Speaker 1>search arges for the big banks know where repo, which

0:09:01.760 --> 0:09:04.880
<v Speaker 1>can be punitive for these scoring forces them to pull back.

0:09:05.000 --> 0:09:06.679
<v Speaker 1>So we are going to get a pull back. Do

0:09:06.720 --> 0:09:10.200
<v Speaker 1>I see repo at ten percent? Again, probably not, but

0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:13.920
<v Speaker 1>definitely elevated. I think already year end is trading somewhere

0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:17.200
<v Speaker 1>above three percent, which you're relative to where repo is

0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:19.920
<v Speaker 1>now on a daily basis. Somewhere around one sixty. Yeah,

0:09:19.920 --> 0:09:23.040
<v Speaker 1>that's quite a move. Um. You know, I don't know

0:09:23.200 --> 0:09:25.960
<v Speaker 1>what permanent facility they can put in place right now

0:09:26.000 --> 0:09:29.280
<v Speaker 1>that would alleviate, you know, some of these issues. I

0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:31.760
<v Speaker 1>think there's little things that they can do to address it,

0:09:31.800 --> 0:09:35.160
<v Speaker 1>mainly how you know, they treat the repo operations, because

0:09:35.240 --> 0:09:37.720
<v Speaker 1>part of the issue is going to be is, Okay,

0:09:37.760 --> 0:09:40.079
<v Speaker 1>you have the repo operations and they stay with the dealers,

0:09:40.120 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 1>and that cash does not get out to the rest

0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:43.959
<v Speaker 1>of the market, and it's the rest of the market

0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:46.199
<v Speaker 1>that needs that funding. So I mean, that's one of

0:09:46.240 --> 0:09:48.200
<v Speaker 1>the reasons why we're going to have issues. And I

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:51.679
<v Speaker 1>think the FED just philosophically doesn't know what they should

0:09:51.679 --> 0:09:53.920
<v Speaker 1>be doing if they put a standing repo or a

0:09:54.040 --> 0:09:57.439
<v Speaker 1>permanent repo facility in place. Quite yet. Have we seen

0:09:57.480 --> 0:10:01.920
<v Speaker 1>this repo problem BEF, I don't recall it at being

0:10:01.920 --> 0:10:05.960
<v Speaker 1>this long and duration. No. I mean the thing is that,

0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:09.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, post finance, you know, the financial crisis was

0:10:09.520 --> 0:10:13.080
<v Speaker 1>a completely different animal, and so post crisis, you know,

0:10:13.120 --> 0:10:16.120
<v Speaker 1>all these regulations went into place that sort of kept

0:10:16.120 --> 0:10:20.360
<v Speaker 1>a lid on on funding rates essentially so to avoid

0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:23.600
<v Speaker 1>scenarios like this. But now, I think you have an

0:10:23.640 --> 0:10:28.079
<v Speaker 1>interesting intersection between you know, regulatory changes in the last

0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:32.240
<v Speaker 1>decade plus, you know, shifting monetary policy, and you know

0:10:32.360 --> 0:10:35.199
<v Speaker 1>QUEI which we never had had before. And I think

0:10:35.240 --> 0:10:38.480
<v Speaker 1>that's creating some of these pressures. And that's why I

0:10:38.520 --> 0:10:41.240
<v Speaker 1>think everyone's a little confused as to how to confront

0:10:41.280 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 1>this and what tools we have at our disposal, because

0:10:43.800 --> 0:10:46.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't necessarily think it's just monetary tools. I think,

0:10:46.440 --> 0:10:47.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, we have to look at this from a

0:10:47.679 --> 0:10:50.360
<v Speaker 1>fiscal standpoint, a market structure standpoint. So there's a lot

0:10:50.360 --> 0:10:53.600
<v Speaker 1>of interesting issues with this. The incredible irony of banks

0:10:53.640 --> 0:10:56.199
<v Speaker 1>having so much cash on their books that they can't

0:10:56.320 --> 0:10:58.240
<v Speaker 1>put the cash back into the system, but they're forced

