WEBVTT - Instant Reaction: The Fed Decides

0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:17.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:13.760 --> 0:00:16.960
<v Speaker 2>With your FEDERALZEV decision. The overwhelming consensus saying a twenty

0:00:16.960 --> 0:00:19.119
<v Speaker 2>five basis point count is Mike mccaith.

0:00:21.079 --> 0:00:23.400
<v Speaker 3>It is a twenty five basis point cut, and the

0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:26.760
<v Speaker 3>number of cuts forecast for next year has been cut

0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:30.880
<v Speaker 3>in half to just two. Another two are seen in

0:00:30.920 --> 0:00:34.360
<v Speaker 3>twenty twenty six and one in twenty twenty seven. And

0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 3>as the long run FED funds rate expectation rises to

0:00:38.680 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 3>three percent, if that's basically seen as Fed officials view

0:00:42.000 --> 0:00:44.239
<v Speaker 3>of the neutral rate, they won't get there under this

0:00:44.360 --> 0:00:48.120
<v Speaker 3>dot pot until twenty twenty eight. We have one descent.

0:00:48.440 --> 0:00:52.400
<v Speaker 3>New Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammick casts her first, preferring

0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:57.360
<v Speaker 3>to leave rates unchanged. Interestingly, three other members of the committee,

0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:02.200
<v Speaker 3>presumably non voters, agreed with her. Ten members see two

0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:06.720
<v Speaker 3>cuts next year five C three or more three forecast one,

0:01:06.920 --> 0:01:09.480
<v Speaker 3>and there's one member who thinks optimal policy would be

0:01:09.520 --> 0:01:12.840
<v Speaker 3>de levee rates unchanged. All of twenty twenty six and

0:01:12.920 --> 0:01:16.080
<v Speaker 3>twenty five, there is only one change to this statement.

0:01:16.200 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 3>They now promise to carefully assess incoming data quote in

0:01:19.959 --> 0:01:23.960
<v Speaker 3>considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments to the

0:01:24.000 --> 0:01:27.039
<v Speaker 3>target range for the federal funds rate. There's no change

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:30.120
<v Speaker 3>to the committee's view of inflation, which has quote made

0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:34.919
<v Speaker 3>progress toward the committee's two percent objective but remains somewhat elevated.

0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:39.080
<v Speaker 3>The new economic forecasts, however, show both PCE headline and

0:01:39.200 --> 0:01:43.440
<v Speaker 3>core inflation forecasts revised up significantly. Headline will be two

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:45.399
<v Speaker 3>and a half percent at the end of next year,

0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:49.000
<v Speaker 3>up from two point one forecast in September. The core

0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:51.880
<v Speaker 3>also two and a half percent, up from two point

0:01:52.000 --> 0:01:55.400
<v Speaker 3>two percent. They do see unemployment at four point three

0:01:55.480 --> 0:01:57.880
<v Speaker 3>percent at the end of next year, which is down

0:01:57.920 --> 0:02:01.600
<v Speaker 3>to tenth from September. The economy will end this year

0:02:01.640 --> 0:02:03.760
<v Speaker 3>with GDP up two and a half percent, that's a

0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:07.960
<v Speaker 3>half percentage point jump from their September outlook, and it

0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:11.040
<v Speaker 3>is going to grow two point one percent in twenty

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 3>twenty six, a significant slowdown. In one technical note, the

0:02:15.200 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 3>FED did lower the offering rate for overnight reverse repurchase

0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:21.799
<v Speaker 3>agreements by thirty basis points to four point twenty five percent.

0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:24.600
<v Speaker 3>That's the same as the Fed's target range.

0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 2>Lower bound Guys, Mike McKee, thank you, sir. There's so

0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:29.200
<v Speaker 2>much to one pack here, so let's just go with

0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:31.760
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty five and go to the forecasts, so we

0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:34.079
<v Speaker 2>get a twenty five basis point cut, and then they

0:02:34.120 --> 0:02:37.959
<v Speaker 2>do this for twenty twenty five. GDP revised higher, unemployment

0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:40.639
<v Speaker 2>revised just a little bit lower. Then go to PCEE

0:02:41.080 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 2>once again, revise just that little bit higher. So what

0:02:43.320 --> 0:02:45.960
<v Speaker 2>you get for the top plot, the medium dot was

0:02:46.080 --> 0:02:49.520
<v Speaker 2>actually pointing towards four cuts for twenty twenty five. They've

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 2>cut that in half to two, which basically marks the

0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:54.800
<v Speaker 2>whole thing to market. This is where the market was

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:57.800
<v Speaker 2>looking for two cuts in twenty twenty five, and this

0:02:57.880 --> 0:02:59.760
<v Speaker 2>is what the Fed is projecting. If you consider this

0:03:00.760 --> 0:03:02.960
<v Speaker 2>in the medium dot, turn into the price section. Off

0:03:02.960 --> 0:03:06.080
<v Speaker 2>the back of this, we unlock another dose of dollar strength.

0:03:06.200 --> 0:03:08.440
<v Speaker 2>You're a dollar breaking down to one oh four forty

0:03:08.440 --> 0:03:10.640
<v Speaker 2>four off the back of that move in the bond

0:03:10.680 --> 0:03:12.160
<v Speaker 2>market with the your tar at the front end of

0:03:12.160 --> 0:03:13.920
<v Speaker 2>the curve on a two year up by three basis

0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:16.240
<v Speaker 2>points to four twenty eight on a ten year up

0:03:16.240 --> 0:03:18.640
<v Speaker 2>by single basis point to four forty one, and the

0:03:18.639 --> 0:03:20.639
<v Speaker 2>equity market off the back of that, we come off

0:03:20.639 --> 0:03:22.720
<v Speaker 2>session highs. On I guess and P five hundred, we

0:03:22.760 --> 0:03:24.840
<v Speaker 2>are just about unchanged. So if you are just joining us,

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:27.200
<v Speaker 2>welcome to the program. It's a twenty five basis point

0:03:27.240 --> 0:03:29.880
<v Speaker 2>reduction from the federal serve with a sprinkle of descent

0:03:30.160 --> 0:03:32.840
<v Speaker 2>and some big changes leased to the forecasts for twenty

0:03:32.840 --> 0:03:33.480
<v Speaker 2>five and beyond.

0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:35.920
<v Speaker 1>And what you can see is basically the market readjusting,

0:03:35.960 --> 0:03:38.800
<v Speaker 1>but not necessarily of freaking out. I think it's fascinating

0:03:38.840 --> 0:03:41.560
<v Speaker 1>the idea that Beth Hammock, the new Cleveland FED President,

0:03:41.760 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 1>is the loan dissenter three non voting members, as Michael

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:46.760
<v Speaker 1>McKee said, seem.

0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:47.680
<v Speaker 4>To have agreed with her.

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:50.480
<v Speaker 1>To me, this is the definition of a hawkish cut.

0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:52.840
<v Speaker 1>We now have one hundred basis points of rate cuts

0:03:52.880 --> 0:03:56.000
<v Speaker 1>since that September meeting. Now they seem to be only

0:03:56.000 --> 0:03:58.120
<v Speaker 1>bigging in two rate cuts, as you said, And it

0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:01.080
<v Speaker 1>raises a question of what the parameters are, what the

0:04:01.120 --> 0:04:03.200
<v Speaker 1>message you will be from FED Chair Jpowell.

0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:06.160
<v Speaker 2>Compare the September forecast to the forecast we just got.

0:04:06.400 --> 0:04:08.520
<v Speaker 2>Where they thought FED funds would be at the end

0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:10.880
<v Speaker 2>of next year, is now where they think FED funds

0:04:10.880 --> 0:04:13.520
<v Speaker 2>will be at the end of twenty twenty six. They've

0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:16.120
<v Speaker 2>pushed the whole thing out twelve months now, the debate

0:04:16.160 --> 0:04:17.760
<v Speaker 2>we're going to have, and no doubt the debate they'll

0:04:17.760 --> 0:04:19.599
<v Speaker 2>have in the news conference with Sham and Powell and

0:04:19.640 --> 0:04:22.359
<v Speaker 2>the journalists. How much of this is about realized data,

0:04:22.720 --> 0:04:25.400
<v Speaker 2>the data we've had since the September meeting, and how

0:04:25.480 --> 0:04:30.040
<v Speaker 2>much of this is about assuming, speculating, guessing what's about

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:31.440
<v Speaker 2>to happen with policy well.

