WEBVTT - PIMCO Managing Director and Global Economic Advisor Richard Clarida Talks Fed Day

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Rich Clarendo, Global Economic Advisor of HIMCO. Of course, former

0:00:03.320 --> 0:00:06.400
<v Speaker 1>feder Reserve Vice chair joins us now from Zerich. Rich,

0:00:06.480 --> 0:00:09.040
<v Speaker 1>great to see you, perfect person to talk to. What

0:00:09.080 --> 0:00:11.600
<v Speaker 1>did you make of yesterday in aggregate.

0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.040
<v Speaker 2>Well, it was an interesting meeting. Obviously, no great decision.

0:00:15.240 --> 0:00:19.160
<v Speaker 2>I think the DOTS came in on the hawkish side,

0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:21.919
<v Speaker 2>with only one cut penciled in this year versus three

0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:22.920
<v Speaker 2>in March.

0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:24.599
<v Speaker 3>That's what I thought going.

0:00:24.360 --> 0:00:26.480
<v Speaker 2>Into the meeting was more likely.

0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:28.280
<v Speaker 3>I thought it would be a cross close calls. It was.

0:00:28.320 --> 0:00:31.680
<v Speaker 2>Obviously in some ways the Fed got trumped yesterday by

0:00:31.760 --> 0:00:37.720
<v Speaker 2>the data. The CPI numbers were very FED friendly. The

0:00:37.760 --> 0:00:41.519
<v Speaker 2>core number was soft, headline was around zero, and so

0:00:41.560 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 2>it's interesting that even though you could argue the Fed

0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 2>on net was hawkish, it was on Netta Davis day

0:00:47.120 --> 0:00:49.159
<v Speaker 2>in markets given the CPI report.

0:00:49.520 --> 0:00:53.080
<v Speaker 1>So is are the dots old news given the fact

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:56.240
<v Speaker 1>that we've got updated CPI which is maybe a little

0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:57.440
<v Speaker 1>bit more benign and positive.

0:00:58.200 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 3>Great question. You know, they could be they could be stale. Now.

0:01:01.240 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 2>The Chair did acknowledge, as certainly was the case when

0:01:04.520 --> 0:01:06.840
<v Speaker 2>I was there, that members of the committee do have

0:01:06.920 --> 0:01:09.479
<v Speaker 2>a chance on the day of the meeting, and yesterday

0:01:09.560 --> 0:01:13.640
<v Speaker 2>after the CPI number came out to revise their dots.

0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:14.399
<v Speaker 3>If they choose to.

0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:16.520
<v Speaker 2>He didn't want to go into whether or not folks

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:20.560
<v Speaker 2>actually had to the extent they didn't. And certainly if

0:01:20.560 --> 0:01:23.480
<v Speaker 2>we get more numbers like this than they could be

0:01:23.640 --> 0:01:26.240
<v Speaker 2>a stale. But I more or less think that right

0:01:26.280 --> 0:01:28.760
<v Speaker 2>now they are in data dependent mode. I know it

0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:31.039
<v Speaker 2>sounds tripe, but I think they need to see a

0:01:31.040 --> 0:01:34.720
<v Speaker 2>lot more good inflation data to have the confidence to cut.

0:01:34.920 --> 0:01:37.800
<v Speaker 1>How far through that journey do you think we all, though,

0:01:38.040 --> 0:01:41.039
<v Speaker 1>rich We've talked about and Chris Wallace talks about this,

0:01:41.160 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 1>the need to see a series of data prints that

0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:45.840
<v Speaker 1>are pointing in the right direction to take us in

0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:46.720
<v Speaker 1>the right direction.

0:01:47.560 --> 0:01:48.440
<v Speaker 3>How big a tick in the.

0:01:48.440 --> 0:01:52.080
<v Speaker 1>Bulx kind of down that road are we given the

0:01:52.080 --> 0:01:53.840
<v Speaker 1>CPI data that we got yesterday.

0:01:54.120 --> 0:01:56.240
<v Speaker 2>Well, I certainly think we're going to need a guy.