0:10:58.280 --> 0:10:59.680
<v Speaker 1>to have that cash in the books in order to

0:10:59.720 --> 0:11:02.920
<v Speaker 1>meet their sort of risk requirements. And Alex you said

0:11:02.960 --> 0:11:05.600
<v Speaker 1>this that banks are going to be de risking into

0:11:05.720 --> 0:11:10.120
<v Speaker 1>year end. How close are they to doing that, because

0:11:10.120 --> 0:11:12.840
<v Speaker 1>we're hearing they're de risking, and that is part of

0:11:12.840 --> 0:11:15.160
<v Speaker 1>the reason why you've seen volatility in some risky debt.

0:11:15.240 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 1>Right now, I think you're getting close. I mean, you know,

0:11:18.240 --> 0:11:20.040
<v Speaker 1>the other thing is someone had said it's not just

0:11:20.080 --> 0:11:23.640
<v Speaker 1>going to be de leveraging you know, across repo it's

0:11:23.640 --> 0:11:26.440
<v Speaker 1>going to also be deleveraging some of their derivatives positions

0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:28.960
<v Speaker 1>and onminding those as well. So there is a risk

0:11:28.960 --> 0:11:31.760
<v Speaker 1>you're gonna see this. I think we're getting close to figure.

0:11:32.200 --> 0:11:35.000
<v Speaker 1>You know, once we get nearer to Thanksgiving, you should

0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:38.120
<v Speaker 1>start seeing some of this happened. Definitely, December could be

0:11:38.160 --> 0:11:42.040
<v Speaker 1>a little bit bumpier than people expect because this isn't

0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:44.560
<v Speaker 1>just going to be a last week of December kind

0:11:44.559 --> 0:11:47.600
<v Speaker 1>of thing. They're going to start closing up shop, you know,

0:11:47.760 --> 0:11:50.760
<v Speaker 1>and pulling back sooner rather than later. So there is

0:11:50.920 --> 0:11:54.720
<v Speaker 1>no per se permit solution for the FED that we've

0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:57.040
<v Speaker 1>seen at the short end of the curve and that

0:11:57.080 --> 0:11:58.840
<v Speaker 1>repot market is it. So it is the kind of

0:11:59.120 --> 0:12:01.320
<v Speaker 1>the fact those just to kind of let the balance

0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:03.640
<v Speaker 1>she grow a little bit. I think that's what they're

0:12:03.640 --> 0:12:06.520
<v Speaker 1>intending to do. You know, Lorie Logan, who's um de

0:12:06.600 --> 0:12:08.719
<v Speaker 1>facto how to the markets group right now at the

0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:11.080
<v Speaker 1>New York FED, she spoke I believe it was last

0:12:11.080 --> 0:12:14.360
<v Speaker 1>week she addressed the Primary Dealer annual meeting, and you know,

0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:17.880
<v Speaker 1>they seem to acknowledge that, Look, we understand when there

0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:20.599
<v Speaker 1>are pressures we're going to be coming in, so and

0:12:20.920 --> 0:12:23.040
<v Speaker 1>they know that there are gonna be times where reserves

0:12:23.040 --> 0:12:25.280
<v Speaker 1>are gonna shrink and they're gonna need to combat that

0:12:25.360 --> 0:12:28.839
<v Speaker 1>by by doing something more. Either it's more REPO operations,

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:32.440
<v Speaker 1>more treasury bill buying, um, you know, so they know

0:12:32.520 --> 0:12:34.640
<v Speaker 1>they know that they needed, like there's gonna be times

0:12:34.640 --> 0:12:36.440
<v Speaker 1>where it's offset and they're going to have to keep

0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:38.959
<v Speaker 1>doing more. You know, there's a lot of outstanding questions

0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:41.040
<v Speaker 1>to this though, and one of the things is how

0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:43.360
<v Speaker 1>long is this really going to go on? Because people

0:12:43.360 --> 0:12:45.680
<v Speaker 1>are thinking this is going to go beyond the second quarter?