0:04:31.320 --> 0:04:34.040
<v Speaker 1>And ultimately, how much can they divorce the two if

0:04:34.040 --> 0:04:37.280
<v Speaker 1>they're looking for signals from the collective vetting agency, the

0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:39.440
<v Speaker 1>collective wisdom of the crowds of markets.

0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:41.320
<v Speaker 4>At a certain point, they have been.

0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:43.919
<v Speaker 1>Following the market in certain aspects, and in this case,

0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:47.760
<v Speaker 1>the market is inferring certain things about policies and the

0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:50.000
<v Speaker 1>FED cannot ignore that. But I want to hear from

0:04:50.040 --> 0:04:54.039
<v Speaker 1>Fedchair Powell this afternoon, in just about twenty five minutes time.

0:04:54.440 --> 0:04:56.160
<v Speaker 4>What is your scenario analysis?

0:04:56.400 --> 0:04:59.600
<v Speaker 1>How do you take in two stride the prospect of

0:04:59.720 --> 0:05:02.680
<v Speaker 1>both tariffs as well as potential changes to immigration.

0:05:02.839 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 5>To me, the character of the descent's interesting. I don't

0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:07.320
<v Speaker 5>have time to study it, but the uniqueness of you know,

0:05:07.400 --> 0:05:10.240
<v Speaker 5>she's quantitative economics out of Stanford. She certainly knows her

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:13.000
<v Speaker 5>where around the block. But that's something your first meeting,

0:05:13.000 --> 0:05:15.960
<v Speaker 5>and you descent. I mean, what would Allen Greenspan say

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:18.440
<v Speaker 5>to that? That's like Lawrence Meyer one oh one. But

0:05:18.560 --> 0:05:20.800
<v Speaker 5>the answer here is the markets are moving. I'm looking

0:05:20.800 --> 0:05:23.080
<v Speaker 5>at yen out to a one point fifty four level.

0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:25.400
<v Speaker 5>Damien would look at it eight different ways. But the

0:05:25.440 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 5>answer is this is not a snoozefest, and there's a

0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:32.120
<v Speaker 5>lot going on here in a more than expected hawkish cut.

0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:34.120
<v Speaker 2>This is what they call a hawkish cut. I could

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:36.120
<v Speaker 2>not agree more. And that's judged by what's happening at

0:05:36.120 --> 0:05:37.719
<v Speaker 2>the front end of the curve. Even if they reduce

0:05:37.760 --> 0:05:40.080
<v Speaker 2>interest rates by twenty five basis points, the two years

0:05:40.120 --> 0:05:43.279
<v Speaker 2>higher by seven basis points, we're back through four thirty.

0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 2>Bob Michael JP. Morgan's had some time to go over

0:05:45.760 --> 0:05:48.599
<v Speaker 2>the statement, to go over the projections and the market reaction.

0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:49.720
<v Speaker 2>What do you make of this one?

0:05:50.279 --> 0:05:52.480
<v Speaker 6>Well, I think they have an incredible sense of self

0:05:52.480 --> 0:05:55.919
<v Speaker 6>awareness that the economy looks great. The fourth quarter is

0:05:55.960 --> 0:05:59.400
<v Speaker 6>going to come in around four percent. You've got unemployment

0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:01.960
<v Speaker 6>at four point two percent. They'll take the side of

0:06:02.000 --> 0:06:04.839
<v Speaker 6>it that says that's a pretty good level to be at.

0:06:05.000 --> 0:06:08.279
<v Speaker 6>Inflations a little bit above their target. What's the rush

0:06:08.320 --> 0:06:11.320
<v Speaker 6>to keep cutting rates. Let's just back up a little bit.

0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:16.200
<v Speaker 6>I think also they do have to listen to what's

0:06:16.240 --> 0:06:19.800
<v Speaker 6>being talked about at Mara a Lago, and there is

0:06:19.839 --> 0:06:23.359
<v Speaker 6>a lot being talked about. Not any of it is

0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:28.160
<v Speaker 6>going to be disinflationary or a headwind to growth, and

0:06:28.240 --> 0:06:31.800
<v Speaker 6>they have to begin to model that in. I actually

0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:35.640
<v Speaker 6>think they did the right thing. I'm pleasantly surprised they

0:06:35.680 --> 0:06:39.279
<v Speaker 6>went to two cuts next year instead of three. We'll

0:06:39.279 --> 0:06:40.480
<v Speaker 6>see what happens.

0:06:40.279 --> 0:06:42.880
<v Speaker 5>And do they model in does the Trump administration model

0:06:42.920 --> 0:06:46.159
<v Speaker 5>in his behavior, his statements on strong dollar that we

0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:49.919
<v Speaker 5>saw eight years ago, whatever the math is, or is

0:06:49.920 --> 0:06:53.160
<v Speaker 5>there going to be a different discussion about the efficacy

0:06:53.160 --> 0:06:55.760
<v Speaker 5>of a strong dollar For President Trump, he's going to

0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:57.840
<v Speaker 5>demand a week dollar. We got to have exports up

0:06:57.920 --> 0:06:58.920
<v Speaker 5>ers or new behavior.

0:07:00.120 --> 0:07:01.880
<v Speaker 6>I think that's something we're just going to have to

0:07:01.880 --> 0:07:05.360
<v Speaker 6>wish see. I think there's still a view that the

0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:09.159
<v Speaker 6>exceptionalism of the dollar is another one of these things

0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:13.400
<v Speaker 6>that's potentially over invested in. And suddenly if you see

0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:17.520
<v Speaker 6>policies coming out of the administration on Tara said aren't

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:20.880
<v Speaker 6>as severe as expected, then you're going to see a

0:07:20.920 --> 0:07:24.600
<v Speaker 6>lot of the foreign economies, a lot of the currencies

0:07:24.760 --> 0:07:27.560
<v Speaker 6>and bond markets start to appreciate a bit.

0:07:27.840 --> 0:07:29.120
<v Speaker 4>Do you think that it was a mistake?

0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 1>And essentially this is the FED walking back what fedshir

0:07:32.240 --> 0:07:35.640
<v Speaker 1>Powell said about we will not welcome any further weakening

0:07:35.640 --> 0:07:36.560
<v Speaker 1>in the labor market.

0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:40.480
<v Speaker 6>I think there's some of that, and I think they

0:07:40.520 --> 0:07:44.720
<v Speaker 6>looked at the totality of the data. I started by saying,

0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:48.720
<v Speaker 6>when they look at everything, it's the perfect soft landing.

0:07:49.000 --> 0:07:52.120
<v Speaker 6>They're looking for a resting spot. They don't think it's

0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:55.280
<v Speaker 6>three or four rate cuts away. They think it's somewhere

0:07:55.320 --> 0:07:57.000
<v Speaker 6>around two more rate cuts away.

0:07:57.320 --> 0:07:57.840
<v Speaker 4>Do you think that.

0:07:57.840 --> 0:08:00.720
<v Speaker 1>It's good that there's more descent now at a time

0:08:00.760 --> 0:08:03.240
<v Speaker 1>when there is so much dissent and disagreement just about

0:08:03.320 --> 0:08:05.360
<v Speaker 1>understanding where we are currently.

0:08:06.000 --> 0:08:09.760
<v Speaker 6>I love it. I think it's ideal. You heard the

0:08:09.840 --> 0:08:13.360
<v Speaker 6>conversation with Ellen. She's sitting there looking at things are

0:08:13.520 --> 0:08:15.920
<v Speaker 6>about as perfect as you can get them. I try

0:08:15.960 --> 0:08:19.320
<v Speaker 6>to point out housing and she smacks it away. And

0:08:19.520 --> 0:08:22.280
<v Speaker 6>I think that's what you're getting at the FAD, which is,

0:08:22.560 --> 0:08:25.440
<v Speaker 6>you know what, inflation's a little higher than we want.