0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:57.960
<v Speaker 2>We're going to need They are going to need more

0:01:58.040 --> 0:02:00.360
<v Speaker 2>data than just the one more set of print will

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.560
<v Speaker 2>get before the July meeting, which I believe is July

0:02:03.960 --> 0:02:07.320
<v Speaker 2>thirty first, And since there's no meeting in August, I

0:02:07.320 --> 0:02:10.920
<v Speaker 2>think the soonest practical time to even think about a

0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:13.880
<v Speaker 2>possible rate cut would be the September meeting, and then

0:02:13.919 --> 0:02:15.720
<v Speaker 2>my own judgment is a lot would have to go

0:02:15.840 --> 0:02:19.919
<v Speaker 2>right between. Then we'll get numbers for June and July

0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 2>and CPI for August, and so if you had three

0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:28.239
<v Speaker 2>more numbers like what we got yesterday, then September could

0:02:28.320 --> 0:02:32.519
<v Speaker 2>be could be possible. But I think barring that, we're

0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:35.960
<v Speaker 2>probably looking at either November or December, and that's more

0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:38.000
<v Speaker 2>or less I think where market pricing is.

0:02:39.560 --> 0:02:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Right now, I'm assuming December is probably more likely given

0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:44.560
<v Speaker 1>the politics that's going to be happening in November. Yeah,

0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:45.080
<v Speaker 1>that'd be correct.

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:48.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, Indeed, the November meeting if I look at the

0:02:48.560 --> 0:02:51.120
<v Speaker 2>calendar correctly, Guy, the November meeting this year is the

0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 2>day after the election, which obviously could make sense if

0:02:58.080 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 2>it's a close call to do that in December.

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:03.840
<v Speaker 1>In terms of how we think of this in aggregate reach,

0:03:03.919 --> 0:03:07.040
<v Speaker 1>the sort of the totality of the cuts while the

0:03:07.080 --> 0:03:10.880
<v Speaker 1>cuts come later, seems to be largely intact. We're going

0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:12.520
<v Speaker 1>to get to the same place, We're just going to

0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:14.639
<v Speaker 1>take longer to get there. Is that the right way

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:15.440
<v Speaker 1>of thinking about this?

0:03:16.240 --> 0:03:20.359
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that was exactly And indeed the Chair more or

0:03:20.440 --> 0:03:23.679
<v Speaker 2>less made that point yesterday in the press conference. It's

0:03:23.720 --> 0:03:26.760
<v Speaker 2>fewer cuts this year than they thought in March, but

0:03:26.880 --> 0:03:30.800
<v Speaker 2>they added an additional cut to twenty twenty five and

0:03:30.880 --> 0:03:33.400
<v Speaker 2>an additional cut to twenty twenty six, so they actually

0:03:33.560 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 2>end up now Again, the further out you go in

0:03:36.240 --> 0:03:42.400
<v Speaker 2>the projections really the less informative they are. And so

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 2>and you saw the chair yesterday and the press conference

0:03:45.640 --> 0:03:48.200
<v Speaker 2>sort of remind folks of that of that point. But yes,

0:03:48.240 --> 0:03:51.400
<v Speaker 2>if you just take the dots literally, they literally get

0:03:51.440 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 2>to the same place they did in March, but just

0:03:54.160 --> 0:03:58.080
<v Speaker 2>with more of it back loaded, and again assuming that

0:03:58.120 --> 0:04:01.840
<v Speaker 2>the inflation data does break their way Ageah. The other

0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:05.240
<v Speaker 2>interesting thing about yesterday, when I think he was pressed

0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:09.520
<v Speaker 2>by a reporter about cutting with inflation running at two

0:04:09.560 --> 0:04:12.840
<v Speaker 2>point six or two point seven percent, I think what

0:04:12.880 --> 0:04:16.000
<v Speaker 2>they had was inflation running at two point eight by

0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:19.320
<v Speaker 2>the end of the year. You know, the Chair made

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:21.240
<v Speaker 2>some reference to that on the exact quote. You know,

0:04:21.360 --> 0:04:23.800
<v Speaker 2>that would be a pretty good place to be. Now,

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:26.560
<v Speaker 2>obviously the Fed is targeting two percent inflation, but it

0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:30.240
<v Speaker 2>does reinforce this message. We've had a PIMCO for some time,

0:04:30.560 --> 0:04:32.640
<v Speaker 2>not only for the Fed but the ECB and the

0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.520
<v Speaker 2>Bank of England and others that they're really operating in

0:04:35.560 --> 0:04:38.640
<v Speaker 2>a two point something range on inflation, and once it

0:04:38.680 --> 0:04:41.039
<v Speaker 2>gets there and they think it's falling, they can begin

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:44.360
<v Speaker 2>to cut and cut in tandem with declining inflation.

