WEBVTT - Bloomberg Opinion Columnist Bill Dudley

0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:07.400
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.800 --> 0:00:10.280
<v Speaker 2>Let's turn out to the Fed. President Trump says he

0:00:10.320 --> 0:00:12.640
<v Speaker 2>plans to announce a new FED governor in the coming

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:16.560
<v Speaker 2>days after resignation of Adriana Kouegler. Former New York FED

0:00:16.560 --> 0:00:19.640
<v Speaker 2>President Bill Dudley, writing this morning, quote, don't be fooled

0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:21.919
<v Speaker 2>by the drama in terms of how the Fed manages

0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:25.600
<v Speaker 2>the economy. It's mostly a tempest in a teapot. Bill

0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 2>joins us. Now, all right, Bill, I won't be distracted

0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:29.280
<v Speaker 2>by all the drama. But there's a lot of noise

0:00:29.360 --> 0:00:32.400
<v Speaker 2>right now coming out of Washington, DC when it comes

0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:35.280
<v Speaker 2>to who potentially take this role. Do you think this

0:00:35.360 --> 0:00:38.520
<v Speaker 2>administration wants to put in a shadow FED chair.

0:00:39.920 --> 0:00:42.199
<v Speaker 3>I don't know if that's their intention or not.

0:00:42.320 --> 0:00:45.479
<v Speaker 1>But obviously the next governor appointment that seemed to be

0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:48.239
<v Speaker 1>on a faster timeline than we thought, will be important

0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:50.720
<v Speaker 1>because that person could end up being the next FED chair,

0:00:50.720 --> 0:00:53.520
<v Speaker 1>and so people pay particular attention to who that person

0:00:53.600 --> 0:00:54.000
<v Speaker 1>is and what.

0:00:53.960 --> 0:00:54.600
<v Speaker 3>Their views are.

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:58.240
<v Speaker 4>So in that case, and I know as you write, Bill,

0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:01.960
<v Speaker 4>that you did see Waller's's to Succeed Powell and Bowman's

0:01:02.000 --> 0:01:04.240
<v Speaker 4>thank you to Trump for appointing her as part of

0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:07.440
<v Speaker 4>the reason behind their descents, Bill, if I can just

0:01:07.480 --> 0:01:09.400
<v Speaker 4>push you on that, because many people have looked at

0:01:09.400 --> 0:01:12.119
<v Speaker 4>this economy and said there are reasons for a cut,

0:01:12.200 --> 0:01:15.640
<v Speaker 4>and Friday vindicated that with weaker labor market data. Is

0:01:15.720 --> 0:01:17.759
<v Speaker 4>there an issue where we look at all these descents

0:01:17.760 --> 0:01:20.520
<v Speaker 4>and say they are just political or is there real

0:01:20.600 --> 0:01:23.360
<v Speaker 4>evidence that perhaps the FED should be leaning towards a cut.

0:01:24.120 --> 0:01:25.520
<v Speaker 3>Well, the FED is leaning towards the cut.

0:01:25.520 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>If you go back and look at the June Summary

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 1>of Economic projections, everybody sees the path of race is

0:01:30.680 --> 0:01:31.440
<v Speaker 1>going downward.

0:01:31.640 --> 0:01:33.720
<v Speaker 3>It's just a question of magnitude and timing.

0:01:34.000 --> 0:01:37.440
<v Speaker 1>So the degree of disagreement with in the FED is actually,

0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:40.319
<v Speaker 1>I think dramatically overstated, because everybody thinks the next direction

0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:42.319
<v Speaker 1>of moves is down. Just a question of when to

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 1>do it and how to manage the inflation risk caused

0:01:45.840 --> 0:01:46.840
<v Speaker 1>by the higher terrorists.

0:01:46.880 --> 0:01:49.360
<v Speaker 4>So, Bill, the direction of descent or the amount of

0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:52.800
<v Speaker 4>descent is overstated. So too is the ability for this

0:01:53.000 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 4>FMC to be swayed. What happens though, if the data

0:01:56.760 --> 0:02:00.320
<v Speaker 4>becomes less reliable, if a more political figure headed put

0:02:00.320 --> 0:02:02.440
<v Speaker 4>in at the BLS. Bill, you've been in the room

0:02:02.440 --> 0:02:05.800
<v Speaker 4>evaluating this data with colleagues. How does that change and

0:02:05.840 --> 0:02:08.919
<v Speaker 4>the FEDS evaluation of said data if changes are made

0:02:08.919 --> 0:02:11.000
<v Speaker 4>at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

0:02:11.080 --> 0:02:13.360
<v Speaker 1>Well, it depends on whether the change is made at

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:15.600
<v Speaker 1>the Bureau of Labor. Stitt says, the actually result in

0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:19.480
<v Speaker 1>poor quality data or not. Obviously, if the data is rigged,

0:02:19.919 --> 0:02:21.120
<v Speaker 1>then the FED Reserve is going to have to go

0:02:21.440 --> 0:02:22.600
<v Speaker 1>to other sources of the data.