0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:50.480
<v Speaker 1>And how do you contend with the treasury that has

0:12:50.600 --> 0:12:54.960
<v Speaker 1>seasonal issues with treasury bills where you actually get negative

0:12:55.080 --> 0:12:58.079
<v Speaker 1>issuance and treasury bills so you have to think about

0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:01.320
<v Speaker 1>a scarcity risk now in me as well. So you know,

0:13:01.360 --> 0:13:03.560
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of competing forces, and and you know,

0:13:03.640 --> 0:13:06.120
<v Speaker 1>it seems like the more the Fed steps in, the

0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:08.839
<v Speaker 1>more complicated things get for them. So it's going to

0:13:08.920 --> 0:13:11.000
<v Speaker 1>be interesting to keep watching. And I should just note

0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:14.840
<v Speaker 1>that fields on treasuries right now heading lower after the

0:13:14.840 --> 0:13:19.200
<v Speaker 1>disappointing CPI data. Alex just real quickly here thirty seconds

0:13:19.480 --> 0:13:23.040
<v Speaker 1>what may we hear from fed CHURJ. Powell today in

0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:26.640
<v Speaker 1>about five minutes about this issue in particular. You know,

0:13:26.920 --> 0:13:29.200
<v Speaker 1>I don't think you know, he has a paragraph at

0:13:29.200 --> 0:13:30.920
<v Speaker 1>the end, you know, offer a word on it. We're

0:13:30.920 --> 0:13:33.079
<v Speaker 1>trying to get back to ample reserves. We see it

0:13:33.120 --> 0:13:35.800
<v Speaker 1>as a level somewhere where we were in early September.

0:13:36.120 --> 0:13:38.560
<v Speaker 1>You'll be interesting to see what kind of questioning we

0:13:38.640 --> 0:13:41.800
<v Speaker 1>get about this from the Joint Economic Committee. I think

0:13:41.840 --> 0:13:44.439
<v Speaker 1>a lot of questions probably are going to center around

0:13:44.440 --> 0:13:47.200
<v Speaker 1>regulation and what do you do from that standpoint to

0:13:47.280 --> 0:13:50.000
<v Speaker 1>fix it, because you know, you have Elizabeth Lawrence letter

0:13:50.080 --> 0:13:53.520
<v Speaker 1>to Steve Manutian, you know, last month, who was saying, hey,

0:13:53.600 --> 0:13:55.880
<v Speaker 1>we you know, don't use this as an excuse to

0:13:55.960 --> 0:13:58.040
<v Speaker 1>roll back rags here, you know. So I think this

0:13:58.160 --> 0:13:59.880
<v Speaker 1>is going to be one of the big issues for

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:01.679
<v Speaker 1>and then we'll see what else they come up with.

0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:03.400
<v Speaker 1>We'll see what else they come up with. I have

0:14:03.400 --> 0:14:05.880
<v Speaker 1>a feeling it probably will be less repo, more political

0:14:05.880 --> 0:14:07.920
<v Speaker 1>in nature. Alex Harris, thank you so much for being

0:14:07.960 --> 0:14:11.120
<v Speaker 1>with us. Alex is of course covering all things interest rates,

0:14:11.440 --> 0:14:27.880
<v Speaker 1>UH and bonds related for us at Bloomberg News. We're

0:14:27.880 --> 0:14:31.280
<v Speaker 1>going to hear from J Powell testifying in front of Congress,

0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:34.400
<v Speaker 1>but currently Uh there are other testimonies going on, in

0:14:34.440 --> 0:14:39.360
<v Speaker 1>particular the first public impeachment hearings in front of the

0:14:39.400 --> 0:14:42.320
<v Speaker 1>House of Representatives. Ari Natter has been following them. He's

0:14:42.320 --> 0:14:46.280
<v Speaker 1>a Bloomberg News reporter covering all things regulatory and Washington,

0:14:46.400 --> 0:14:50.000
<v Speaker 1>d c Ari joining us from the nation's capital. Ari,

0:14:50.560 --> 0:14:53.400
<v Speaker 1>what are you looking for from these hearings that you