0:08:25.600 --> 0:08:28.160
<v Speaker 6>Growth is a little bit firmer than we thought. The

0:08:28.240 --> 0:08:30.800
<v Speaker 6>labor market looks pretty healthy. And by the way, has

0:08:30.840 --> 0:08:34.960
<v Speaker 6>anyone talked about holiday sales? The consumers looked pretty good.

0:08:35.200 --> 0:08:37.120
<v Speaker 6>What are we doing cutting rates further?

0:08:37.559 --> 0:08:39.640
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, look at this John and all the things moving

0:08:39.640 --> 0:08:43.679
<v Speaker 5>across the Bloomberg launch pad. Canadian dollars extraordinary. We're not

0:08:43.840 --> 0:08:48.200
<v Speaker 5>nearer one forty four, but it's a jump condition. Unlike others,

0:08:48.200 --> 0:08:49.640
<v Speaker 5>which you're just pushing up as well.

0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:51.880
<v Speaker 2>They've got their own true day shape problems TUMP, and

0:08:51.920 --> 0:08:54.240
<v Speaker 2>Europe's got their own problems too. You're at dollar right

0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:56.680
<v Speaker 2>now breaking down, So one O four twenty just about

0:08:56.720 --> 0:08:58.880
<v Speaker 2>holding on now it's a one A four handle. There's

0:08:58.920 --> 0:09:01.160
<v Speaker 2>one question I've got for you. By it's a forecast.

0:09:01.160 --> 0:09:03.880
<v Speaker 2>We haven't talked about the longer run DOUP. It is

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:07.040
<v Speaker 2>inched up by like that much from two point nine

0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:09.920
<v Speaker 2>to three. Is there not a bigger realization going on

0:09:09.960 --> 0:09:12.240
<v Speaker 2>in the committee that that needs to come up a

0:09:12.240 --> 0:09:14.280
<v Speaker 2>whole lot more? Why is this taken so long to

0:09:14.360 --> 0:09:15.240
<v Speaker 2>draw that conclusion?

0:09:16.160 --> 0:09:16.520
<v Speaker 5>Yeah?

0:09:16.600 --> 0:09:20.240
<v Speaker 6>I think the realization is setting in, and I think

0:09:20.480 --> 0:09:23.760
<v Speaker 6>having a dissenter on board is going to help drive

0:09:23.840 --> 0:09:27.760
<v Speaker 6>that conversation. But if you step back and think where

0:09:27.840 --> 0:09:31.559
<v Speaker 6>three percent is relative to a few years ago. That

0:09:31.640 --> 0:09:35.240
<v Speaker 6>does seem pretty high. We had negative real FET funds

0:09:35.320 --> 0:09:38.240
<v Speaker 6>rates for a long period of time. The very first

0:09:38.240 --> 0:09:41.959
<v Speaker 6>stop back in twenty twelve was four and a quarter percent.

0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:45.480
<v Speaker 6>Now we're right about that four and a quarter percent.

0:09:45.840 --> 0:09:48.079
<v Speaker 6>Why not just sit there and say we can get

0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:51.480
<v Speaker 6>to around two percent inflation? About one percent of a

0:09:51.520 --> 0:09:54.600
<v Speaker 6>real Fed funds rate is about the right level of pressure.

0:09:54.840 --> 0:09:56.240
<v Speaker 6>I still think it's going higher.

0:09:56.280 --> 0:09:59.600
<v Speaker 2>The chairman talked about a recalibration. We've had three meetings

0:09:59.720 --> 0:10:02.720
<v Speaker 2>on basis points of cuts across three meetings. Was that

0:10:02.760 --> 0:10:04.680
<v Speaker 2>the recalibration? Have we had it now?

0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:08.800
<v Speaker 6>I think that's some of it. I think that's only

0:10:08.880 --> 0:10:12.000
<v Speaker 6>part of it. Yeah, I think that's only part of it.

0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 6>It just takes a week labor print over the next

0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:19.679
<v Speaker 6>month or so. It takes a surprise to the downside

0:10:19.720 --> 0:10:23.000
<v Speaker 6>in core PCE. One of those things to remind the

0:10:23.040 --> 0:10:26.240
<v Speaker 6>Fed that this level of rates with a four handle

0:10:26.640 --> 0:10:30.400
<v Speaker 6>in this economy that's come from zero interest rates is

0:10:30.440 --> 0:10:33.679
<v Speaker 6>still somewhat restrictive and there's more work to do.

0:10:33.800 --> 0:10:35.640
<v Speaker 2>If you are just joining us, welcome to the program.

0:10:35.679 --> 0:10:38.640
<v Speaker 2>Ten minutes ago, a twenty five basis point reduction from

0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:41.120
<v Speaker 2>the Federal Reserve a sprinkle of descent. But that's not

0:10:41.160 --> 0:10:43.640
<v Speaker 2>where the headlines are. The headlines are in the Summary

0:10:43.760 --> 0:10:47.480
<v Speaker 2>of Economic Projections released alongside the statement from the Federal Reserve,

0:10:47.800 --> 0:10:51.360
<v Speaker 2>where they improved increase their forecast for GDP for twenty five,

0:10:51.720 --> 0:10:54.839
<v Speaker 2>They took down their unemployment rate forecast. They pushed up

0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:58.080
<v Speaker 2>their forecast for PCE, and they did this with interest rates,

0:10:58.160 --> 0:11:01.640
<v Speaker 2>projecting rates would drop only to three ninety when previously

0:11:01.679 --> 0:11:03.680
<v Speaker 2>they were looking for three forty. So the Federal Reserve,

0:11:03.800 --> 0:11:06.480
<v Speaker 2>essentially for the median dot has gone from projecting four

0:11:06.559 --> 0:11:09.360
<v Speaker 2>cuts in twenty twenty five to just two. Off the

0:11:09.400 --> 0:11:11.720
<v Speaker 2>back of that, in the bond market yields a higher

0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:14.240
<v Speaker 2>the dollars stronger, and equity is a rolling Going from

0:11:14.280 --> 0:11:16.240
<v Speaker 2>the S and P five hundred, we are down by

0:11:16.320 --> 0:11:18.640
<v Speaker 2>zero point six percent. So weigh in on this. Dane

0:11:18.640 --> 0:11:21.280
<v Speaker 2>Swamp of KPMG joined us. Now, Dan, you've had some

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:23.160
<v Speaker 2>time to pour over all of this. Let's start with

0:11:23.200 --> 0:11:25.520
<v Speaker 2>those projections. Was that in line with what you were

0:11:25.520 --> 0:11:26.000
<v Speaker 2>looking for?

0:11:28.240 --> 0:11:30.720
<v Speaker 7>Actually it is, and I'm glad to see it. I

0:11:30.760 --> 0:11:32.480
<v Speaker 7>thought that the Fed was going to if they were

0:11:32.520 --> 0:11:34.800
<v Speaker 7>going to do a quarter point, which was already priced

0:11:34.840 --> 0:11:37.400
<v Speaker 7>into the market that they had to scale back dramatically,

0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:40.559
<v Speaker 7>at least by half. They're a forecast for rate cuts

0:11:40.600 --> 0:11:43.800
<v Speaker 7>next year, which is what they did, and the disagreement

0:11:43.880 --> 0:11:46.960
<v Speaker 7>within the committee is exactly what you would expect. There's

0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:50.199
<v Speaker 7>a lot of debate right now about how close are

0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:53.199
<v Speaker 7>we actually to neutral, and in fact, the new Cleveland

0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:55.040
<v Speaker 7>Fed President was one of the ones that said we

0:11:55.080 --> 0:11:57.680
<v Speaker 7>may be closer than you think. So it's not so

0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:00.920
<v Speaker 7>surprising that she casted as set. Even though it's her

0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:04.319
<v Speaker 7>first meeting, it's also her last meeting to vote before

0:12:04.360 --> 0:12:07.720
<v Speaker 7>we see Austin Goilsby roll back onto the committee in

0:12:07.880 --> 0:12:11.160
<v Speaker 7>January as a voting member. I think it's not surprising