0:02:22.919 --> 0:02:23.880
<v Speaker 3>There's a lot more data.

0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:25.799
<v Speaker 1>Available now than there was in the past. You know,

0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:27.359
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of data that you can scrape off

0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:29.920
<v Speaker 1>the Internet, for example. So I think that obviously we

0:02:29.960 --> 0:02:33.400
<v Speaker 1>want the BLS data to be excellent quality and trusted,

0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:35.480
<v Speaker 1>and that's very important, and so.

0:02:35.400 --> 0:02:36.400
<v Speaker 3>We have to keep an eye on that.

0:02:36.639 --> 0:02:38.360
<v Speaker 1>But the idea that the FED would be sort of

0:02:38.440 --> 0:02:41.960
<v Speaker 1>unable to conduct mantrat policy because the BLS data was corrupt,

0:02:42.160 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't think.

0:02:42.639 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 3>That's the case.

0:02:43.360 --> 0:02:45.640
<v Speaker 2>Well, going to the BLS data on Friday now, the

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 2>average three month payroll gain went from one hundred and

0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:52.359
<v Speaker 2>fifty thousand before Friday's released to now just thirty five thousand.

0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 2>Going back to those two dissenters, doesn't Governor Waller have

0:02:55.720 --> 0:02:58.359
<v Speaker 2>a point the crack has already emerged. Is the FED

0:02:58.440 --> 0:02:59.600
<v Speaker 2>going to be behind the curve?

0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:02.640
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think the FED probably will be behind the

0:03:02.680 --> 0:03:06.520
<v Speaker 1>curve because the terroffs creates so much uncertainty about what's

0:03:06.560 --> 0:03:08.560
<v Speaker 1>going to dominate the risk of inflation or the risk

0:03:08.600 --> 0:03:10.399
<v Speaker 1>of growth. Everyone said the terrorists are going to push

0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:13.760
<v Speaker 1>up prices and push down economic activity, and the questions

0:03:13.800 --> 0:03:16.160
<v Speaker 1>which is going to predominate. So the fact that the

0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:18.840
<v Speaker 1>FED might be late is because the tarift policies created

0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>this tremendous uncertainty about which force is going to be dominant.

0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:25.440
<v Speaker 2>J Powell really honed in on the unemployment rate last week,

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:27.520
<v Speaker 2>talking about the fact that's the main number is going

0:03:27.560 --> 0:03:29.000
<v Speaker 2>to look at. We did see a tick up to

0:03:29.080 --> 0:03:31.680
<v Speaker 2>four point two percent. What do you think the line

0:03:31.760 --> 0:03:34.520
<v Speaker 2>is for him where the unemployment rate ticking to what

0:03:34.720 --> 0:03:36.440
<v Speaker 2>would get him really uncomfortable?

0:03:37.640 --> 0:03:39.560
<v Speaker 1>I think, you know, a couple more tenths would definitely

0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:41.920
<v Speaker 1>get him uncomfortable, because then you start to think that

0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 1>the whole labor market was starting to give way. And

0:03:44.520 --> 0:03:46.880
<v Speaker 1>when that happens, it can be a self fulfilling prophecy

0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:49.080
<v Speaker 1>because it scares people. They pull back on their own

0:03:49.120 --> 0:03:51.760
<v Speaker 1>their spending, and that makes the labor market still weaker.

0:03:51.880 --> 0:03:54.120
<v Speaker 1>The important part points that Paul made though, is it's

0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 1>not about the payroll employment changes, it's basically how that

0:03:57.680 --> 0:03:58.440
<v Speaker 1>actually reflects in.

0:03:58.440 --> 0:03:59.120
<v Speaker 3>The unemployering rate.

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.160
<v Speaker 1>Because what's basically happen this year is the growth rate

0:04:02.280 --> 0:04:05.280
<v Speaker 1>of labor demand has fallen, but the growth rate of

0:04:05.360 --> 0:04:09.640
<v Speaker 1>labor supply has also fallen dramatically because of deportations and

0:04:09.680 --> 0:04:12.640
<v Speaker 1>the crackdown and immigration. So both sides of the labor

0:04:12.680 --> 0:04:15.000
<v Speaker 1>market are less robust than they were before.