0:14:53.520 --> 0:14:57.160
<v Speaker 1>think will be the most notable takeaway? Right? Well, today

0:14:57.200 --> 0:15:00.280
<v Speaker 1>it's historic and peace hearings give the American people their

0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:02.920
<v Speaker 1>first chance to see west been playing out until now

0:15:03.520 --> 0:15:06.560
<v Speaker 1>behind closed doors and decide for themselves whether Donald Trump

0:15:06.760 --> 0:15:11.440
<v Speaker 1>committed to impeachable offenses and his actions towards Ukraine. House

0:15:11.520 --> 0:15:13.440
<v Speaker 1>Democrats are hoping to use the hearings to bring to

0:15:13.560 --> 0:15:17.120
<v Speaker 1>life thousands of pages of closed door testimony and make

0:15:17.160 --> 0:15:19.400
<v Speaker 1>the case that Trump abuse his office and should be

0:15:19.400 --> 0:15:23.960
<v Speaker 1>impeached for pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden, his political rival,

0:15:24.640 --> 0:15:29.360
<v Speaker 1>and withholding AID until that happened. So, Ari, what is

0:15:29.520 --> 0:15:32.720
<v Speaker 1>the fundamental Republican strategy here as he's hearing to begin?

0:15:32.840 --> 0:15:36.600
<v Speaker 1>Is it simply to say it was no big deal? Right? So,

0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:39.440
<v Speaker 1>these hearings did give Republicans their first high profile chance

0:15:39.520 --> 0:15:43.480
<v Speaker 1>to defend the president. I think their defense is is

0:15:43.600 --> 0:15:46.840
<v Speaker 1>multi pronged. In one hand, there arguing that Trump has

0:15:46.880 --> 0:15:49.720
<v Speaker 1>done nothing wrong in calling for the investigations and that

0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:52.360
<v Speaker 1>his objective was not was the root out corruption in

0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:56.840
<v Speaker 1>Ukraine rather than to bolster his own political fortunes. They're

0:15:56.840 --> 0:15:59.320
<v Speaker 1>also saying, um, you know, if he did anything, it's

0:15:59.560 --> 0:16:02.720
<v Speaker 1>it's not an impeachable offense. Uh So, I think I

0:16:02.760 --> 0:16:06.400
<v Speaker 1>think we'll hear that. And um, already we've heard Republicans

0:16:06.680 --> 0:16:10.600
<v Speaker 1>called this a smear campaign orchestrated by Democrats and the

0:16:10.640 --> 0:16:13.360
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote corrupt media. Uh so there's a kind of

0:16:13.360 --> 0:16:16.920
<v Speaker 1>a window into the Republican defense. Markets don't care. That

0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:19.720
<v Speaker 1>seems to be the takeaway when there are developments in

0:16:19.760 --> 0:16:24.000
<v Speaker 1>the impeachment hearings. Who are these four? Is anyone paying

0:16:24.000 --> 0:16:27.840
<v Speaker 1>attention outside of the Beltway? That's a good question. Um,

0:16:27.880 --> 0:16:30.680
<v Speaker 1>I believe this hearing is going to be televised across

0:16:30.720 --> 0:16:33.360
<v Speaker 1>the nation. I mean, it's really is historic event. Is

0:16:33.400 --> 0:16:36.280
<v Speaker 1>only the third time in history that impeachment hearings have

0:16:36.320 --> 0:16:39.520
<v Speaker 1>been conducted. But to your point, Um, you know, even

0:16:39.560 --> 0:16:44.120
<v Speaker 1>if the House does vote to impeach Trump, that begins

0:16:44.320 --> 0:16:48.440
<v Speaker 1>a Senate trial. H and Republicans control the Senate, they're

0:16:48.480 --> 0:16:53.600
<v Speaker 1>not expected, uh to you know, convict him, So you know,

0:16:53.840 --> 0:16:56.920
<v Speaker 1>this could be a political theater. But again, you know,

0:16:56.960 --> 0:17:00.400
<v Speaker 1>if the House impeaches Trump and the Senate really system,