0:12:11.240 --> 0:12:13.360
<v Speaker 7>at all that there were three participants at the meeting

0:12:13.440 --> 0:12:16.040
<v Speaker 7>that also agreed that they don't want so many rate

0:12:16.120 --> 0:12:19.320
<v Speaker 7>cuts next year. The economy they can do it without

0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:23.520
<v Speaker 7>front running any policies. Right now, the economy has come

0:12:23.559 --> 0:12:27.359
<v Speaker 7>in much stronger than they expected. There's been upward revisions

0:12:27.400 --> 0:12:30.920
<v Speaker 7>to both employment and inflation has come in hotter, and

0:12:30.960 --> 0:12:34.560
<v Speaker 7>the consumer is atlas to the US economy and the

0:12:34.600 --> 0:12:37.840
<v Speaker 7>world at this point in time, and that's important. I

0:12:37.840 --> 0:12:40.160
<v Speaker 7>think It's also going to be really important to see

0:12:40.200 --> 0:12:43.120
<v Speaker 7>in the discussion and in the minutes to this, how

0:12:43.200 --> 0:12:47.240
<v Speaker 7>much they talked about that consumer sentiment number that showed

0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:51.599
<v Speaker 7>people buying ahead of price hikes and that hoarding activity,

0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:56.680
<v Speaker 7>which suggests that perhaps inflation expectations are not as well

0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:59.199
<v Speaker 7>anchored as they thought, and to become a bit more

0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:03.480
<v Speaker 7>unmurned moored in the post pandemic economy.

0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:07.360
<v Speaker 5>Diane, Illinois. You're Illinois is the fifth largest state economy.

0:13:07.400 --> 0:13:10.959
<v Speaker 5>It would be the eighteenth largest economy if it was

0:13:11.000 --> 0:13:14.480
<v Speaker 5>a country in the world. And yet we perceive Illinois

0:13:14.559 --> 0:13:17.800
<v Speaker 5>not flat on its back, but a much more diversified,

0:13:17.880 --> 0:13:21.600
<v Speaker 5>struggling state. What do you see out there about the

0:13:21.640 --> 0:13:29.960
<v Speaker 5>two Americas that you would tell Chairman Powell.

0:13:27.240 --> 0:13:29.960
<v Speaker 7>Well, you know, I don't need to tell Chairman Pouel anything,

0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:32.920
<v Speaker 7>because he spends a lot of time looking at both Americas.

0:13:32.960 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 7>I think people don't realize how much time he spends

0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:39.920
<v Speaker 7>talking to people who are trying to upscale themselves and

0:13:40.200 --> 0:13:43.440
<v Speaker 7>get out of being paid by the government and get training,

0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:47.000
<v Speaker 7>especially single women with children. I know how much he

0:13:47.040 --> 0:13:49.280
<v Speaker 7>spends time. He doesn't want to spend time just talking

0:13:49.280 --> 0:13:51.400
<v Speaker 7>to executives when he goes out to all of his

0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:54.760
<v Speaker 7>regional visits at the FED. He actually asked to see

0:13:54.920 --> 0:13:57.679
<v Speaker 7>the underbelly, to see where people are struggling, what's really

0:13:57.720 --> 0:14:00.440
<v Speaker 7>going on. I think what's important. I mean, I think

0:14:00.480 --> 0:14:03.480
<v Speaker 7>about this in my own situation. My son, when I

0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:05.720
<v Speaker 7>asked him what he wanted for Christmas, he asked me

0:14:05.760 --> 0:14:08.920
<v Speaker 7>to donate to the homeless and the working homeless are

0:14:08.920 --> 0:14:11.840
<v Speaker 7>a real problem, and I think that is one of

0:14:11.880 --> 0:14:14.360
<v Speaker 7>the issues that we're struggling with. And interest rates alone

0:14:14.480 --> 0:14:17.240
<v Speaker 7>coming down are not going to change the supply of

0:14:17.320 --> 0:14:20.640
<v Speaker 7>housing that once was a single lever. We know that

0:14:20.720 --> 0:14:24.640
<v Speaker 7>affordability has been bid up by a whole host of factors,

0:14:24.760 --> 0:14:29.040
<v Speaker 7>including scarcity of labor and these recent disasters that we've

0:14:29.080 --> 0:14:32.960
<v Speaker 7>seen which are pushing up the costs of actually construction.

0:14:32.880 --> 0:14:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Because of this fragility, and Bob, I'm curious your thoughts.

0:14:35.680 --> 0:14:38.920
<v Speaker 1>Some people are saying that essentially this is a hawkish tone,

0:14:39.160 --> 0:14:41.200
<v Speaker 1>but this still is a FED with a pretty low

0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:43.440
<v Speaker 1>bar to cut again, that is the comment from Neil

0:14:43.480 --> 0:14:45.640
<v Speaker 1>Dudda as he looks underneath the hood of some of

0:14:45.680 --> 0:14:48.680
<v Speaker 1>the employment markets that Diane was talking about.

0:14:48.720 --> 0:14:53.720
<v Speaker 6>Do you agree, I think the bar was low. It

0:14:53.840 --> 0:14:57.720
<v Speaker 6>got a lot higher because they're telling us they're rethinking

0:14:58.040 --> 0:15:00.960
<v Speaker 6>how many cuts they have to do. And certainly by

0:15:00.960 --> 0:15:03.840
<v Speaker 6>the time they meet again at the end of January,

0:15:03.880 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 6>they're going to hear a lot more from the administration,

0:15:07.040 --> 0:15:11.160
<v Speaker 6>and it's going to be the administration, not the incoming administration,

0:15:11.600 --> 0:15:13.960
<v Speaker 6>and they're clearly going to have to model that in

0:15:14.040 --> 0:15:16.520
<v Speaker 6>wigh that. So I don't think there's a pretty low

0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:18.040
<v Speaker 6>bar here. I think it's gotten higher.

0:15:18.120 --> 0:15:20.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm really pleased you brought up Nil Datta's no if

0:15:20.560 --> 0:15:22.760
<v Speaker 2>you go to the bottom of this noe Nil from Renmack.

0:15:22.800 --> 0:15:25.720
<v Speaker 2>Of course, there's an interesting line here on the incoming administration.

0:15:26.120 --> 0:15:28.720
<v Speaker 2>There is plenty of speculation of what the Trump administration

0:15:28.800 --> 0:15:31.440
<v Speaker 2>will do, but they have to actually walk through the door.

0:15:31.720 --> 0:15:33.640
<v Speaker 2>The FED ought to focus on the here and now.

0:15:33.720 --> 0:15:35.960
<v Speaker 2>The risk is now that the economy slows and the

0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:38.960
<v Speaker 2>FED is passively tightening by doing nothing. And here's the kicker.

0:15:39.000 --> 0:15:41.320
<v Speaker 2>I think the punchline curious that the FED was about

0:15:41.360 --> 0:15:43.280
<v Speaker 2>to cut a hundred basis points and then all of

0:15:43.280 --> 0:15:47.000
<v Speaker 2>a sudden stops as Trump walks through the door. Diane,

0:15:47.040 --> 0:15:49.680
<v Speaker 2>how much of these moves, the change to the forecast

0:15:49.720 --> 0:15:53.480
<v Speaker 2>that we're seeing are about the incoming data since September,

0:15:53.520 --> 0:15:56.000
<v Speaker 2>and how much of it is about expected changes to

0:15:56.080 --> 0:15:59.120
<v Speaker 2>policy that will shape that data in the years to come.

0:16:01.640 --> 0:16:04.360
<v Speaker 7>Well, we do know that with the continuing resolution that

0:16:04.360 --> 0:16:09.400
<v Speaker 7>they're talking about a fairly large increase in bailout funds

0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:12.360
<v Speaker 7>for the affected states from the two hurricanes. That will

0:16:12.360 --> 0:16:14.760
<v Speaker 7>boost growth at the beginning of the year, and it

0:16:14.800 --> 0:16:18.000
<v Speaker 7>is inflationary at the same time, So that is sort

0:16:18.000 --> 0:16:20.960
<v Speaker 7>of already baked into the cake. Are they doing scenarios,

0:16:21.000 --> 0:16:24.000
<v Speaker 7>Of course they are, but they can couch certainly. I

0:16:24.000 --> 0:16:26.600
<v Speaker 7>think you're going to see Powell couch very much and

0:16:26.640 --> 0:16:29.960
<v Speaker 7>be very cautious to say they're not front running any policy.