0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:17.760
<v Speaker 4>And the jobs that were added Bill about seventy five

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:21.240
<v Speaker 4>of them came from healthcare, the cyclical parts of the economy. Really,

0:04:21.600 --> 0:04:24.719
<v Speaker 4>we're not adding jobs. The lack of breath in Friday's data.

0:04:24.760 --> 0:04:26.760
<v Speaker 4>Does that concern you at all?

0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 3>Well? I think.

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:29.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I'm worried that we're going to be in

0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:31.360
<v Speaker 1>a sort of stagflationary environment where we're going to have

0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:34.279
<v Speaker 1>at both higher prices and a weaker economy. And the

0:04:34.360 --> 0:04:36.440
<v Speaker 1>question is which one do you put more weight on.

0:04:36.800 --> 0:04:38.720
<v Speaker 1>I think the direction of rates is down. I think

0:04:38.760 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>the question is just you know, what meeting does the

0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:44.080
<v Speaker 1>FED finally to see enough evidence to warrant cuts.

0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:45.880
<v Speaker 3>As I said in the piece that I published in

0:04:45.960 --> 0:04:48.599
<v Speaker 3>Bilberg Opinion. You know, there's not that much disagreement about

0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:52.000
<v Speaker 3>the FED. It's all about timing and magnitudes, not about direction.

0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 4>Well, what happens if Bill we have adrianic Googler stepping down,

0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:58.000
<v Speaker 4>so that's certainly a Trump appointment, and then you get

0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 4>Shairpowell who decides not to stay as a governor through

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:04.320
<v Speaker 4>twenty twenty eight. In total, you add to that both

0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:08.039
<v Speaker 4>Bowman and Waller. That means for Trump appointees on the FLMC,

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:12.359
<v Speaker 4>does that an aggregate just mean at the very margin

0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:14.279
<v Speaker 4>a more dove is shift to this FED?

0:05:15.000 --> 0:05:15.120
<v Speaker 3>Oh?

0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:17.440
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely, I mean I think you know, when it's a

0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:20.920
<v Speaker 1>close call in that kind of situation, the ties are

0:05:20.960 --> 0:05:23.080
<v Speaker 1>going to go to the doves. But at the end

0:05:23.120 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 1>of the day, the economy is going to drive the story.

0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:27.800
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think you know, the chairman can't take

0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:30.800
<v Speaker 1>the FED wherever he or she wants. It depends on

0:05:31.080 --> 0:05:33.680
<v Speaker 1>how the economy is motivating. What's the right thing to

0:05:33.720 --> 0:05:36.200
<v Speaker 1>do in terms of monetary policy. The chair has to

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:39.400
<v Speaker 1>convince the rest of the FMC to go along. Now, obviously,

0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:42.000
<v Speaker 1>if you have four governors all lined up on one side,

0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 1>that that gives the chair quite a bit of momentum

0:05:45.000 --> 0:05:48.320
<v Speaker 1>to get his or her way. But you know, I

0:05:48.320 --> 0:05:50.480
<v Speaker 1>think the Fed Reserve presidents are going to continue to

0:05:50.520 --> 0:05:52.560
<v Speaker 1>vote their conscience in terms of what's right for the

0:05:52.920 --> 0:05:54.120
<v Speaker 1>for the macro economy.

0:05:54.400 --> 0:05:57.440
<v Speaker 2>The markets this morning are rebounding off of the lows

0:05:57.440 --> 0:06:00.400
<v Speaker 2>on Friday, following the fact that everyone's start to bake

0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:02.880
<v Speaker 2>in this idea of a September rate cup But Bill,

0:06:02.920 --> 0:06:05.760
<v Speaker 2>what if we get a hot CPI print, what's going

0:06:05.800 --> 0:06:06.120
<v Speaker 2>to happen?

0:06:06.160 --> 0:06:06.320
<v Speaker 4>Then?