0:17:00.480 --> 0:17:03.680
<v Speaker 1>that will make it election issue. And I think that's

0:17:03.760 --> 0:17:05.600
<v Speaker 1>that's part of the strategy here. All Right, what do

0:17:05.640 --> 0:17:09.320
<v Speaker 1>you think is a a win here for the Democrats

0:17:09.400 --> 0:17:12.520
<v Speaker 1>or those you know moving towards impeachment. Is it simply

0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:16.600
<v Speaker 1>too just air all publicly everything that's kind of already

0:17:16.600 --> 0:17:19.080
<v Speaker 1>been testified about, right. I think what they're trying to

0:17:19.119 --> 0:17:21.919
<v Speaker 1>do is move public opinion, and support for impeachment has

0:17:21.960 --> 0:17:25.760
<v Speaker 1>grown but stabilized. We've seen an NBC Wall Street Journal

0:17:25.760 --> 0:17:29.520
<v Speaker 1>poll recently that found four nine uh favorits Trump impeachment

0:17:29.600 --> 0:17:32.040
<v Speaker 1>removed from office. A win for them would be to

0:17:32.080 --> 0:17:34.240
<v Speaker 1>really move the needle to the point where you know,

0:17:34.280 --> 0:17:38.720
<v Speaker 1>standard Republicans don't have a choice or you know, actually, um,

0:17:38.760 --> 0:17:42.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, vote to impeach Trump. What's the timeline here?

0:17:42.840 --> 0:17:45.760
<v Speaker 1>Uh So Democrats in the House want to wrap this

0:17:45.920 --> 0:17:49.760
<v Speaker 1>up by Christmas, which if they vote to impeach Trump,

0:17:49.840 --> 0:17:54.720
<v Speaker 1>then um, that immediately kicks off a Senate trial, which

0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:57.800
<v Speaker 1>would happen election year, which presents, you know, it's own

0:17:57.840 --> 0:18:01.000
<v Speaker 1>complications considering that many of the dun senators are running

0:18:01.000 --> 0:18:04.800
<v Speaker 1>for president and presumably you need to stop campaigning and

0:18:04.840 --> 0:18:08.679
<v Speaker 1>come back to Washington, Uh, you know, for impeachment. So

0:18:08.960 --> 0:18:12.639
<v Speaker 1>in a Senate hearing, what's the time frame for that?

0:18:12.680 --> 0:18:15.000
<v Speaker 1>I can't remember the last time we've had one of those.

0:18:15.040 --> 0:18:18.400
<v Speaker 1>We haven't gotten to the Senate hearing, right, Um, So

0:18:18.960 --> 0:18:22.000
<v Speaker 1>what I know is that if the House does vote

0:18:22.000 --> 0:18:26.560
<v Speaker 1>to impeach Trump, then the Senate immediately begins a trial

0:18:26.720 --> 0:18:30.280
<v Speaker 1>with the Chief Justice presiding, and Mr McConnell is that

0:18:30.320 --> 0:18:35.720
<v Speaker 1>he doubts so that Trump will not be convicted. Thank

0:18:35.760 --> 0:18:37.320
<v Speaker 1>you so much for being with us. Ari and Nat

0:18:37.320 --> 0:18:40.080
<v Speaker 1>are covering all things at regulatory in Washington, d C.

0:18:40.480 --> 0:18:43.680
<v Speaker 1>For us coming to us from our Bloomberg n No

0:18:43.800 --> 0:18:47.040
<v Speaker 1>One studios are Thank you. Thanks for listening to the

0:18:47.080 --> 0:18:49.680
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and listen

0:18:49.720 --> 0:18:53.040
<v Speaker 1>to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer.

0:18:53.440 --> 0:18:56.240
<v Speaker 1>Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. I'm Lisa

0:18:56.320 --> 0:18:58.639
<v Speaker 1>bram Woyds. I'm on Twitter. At Lisa A. Bram Woyds

0:18:58.720 --> 0:19:01.560
<v Speaker 1>One before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide

0:19:01.600 --> 0:19:02.560
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Radio