0:16:30.040 --> 0:16:32.600
<v Speaker 7>They did cut at this meeting. If they were front

0:16:32.640 --> 0:16:35.800
<v Speaker 7>running policy, they wouldn't have cut at this meeting. And

0:16:35.840 --> 0:16:38.440
<v Speaker 7>I think that's what Powell wanted to say, even with

0:16:38.480 --> 0:16:41.640
<v Speaker 7>the descent, with this hawkish tone, this is sort of

0:16:41.680 --> 0:16:44.160
<v Speaker 7>the perfect way for him to say, we're doing our job.

0:16:44.400 --> 0:16:47.200
<v Speaker 7>We're looking at the data. It's coming in stronger, the

0:16:47.280 --> 0:16:51.680
<v Speaker 7>economy is solid, and it justifies higher rates. Now, you

0:16:51.720 --> 0:16:55.360
<v Speaker 7>always worry about what's going to break going forward. The

0:16:55.440 --> 0:16:58.320
<v Speaker 7>administration coming in, they will have more information on it,

0:16:58.560 --> 0:17:01.400
<v Speaker 7>but even tariffs take quite a while to kick in.

0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:04.800
<v Speaker 7>They don't kick in overnight, and I think people forget

0:17:04.800 --> 0:17:07.640
<v Speaker 7>about that and we don't know what Not only will

0:17:07.640 --> 0:17:10.840
<v Speaker 7>the tariffs completely look like we have ideas and we

0:17:10.840 --> 0:17:14.679
<v Speaker 7>can model out scenarios, but retaliation will be designed to

0:17:14.800 --> 0:17:18.960
<v Speaker 7>disrupt supply chains. That's very important because when you're thinking

0:17:19.000 --> 0:17:22.119
<v Speaker 7>about it that way, that is inflationary and we're in

0:17:22.160 --> 0:17:26.160
<v Speaker 7>a much more fragile supply chain environment, which we've already seen.

0:17:26.520 --> 0:17:30.240
<v Speaker 7>Vehicle prices have already gone up again just in response

0:17:30.280 --> 0:17:33.640
<v Speaker 7>to the damages and the buying ahead of additional price

0:17:33.720 --> 0:17:37.080
<v Speaker 7>hikes due to two monster hurricanes. So we're in a

0:17:37.119 --> 0:17:41.439
<v Speaker 7>situation where we have much more fragile supply chains with

0:17:41.720 --> 0:17:46.240
<v Speaker 7>the embers of inflation still smoldering. That's just not a

0:17:46.280 --> 0:17:49.280
<v Speaker 7>situation you want to add fuel to the fire on

0:17:49.560 --> 0:17:52.159
<v Speaker 7>you want to keep the lid on inflation. And I

0:17:52.160 --> 0:17:55.440
<v Speaker 7>think the FED is still hoping to hit that soft landing.

0:17:55.760 --> 0:17:58.639
<v Speaker 7>But a soft landing, really they will not declare victory.

0:17:58.640 --> 0:18:00.880
<v Speaker 7>And this will not be Chairman Powell that we saw

0:18:00.920 --> 0:18:04.080
<v Speaker 7>a year ago, who was pretty jubulant a year ago

0:18:04.600 --> 0:18:06.920
<v Speaker 7>when we were sitting in this exact spot. I think

0:18:06.960 --> 0:18:09.359
<v Speaker 7>you're going to see a Chairman Powell that is cautious

0:18:09.720 --> 0:18:13.560
<v Speaker 7>optimistic about the economy, talking about the strength of the economy.

0:18:13.960 --> 0:18:16.200
<v Speaker 7>That's why they're doing what they're doing. That's why the

0:18:16.200 --> 0:18:18.920
<v Speaker 7>outlook looks like it is not front running policy.

0:18:19.200 --> 0:18:20.919
<v Speaker 5>Michael, I got a ten year yield move and the

0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:24.560
<v Speaker 5>real yield, the real yield was a two five two,

0:18:24.560 --> 0:18:27.439
<v Speaker 5>all of a sudden popping four basis points rounded up

0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:30.200
<v Speaker 5>about the two point one to three percent. What does

0:18:30.280 --> 0:18:33.359
<v Speaker 5>that signal to your bond market? What does that signal

0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:36.760
<v Speaker 5>the business? Just to see the real yield Butcher's up

0:18:36.800 --> 0:18:39.360
<v Speaker 5>write against recent husbec six months.

0:18:39.520 --> 0:18:43.119
<v Speaker 6>It tells me that investors might have been tilted the

0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:48.879
<v Speaker 6>wrong way coming into the FOMC decision, and they're unwinding

0:18:48.920 --> 0:18:51.399
<v Speaker 6>some of that. We'll see where it closes. I'm pretty

0:18:51.400 --> 0:18:54.920
<v Speaker 6>optimistic things will settle down. I think Diane said it

0:18:55.040 --> 0:18:59.240
<v Speaker 6>correctly that this is still a FED that cut rates

0:18:59.440 --> 0:19:04.600
<v Speaker 6>in front of incoming policies. So they must see something

0:19:04.760 --> 0:19:07.800
<v Speaker 6>in the improvement in inflation that they like, and they

0:19:07.840 --> 0:19:10.760
<v Speaker 6>must see something in the labor market that they want

0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:12.760
<v Speaker 6>to make sure it doesn't metastasize.

0:19:12.800 --> 0:19:14.560
<v Speaker 2>We'll find out more in about eleven minutes time. In

0:19:14.560 --> 0:19:16.720
<v Speaker 2>this news conference, stants a special thanks to Dan Swamp

0:19:16.880 --> 0:19:19.400
<v Speaker 2>of KPMG. Want to draw your attention to what's developing

0:19:19.400 --> 0:19:21.439
<v Speaker 2>in the FX market and elsewear. So we're starting the

0:19:21.440 --> 0:19:24.199
<v Speaker 2>bond market just a flavor of that yields up on

0:19:24.240 --> 0:19:26.359
<v Speaker 2>a front end by seven basis points the two year

0:19:26.720 --> 0:19:29.080
<v Speaker 2>back through four p thirty. If you take that move,

0:19:29.320 --> 0:19:31.520
<v Speaker 2>just push it through foreign exchange. What do you expect

0:19:31.760 --> 0:19:34.040
<v Speaker 2>bit of moves in G ten the dollars stronger against

0:19:34.080 --> 0:19:37.199
<v Speaker 2>absolutely everything, against the majors in G ten. Beyond that,

0:19:37.240 --> 0:19:40.919
<v Speaker 2>in em tom two percent move against Brazil two again negative,

0:19:41.880 --> 0:19:43.120
<v Speaker 2>that's another two each of them.

0:19:43.200 --> 0:19:44.960
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, but each of them are radiosyncredits on.

0:19:44.920 --> 0:19:46.840
<v Speaker 2>The top of the twenty so far this ye, yeah, she.

0:19:46.800 --> 0:19:49.679
<v Speaker 5>Got Turkish lera popping through thirty five today finally. But

0:19:50.040 --> 0:19:53.120
<v Speaker 5>they're each a different story. But as Damian Sasomer says

0:19:53.160 --> 0:19:56.000
<v Speaker 5>his expert on this, it is a flat out six

0:19:56.080 --> 0:19:59.679
<v Speaker 5>percent depreciation an them currencies, and John, I'm looking at

0:19:59.680 --> 0:20:02.320
<v Speaker 5>the drawer and the standard of course five hundred. I'm

0:20:02.359 --> 0:20:05.199
<v Speaker 5>not using the dow here in the SPX is we

0:20:05.240 --> 0:20:08.440
<v Speaker 5>have a drawdown a negative one point five percent.