0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:09.160
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think it's too soon to say that we're

0:06:09.200 --> 0:06:10.800
<v Speaker 1>going to get a September rate kot. I mean, we

0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:13.719
<v Speaker 1>just saw how the market for September has moved dramatically

0:06:13.880 --> 0:06:16.880
<v Speaker 1>just in the last week. When Paul made his remarks

0:06:17.560 --> 0:06:19.600
<v Speaker 1>that the press conference, people said, oh, they're not going

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:21.240
<v Speaker 1>to cut in September, and then we got the week

0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:23.680
<v Speaker 1>in payroll and plumber report on Friday and everyone says, oh,

0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:25.200
<v Speaker 1>they are going to cut in September. So it's a

0:06:25.240 --> 0:06:27.880
<v Speaker 1>long time between now and September. You know, I think

0:06:27.960 --> 0:06:30.359
<v Speaker 1>the prospects are pretty good that the Fed's going to

0:06:30.360 --> 0:06:32.240
<v Speaker 1>cut rates later this year, whether it turns out to

0:06:32.279 --> 0:06:34.320
<v Speaker 1>be September or not, really is going to turn out

0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:36.000
<v Speaker 1>to depend on the data bill.

0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 4>To what's agreed. Could this just be a post Liberation

0:06:38.440 --> 0:06:40.719
<v Speaker 4>Day fallout the jobs data we've had over the past

0:06:40.720 --> 0:06:43.960
<v Speaker 4>three months, and something that might rebound in August given

0:06:44.000 --> 0:06:46.520
<v Speaker 4>more certainty on which tariff levels are being set.

0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:49.520
<v Speaker 1>I think you're making a good point that the terriffs

0:06:49.520 --> 0:06:52.000
<v Speaker 1>have caused people to sort of stand back in terms

0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:54.760
<v Speaker 1>of business hiring and business investment because they don't really

0:06:54.839 --> 0:06:57.440
<v Speaker 1>know what the landscape is. And as we get past

0:06:57.560 --> 0:07:02.240
<v Speaker 1>August first and hopefully more clarity on what the arraff

0:07:02.240 --> 0:07:05.520
<v Speaker 1>packages are going to be country by country, that presumably

0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:07.080
<v Speaker 1>will make businesses more.

0:07:08.480 --> 0:07:10.600
<v Speaker 3>Willing to move forward in terms of their investment and

0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:11.240
<v Speaker 3>hiring plans.

0:07:11.360 --> 0:07:13.320
<v Speaker 1>So it certainly could go that way, or it could

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:16.440
<v Speaker 1>go that the higher terrafts are raising prices, that's crimping

0:07:16.480 --> 0:07:19.679
<v Speaker 1>really income, and that's affecting consumer spending, and that's leading

0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:21.960
<v Speaker 1>to weakness and employment that it's going to motivate the

0:07:22.000 --> 0:07:22.680
<v Speaker 1>FED to cut rates.

0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 3>We still don't know which way, which direction is going

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:25.400
<v Speaker 3>to predominate.

0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:27.200
<v Speaker 2>What we do know, though, is we know most of

0:07:27.240 --> 0:07:29.280
<v Speaker 2>the rates is a handful of countries potentially could get

0:07:29.280 --> 0:07:31.400
<v Speaker 2>better deals and better rates. But for the most part,

0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:33.360
<v Speaker 2>we do know the rates going forward and they're going

0:07:33.360 --> 0:07:35.880
<v Speaker 2>to take effect this Thursday. How much time do you

0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:38.800
<v Speaker 2>think the FED needs to see this work through the economy.

0:07:39.800 --> 0:07:41.560
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think the FED would like to see, you know,

0:07:41.720 --> 0:07:44.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot of time, a lot more than six weeks

0:07:44.080 --> 0:07:46.320
<v Speaker 1>to the next FOMC meeting. I think they think it's

0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:48.760
<v Speaker 1>probably going to take six months to get to see

0:07:48.760 --> 0:07:51.120
<v Speaker 1>the full effects of the terraffs because it takes quite

0:07:51.120 --> 0:07:53.920
<v Speaker 1>a bit of time between the good landing on US

0:07:53.960 --> 0:07:57.000
<v Speaker 1>shores and it actually ending up being sold in a

0:07:57.120 --> 0:08:00.920
<v Speaker 1>department store or in other retail establishment. The FED thinks

0:08:00.920 --> 0:08:03.320
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be a slow process, and Paul basically

0:08:03.360 --> 0:08:04.680
<v Speaker 1>said that at his press.

0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:05.280
<v Speaker 3>Conference last week.

0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:08.000
<v Speaker 2>Former New York Fed President Bill Dudley, thank you so

0:08:08.080 --> 0:08:10.160
<v Speaker 2>much for your time this morning, and you can catch

0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:12.360
<v Speaker 2>his opinion piece this morning in Bloomberg Opinion