0:20:08.359 --> 0:20:10.760
<v Speaker 2>Sessions carnage of the session line with down about point

0:20:10.800 --> 0:20:13.400
<v Speaker 2>seven percent on the session. On the SMP, Mattless seti

0:20:13.440 --> 0:20:15.840
<v Speaker 2>off Deutsche Bank joined US now and we tased this

0:20:15.920 --> 0:20:17.560
<v Speaker 2>one U Matt a little bit earlier in the program,

0:20:17.600 --> 0:20:19.640
<v Speaker 2>we said, Mattless, Eddi is looking for one more Cup

0:20:19.840 --> 0:20:21.800
<v Speaker 2>said it was a close call for December, and then

0:20:21.880 --> 0:20:25.160
<v Speaker 2>ultimately you think they're done for twenty twenty five. Matt,

0:20:25.160 --> 0:20:27.359
<v Speaker 2>Are they getting close into your world?

0:20:27.880 --> 0:20:27.960
<v Speaker 6>Well?

0:20:28.040 --> 0:20:29.359
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, I mean you have to to say that the

0:20:29.359 --> 0:20:32.159
<v Speaker 8>dots move closer to that world today, I think really

0:20:32.359 --> 0:20:35.119
<v Speaker 8>importantly within the SVP. You know, obviously a lot of

0:20:35.160 --> 0:20:38.280
<v Speaker 8>focus on the dot plot, but what drove that was

0:20:38.280 --> 0:20:41.960
<v Speaker 8>this big upwardess assessment in inflation. They moved up their

0:20:41.960 --> 0:20:43.840
<v Speaker 8>core PC inflation forecast to two and a half percent

0:20:43.920 --> 0:20:46.760
<v Speaker 8>next year. That's closer to our own view. They moved

0:20:46.800 --> 0:20:48.959
<v Speaker 8>up their core PC inflation forecast for two point two

0:20:49.000 --> 0:20:52.120
<v Speaker 8>percent in twenty twenty six. Really takes till twenty twenty

0:20:52.160 --> 0:20:55.159
<v Speaker 8>seven really to get back to their inflation target of

0:20:55.160 --> 0:20:57.520
<v Speaker 8>two percent. And then there was a big reassessment of

0:20:57.920 --> 0:21:00.359
<v Speaker 8>the risk assessment around both the labor marketing and inflation

0:21:01.440 --> 0:21:04.240
<v Speaker 8>risks to the upside of inflation, everybody kind of anticipates

0:21:04.240 --> 0:21:06.239
<v Speaker 8>and move back to in that direction, and they're much

0:21:06.280 --> 0:21:09.200
<v Speaker 8>more balanced risks to the labor market. So it's kind

0:21:09.200 --> 0:21:12.560
<v Speaker 8>of an sep from a forecast perspective and from a

0:21:12.640 --> 0:21:14.760
<v Speaker 8>risk assessment perspective that looks a lot more like it

0:21:14.760 --> 0:21:15.960
<v Speaker 8>did in June than September.

0:21:16.080 --> 0:21:18.120
<v Speaker 1>Matt, how much do you think this really is stemming

0:21:18.119 --> 0:21:21.199
<v Speaker 1>from the data that we've gotten of late versus just

0:21:21.359 --> 0:21:24.439
<v Speaker 1>a promise change in policies next year? In other words,

0:21:24.720 --> 0:21:27.159
<v Speaker 1>is this as Neil Dutta says that they cut by

0:21:27.160 --> 0:21:30.000
<v Speaker 1>one hundred basis points and then Trump walked in the door.

0:21:31.800 --> 0:21:33.720
<v Speaker 8>I think a lot of this is just the incoming

0:21:33.760 --> 0:21:35.719
<v Speaker 8>data that we've seen. You know, they marked up their

0:21:35.720 --> 0:21:38.200
<v Speaker 8>growth forecast as everybody else has, by about fifty basis

0:21:38.200 --> 0:21:41.000
<v Speaker 8>points since the September meeting. They marked up their inflation

0:21:41.040 --> 0:21:43.920
<v Speaker 8>forecast just given the incoming data by twenty basis points

0:21:43.920 --> 0:21:46.439
<v Speaker 8>since the September meeting, marked down their labor market forecast

0:21:46.480 --> 0:21:48.720
<v Speaker 8>by twenty basis since the September meeting. I think the

0:21:48.800 --> 0:21:51.720
<v Speaker 8>data since the September meeting confirmed a few things. One,

0:21:51.960 --> 0:21:54.880
<v Speaker 8>growth is robust to the downside, risks to the labor

0:21:54.920 --> 0:21:57.560
<v Speaker 8>market and consumer are less than they were three months ago,

0:21:57.960 --> 0:22:00.240
<v Speaker 8>and three there are risks that inflation is just year

0:22:00.280 --> 0:22:03.840
<v Speaker 8>than many anticipated. Just put into some context, core PC

0:22:04.000 --> 0:22:06.199
<v Speaker 8>ended last year at three percent, it's likely an end

0:22:06.200 --> 0:22:07.600
<v Speaker 8>of this year at two point eight or two point

0:22:07.680 --> 0:22:10.240
<v Speaker 8>nine percent. That's very little progress over the course of

0:22:10.240 --> 0:22:12.399
<v Speaker 8>this year, and they basis points despite that.

0:22:12.840 --> 0:22:16.479
<v Speaker 5>Matt Jason Furman just publishes up at Harvard Teaching at

0:22:16.560 --> 0:22:20.320
<v Speaker 5>ten his first sentence mad as simple. I don't know

0:22:20.359 --> 0:22:24.480
<v Speaker 5>why the FED cut. Matt Lazzetti, Why did the FED cut?

0:22:25.560 --> 0:22:27.480
<v Speaker 8>I think it's a great question, and I you know,

0:22:27.560 --> 0:22:30.600
<v Speaker 8>as you know, it was kind of discussed. We thought

0:22:30.600 --> 0:22:32.560
<v Speaker 8>that there was a lot of good reasons not to cut.

0:22:33.400 --> 0:22:35.199
<v Speaker 8>I think when Chair Palace asked this question is going

0:22:35.200 --> 0:22:36.520
<v Speaker 8>to be difficult one for him. But the way that

0:22:36.560 --> 0:22:38.600
<v Speaker 8>I think he'll frame it is they still believe that

0:22:38.600 --> 0:22:41.080
<v Speaker 8>they were restrictive, and we still believe that they are

0:22:41.080 --> 0:22:43.560
<v Speaker 8>as well, and that even with a twenty five basis

0:22:43.600 --> 0:22:46.960
<v Speaker 8>point cut, they maintained that level of restriction and that

0:22:47.000 --> 0:22:49.439
<v Speaker 8>they're still kind of being able to balance the risks

0:22:49.440 --> 0:22:52.120
<v Speaker 8>assessment from a labor market inflation perspective. At this point

0:22:52.160 --> 0:22:54.239
<v Speaker 8>in time, So I think that'll be the argument at

0:22:54.240 --> 0:22:56.840
<v Speaker 8>this At this point. That said, I think the signal

0:22:56.880 --> 0:22:58.919
<v Speaker 8>from them is that they're not just on this regular

0:22:58.960 --> 0:23:01.840
<v Speaker 8>cadence of ray cuts. They're not just kind of on

0:23:01.920 --> 0:23:04.520
<v Speaker 8>a path a smooth passed down to a neutral rate

0:23:04.760 --> 0:23:07.040
<v Speaker 8>that is kind of uncertain. That it does look like

0:23:07.080 --> 0:23:09.200
<v Speaker 8>they are going to be pausing for a bit longer here,

0:23:09.280 --> 0:23:12.280
<v Speaker 8>given their baseline forecast for the data, and that's in

0:23:12.320 --> 0:23:15.040
<v Speaker 8>line with their own expectations that the data flow, we

0:23:15.080 --> 0:23:17.720
<v Speaker 8>think over the coming months and then coming quarters will

0:23:17.840 --> 0:23:20.120
<v Speaker 8>just not be consistent with dialing back more restraint.

0:23:20.320 --> 0:23:20.560
<v Speaker 4>Tom.

0:23:20.600 --> 0:23:22.280
<v Speaker 1>I thought that was a great question, and I'd like

0:23:22.359 --> 0:23:24.639
<v Speaker 1>Bob's answer because honestly, I think that that really is

0:23:24.640 --> 0:23:26.320
<v Speaker 1>a key question, and it's going to be very difficult

0:23:26.320 --> 0:23:28.919
<v Speaker 1>for this FED chair to really answer. If you actually

0:23:29.000 --> 0:23:32.280
<v Speaker 1>are upgrading your expectation for core PCEE, why did you

0:23:32.320 --> 0:23:33.200
<v Speaker 1>cut at all this meeting?

0:23:34.680 --> 0:23:37.960
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, and so Matt may eventually be right that this

0:23:38.119 --> 0:23:41.560
<v Speaker 6>was the last one. As he was talking, I was thinking, bohy,

0:23:41.640 --> 0:23:45.200
<v Speaker 6>this is really reminiscent of nineteen ninety five when they

0:23:45.280 --> 0:23:48.640
<v Speaker 6>had pike rates from three to six percent. Everyone thought

0:23:48.640 --> 0:23:51.440
<v Speaker 6>they'd have to cut rates to four. They did seventy

0:23:51.480 --> 0:23:54.560
<v Speaker 6>five basis points. That was it five and a quarter,

0:23:54.800 --> 0:23:57.359
<v Speaker 6>and then they came back shortly there after starting the

0:23:57.440 --> 0:24:00.959
<v Speaker 6>hike rates. You do look around and do see that

0:24:01.600 --> 0:24:05.000
<v Speaker 6>actually the economy's doing pretty well. Now there are things

0:24:05.000 --> 0:24:07.760
<v Speaker 6>below the surface in the labor market they have to

0:24:07.840 --> 0:24:10.840
<v Speaker 6>be concerned about. There is a nine tenths of a

0:24:10.920 --> 0:24:14.240
<v Speaker 6>percent increase in the unemployment rate. You've never had that

0:24:14.320 --> 0:24:17.760
<v Speaker 6>without a recession. We look at job gains and look

0:24:17.800 --> 0:24:20.640
<v Speaker 6>at the six month moving average one hundred and eight thousand,

0:24:20.840 --> 0:24:24.560
<v Speaker 6>haven't seen that since twenty ten. So why not continue

0:24:24.600 --> 0:24:27.920
<v Speaker 6>to take a little pressure off of businesses in house?

0:24:28.119 --> 0:24:30.080
<v Speaker 2>Given everything we've learned in the last twenty four minutes,

0:24:30.400 --> 0:24:32.320
<v Speaker 2>does it make you more or less comfortable in pricing

0:24:32.440 --> 0:24:33.639
<v Speaker 2>risk this afternoon?

0:24:34.720 --> 0:24:38.840
<v Speaker 6>It makes me more comfortable. I think the Fed sees

0:24:39.280 --> 0:24:41.560
<v Speaker 6>what we see, which is, hey, this is a pretty

0:24:41.560 --> 0:24:45.080
<v Speaker 6>good economy. We'll see what policies look like. Let's find

0:24:45.119 --> 0:24:47.239
<v Speaker 6>a place to rest for a bit. We're not going

0:24:47.320 --> 0:24:50.560
<v Speaker 6>to break anything. And it could be with a couple

0:24:50.600 --> 0:24:53.000
<v Speaker 6>more rate cuts, and that's it. Matt could be right,

0:24:53.040 --> 0:24:55.400
<v Speaker 6>It could be here. We'll find that out by March.

0:24:55.600 --> 0:24:59.320
<v Speaker 5>Now, Zodie, what's the elasticity here? The Atlanta GDP statistic

0:24:59.480 --> 0:25:02.960
<v Speaker 5>is three points one percent. Can this suddenly saved your

0:25:02.960 --> 0:25:06.760
<v Speaker 5>own power? Can we get a suddenly so slower economy

0:25:06.960 --> 0:25:08.520
<v Speaker 5>or do you really have to glide out to the

0:25:08.520 --> 0:25:09.680
<v Speaker 5>same middle of next year?

0:25:11.160 --> 0:25:14.000
<v Speaker 8>Look, the slower economy is something that you know, we

0:25:14.200 --> 0:25:16.960
<v Speaker 8>in consensitive have been expecting for the past several years.

0:25:17.000 --> 0:25:19.520
<v Speaker 8>It just has not come at all. You see the

0:25:19.560 --> 0:25:22.280
<v Speaker 8>past several quarters two point eight percent growth in Q three,

0:25:22.760 --> 0:25:26.720
<v Speaker 8>as you mentioned Q four, tracking at you know, about

0:25:26.720 --> 0:25:28.880
<v Speaker 8>three percent at this point in time. Our own growth

0:25:28.960 --> 0:25:31.680
<v Speaker 8>forecast is for two and a half percent growth next year.

0:25:32.040 --> 0:25:34.600
<v Speaker 8>But that's a deceleration relative to where we are. Financial

0:25:34.600 --> 0:25:38.480
<v Speaker 8>conditions are easy, credit conditions have the sentiment has improved.

0:25:38.840 --> 0:25:42.280
<v Speaker 8>So I do think that this economy has a substantial

0:25:42.720 --> 0:25:45.000
<v Speaker 8>momentum behind it, and I think can give you strong

0:25:45.440 --> 0:25:47.720
<v Speaker 8>growth outcomes. One thing I'm a little bit surprised about

0:25:47.760 --> 0:25:49.920
<v Speaker 8>is actually their potential growth estimate remained at one point

0:25:49.960 --> 0:25:53.040
<v Speaker 8>eight percent. They've been talking so much about productivity growth,

0:25:53.040 --> 0:25:55.159
<v Speaker 8>the supply side of the economy. I thought that that

0:25:55.200 --> 0:25:57.600
<v Speaker 8>would begin to manifest in a higher potential growth rate

0:25:57.600 --> 0:26:00.000
<v Speaker 8>in their forecasts. Didn't happen today, but maybe that's an

0:26:00.080 --> 0:26:00.719
<v Speaker 8>coming quarters.

0:26:00.800 --> 0:26:02.879
<v Speaker 1>Matt, what would you want to ask j Powell at

0:26:02.880 --> 0:26:04.679
<v Speaker 1>a time when everyone's going to try to get him

0:26:04.720 --> 0:26:07.080
<v Speaker 1>to comment on Trump policies and everyone's going to try

0:26:07.080 --> 0:26:10.600
<v Speaker 1>to understand just how high the bar is to cut again.

0:26:12.000 --> 0:26:13.760
<v Speaker 8>Yeah, so I think you know, I was going to

0:26:13.760 --> 0:26:15.600
<v Speaker 8>ask about kind of the level of restriction if they

0:26:15.640 --> 0:26:18.119
<v Speaker 8>had three cuts baked in, But I think it's more

0:26:18.119 --> 0:26:20.560
<v Speaker 8>about understanding how they how they think about a few

0:26:20.560 --> 0:26:22.639
<v Speaker 8>things in the labor market. Bob mentioned, you know, some

0:26:22.680 --> 0:26:25.560
<v Speaker 8>weakness in the labor market. I'd be interested in whether

0:26:25.640 --> 0:26:27.440
<v Speaker 8>or not the rise of the unemployment today they would

0:26:27.480 --> 0:26:29.720
<v Speaker 8>view similarly to the rise through the summer. I think

0:26:29.720 --> 0:26:32.639
<v Speaker 8>there's many reasons for them not to payrel games are stronger,

0:26:32.640 --> 0:26:35.280
<v Speaker 8>the quits rate has moved higher, the hiring rate has

0:26:35.440 --> 0:26:37.359
<v Speaker 8>stabilized a little bit, job openings have picked up. But

0:26:37.600 --> 0:26:40.160
<v Speaker 8>are they as concerned about this rise in the unemployment

0:26:40.240 --> 0:26:42.240
<v Speaker 8>rate as they were during the summer. Second question I

0:26:42.280 --> 0:26:44.280
<v Speaker 8>think is on shelter inflation. We did have this big

0:26:44.280 --> 0:26:47.600
<v Speaker 8>downdraft in the latest print that went against chair palacing

0:26:47.600 --> 0:26:49.320
<v Speaker 8>that it's going to be a very slow progress on

0:26:49.359 --> 0:26:51.119
<v Speaker 8>this front. How are they just thinking about over the

0:26:51.160 --> 0:26:53.439
<v Speaker 8>next several months. I think it's an important question for

0:26:53.480 --> 0:26:53.840
<v Speaker 8>them as well.

0:26:53.920 --> 0:26:54.120
<v Speaker 7>Matt.

0:26:54.119 --> 0:26:56.480
<v Speaker 2>There's one problem, one big problem I've got with this decision,

0:26:56.880 --> 0:26:58.600
<v Speaker 2>and it's the words the chairman used in the last

0:26:58.680 --> 0:27:03.199
<v Speaker 2>news conference. I guess we don't assume, we don't speculate

0:27:03.600 --> 0:27:06.399
<v Speaker 2>that inflation forecast, Matt. Are we're sitting here and really

0:27:06.400 --> 0:27:09.040
<v Speaker 2>saying that that much has changed in two months. The

0:27:09.119 --> 0:27:11.760
<v Speaker 2>warrants the upgrade to that inflation forecast of the FMC

0:27:12.200 --> 0:27:15.159
<v Speaker 2>without guessing, speculating or assuming on what policy is going

0:27:15.200 --> 0:27:15.399
<v Speaker 2>to do.

0:27:16.680 --> 0:27:19.399
<v Speaker 8>So our own inflation forecast is two point six percent.

0:27:19.480 --> 0:27:22.600
<v Speaker 8>That builds in about twenty basis points from tariff, So

0:27:23.560 --> 0:27:24.800
<v Speaker 8>you know, they'd be a little bit more hawkers on

0:27:24.880 --> 0:27:26.680
<v Speaker 8>the inflation front then then we would be, you know,

0:27:26.840 --> 0:27:29.400
<v Speaker 8>just going back to twenty nineteen. I don't think they're

0:27:29.440 --> 0:27:32.800
<v Speaker 8>really building in tariff effects explicitly into the forecast as

0:27:32.800 --> 0:27:35.240
<v Speaker 8>of yet. I do think that that is factoring into

0:27:35.240 --> 0:27:36.960
<v Speaker 8>the risk assessments that we see in the back of

0:27:36.960 --> 0:27:39.880
<v Speaker 8>the SEP where everybody kind of moves shifted back towards

0:27:39.960 --> 0:27:42.400
<v Speaker 8>upside risks to the inflation front. But that should also

0:27:42.400 --> 0:27:44.080
<v Speaker 8>make you worry to a certain extent. You know, if

0:27:44.080 --> 0:27:46.320
<v Speaker 8>their baseline is two and a half percent without tariffs,

0:27:46.520 --> 0:27:48.640
<v Speaker 8>it'd be even higher than that with tariffs which are

0:27:48.720 --> 0:27:51.320
<v Speaker 8>likely coming, and therefore they'd probably be taking out even

0:27:51.320 --> 0:27:52.679
<v Speaker 8>a little bit more of those rate custom that they

0:27:52.680 --> 0:27:54.920
<v Speaker 8>were anticipating, which was already leaning in a hawker's direction.

0:27:55.080 --> 0:27:56.960
<v Speaker 2>No doubt you'll hear lots of questions about that. About

0:27:57.000 --> 0:27:59.040
<v Speaker 2>three minutes time when this news conference starts, Matt will

0:27:59.080 --> 0:28:02.080
<v Speaker 2>let you Runt of Deutsche Bank No dot sev Renmack

0:28:02.200 --> 0:28:04.639
<v Speaker 2>writes in talked about him a few times already this afternoon.

0:28:04.840 --> 0:28:08.120
<v Speaker 2>The Fed is pre judging policy, that's one view. That's

0:28:08.200 --> 0:28:08.760
<v Speaker 2>Neil's view.

0:28:08.840 --> 0:28:11.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and he's talking about the fact that there has

0:28:11.080 --> 0:28:14.320
<v Speaker 1>been such a huge shift without some sort of massive

0:28:14.440 --> 0:28:16.600
<v Speaker 1>change in the tone of the data that I think

0:28:16.600 --> 0:28:18.760
<v Speaker 1>people will disagree with. We have some people who say

0:28:18.800 --> 0:28:21.160
<v Speaker 1>the data has come in a lot hotter. Nonetheless, they

0:28:21.200 --> 0:28:24.280
<v Speaker 1>have a lot of things to explain in this press conference.

0:28:24.320 --> 0:28:27.000
<v Speaker 2>Well, Michael, if they speculatink, are they assuming? Are they

0:28:27.000 --> 0:28:28.160
<v Speaker 2>guessing at the FMC?

0:28:28.600 --> 0:28:32.199
<v Speaker 6>Do you know what their inflation forecast? Just struck me

0:28:32.280 --> 0:28:37.119
<v Speaker 6>as frustration, frustration with well with the stickiness of inflation.

0:28:37.560 --> 0:28:40.560
<v Speaker 6>It should be one point nine to two percent by now.

0:28:40.800 --> 0:28:43.680
<v Speaker 6>Look at how the labor market has loosened up, look

0:28:43.720 --> 0:28:46.200
<v Speaker 6>at how growth has slowed down, and here we are

0:28:46.480 --> 0:28:49.440
<v Speaker 6>still around two and a quarter to two point six percent.

0:28:49.880 --> 0:28:51.840
<v Speaker 6>I don't read anything into it more than that.

0:28:52.080 --> 0:28:54.240
<v Speaker 1>So basically, do you think that at this point this

0:28:54.360 --> 0:28:57.680
<v Speaker 1>is a federal reserve that basically really is just throwing

0:28:57.720 --> 0:28:58.640
<v Speaker 1>darts at the dark board.

0:29:00.240 --> 0:29:02.720
<v Speaker 6>I think they have to be because they don't They

0:29:02.720 --> 0:29:06.960
<v Speaker 6>don't what he's saying, because they don't know what. By

0:29:07.000 --> 0:29:09.800
<v Speaker 6>the way, back in two thousand and nine, they would

0:29:09.840 --> 0:29:11.720
<v Speaker 6>have forecast two and a quarter to two and a

0:29:11.760 --> 0:29:15.240
<v Speaker 6>half because remember they had the flexible average inflation targeting.

0:29:15.520 --> 0:29:18.800
<v Speaker 6>They wanted higher inflation for a period of time, and

0:29:18.840 --> 0:29:22.440
<v Speaker 6>that's what existed in ninety five during the last soft landing.

0:29:23.440 --> 0:29:28.680
<v Speaker 6>They don't guess speculate, but they model, and they've modeled something.

0:29:28.800 --> 0:29:31.560
<v Speaker 5>Yeah. I brought this, Colin Hurst, Let me bring it

0:29:31.640 --> 0:29:33.560
<v Speaker 5>up with you. It's real simple. Are they going to

0:29:33.600 --> 0:29:35.560
<v Speaker 5>stay on an ext post method that they use for

0:29:35.600 --> 0:29:38.320
<v Speaker 5>four hundred years or are they actually getting out front

0:29:38.320 --> 0:29:40.720
<v Speaker 5>and predicting. I don't buy it. They got to be exposed.

0:29:40.720 --> 0:29:44.520
<v Speaker 5>They gotta wait for GDPD crack for unemployment to five percent.

0:29:44.840 --> 0:29:47.160
<v Speaker 6>Right now, they have the cover of both, don't they.

0:29:47.080 --> 0:29:49.800
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, exactly. I mean they're just an ex post machine.

0:29:49.800 --> 0:29:50.680
<v Speaker 5>That's all there is to it.

0:29:51.360 --> 0:29:53.320
<v Speaker 2>But Michael, this was fun. It's going to see you, sir,

0:29:53.680 --> 0:29:56.040
<v Speaker 2>almost that almost of the holidays after this. This is

0:29:56.160 --> 0:29:57.920
<v Speaker 2>like kind of it for many of you, I know,

0:29:58.040 --> 0:29:59.920
<v Speaker 2>going into YEARN for us included

0:30:01.520 --> 0:30:03.320
<v Speaker 7>You want to tack to eas