0:04:45.680 --> 0:04:48.360
<v Speaker 1>Is the focus on inflation the Fed obviously, and you

0:04:48.640 --> 0:04:50.520
<v Speaker 1>reference a couple of other central banks that the FED

0:04:50.600 --> 0:04:54.159
<v Speaker 1>has a dual mandate. Is the focus on inflation? Is

0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:57.440
<v Speaker 1>the balance kind of sixty forty inflation versus what's happening

0:04:57.480 --> 0:04:59.280
<v Speaker 1>with the labor market? How do you think the kind

0:04:59.279 --> 0:05:01.960
<v Speaker 1>of the mix of of inputs there thinking about works

0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 1>right now?

0:05:02.960 --> 0:05:05.279
<v Speaker 2>That's a great question, because I actually think it's quite

0:05:05.360 --> 0:05:09.000
<v Speaker 2>important in this cycle. I think it was clear back

0:05:09.040 --> 0:05:12.080
<v Speaker 2>in twenty twenty two and three that when inflation was

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:15.040
<v Speaker 2>too darn high, they were, in essence a single mandate

0:05:15.080 --> 0:05:19.640
<v Speaker 2>central bank. Charr Pell even acknowledged that Jackson hole in

0:05:20.240 --> 0:05:24.000
<v Speaker 2>twenty two that raising rates could cause us some pain.

0:05:24.080 --> 0:05:24.960
<v Speaker 3>We haven't seen that.

0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:29.760
<v Speaker 2>It's been a very, very rapid and so far painless disinflation.

0:05:30.480 --> 0:05:32.640
<v Speaker 2>And you got a question yesterday about whether or not

0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:36.520
<v Speaker 2>they would cut rates preemptively because they were forecasting a

0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:39.800
<v Speaker 2>softening economy. And arise in the unemployment rate, and he

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:42.000
<v Speaker 2>didn't commit to doing that. He said they want to

0:05:42.000 --> 0:05:44.559
<v Speaker 2>try to avoid that. On the other hand, they also

0:05:44.600 --> 0:05:47.159
<v Speaker 2>want to avoid a situation where they declare a mission

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:50.760
<v Speaker 2>accomplished and then have to be hiking rates next year

0:05:50.800 --> 0:05:54.600
<v Speaker 2>because inflation rebounds. And so my guess is that on net,

0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:57.520
<v Speaker 2>they're going to really need to see some tangible evidence

0:05:57.560 --> 0:06:02.440
<v Speaker 2>of economic slowing before they actually cut, absent some better

0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:03.440
<v Speaker 2>news on inflation.

0:06:04.080 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 1>It's the trade that everybody seems to have on. Is

0:06:06.279 --> 0:06:11.160
<v Speaker 1>the steepener everybody's anticipation we get right cuts the fiscal

0:06:11.200 --> 0:06:15.200
<v Speaker 1>position probably means the back end remains reasonably elevated, and

0:06:15.200 --> 0:06:17.039
<v Speaker 1>that's the trade that everybody seems to want to have on.

0:06:17.279 --> 0:06:21.039
<v Speaker 1>Yet we've seen very little movements in the spread two

0:06:21.200 --> 0:06:23.680
<v Speaker 1>tens for really quite some time. Whilst it is the

0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:26.240
<v Speaker 1>beginning of the year, Really when does that kick off?

0:06:26.240 --> 0:06:29.160
<v Speaker 1>When does that if that trade is the right trade,

0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:31.880
<v Speaker 1>when do you think it starts to really materialize and work.

0:06:32.480 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 2>Really good point, because we obviously we have an inverted

0:06:35.240 --> 0:06:37.479
<v Speaker 2>curve and we have now for nearly two years, so

0:06:37.640 --> 0:06:40.919
<v Speaker 2>I think that's close to a record at PIMCO. We

0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 2>don't believe inverted curves are the new normal. The curve

0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:46.159
<v Speaker 2>will resteeping, So in that sense, it is the good

0:06:46.200 --> 0:06:50.560
<v Speaker 2>trade to have on over the next several years. As

0:06:50.560 --> 0:06:53.080
<v Speaker 2>in anything in financial markets, markets will try to get

0:06:53.080 --> 0:06:56.440
<v Speaker 2>ahead of the inflection point. So sometimes you know, it's

0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:58.840
<v Speaker 2>better to look at those opportunities not so much in

0:06:58.960 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 2>spot space, but in forward space, so essentially the way

0:07:02.839 --> 0:07:05.520
<v Speaker 2>when our market's pricing them, the curve will steepen, and

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:09.880
<v Speaker 2>to try to look for opportunities there. But you know,

0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:11.920
<v Speaker 2>there's a lot of money on the sidelines right now,

0:07:11.960 --> 0:07:15.440
<v Speaker 2>for example, in money market mutual funds, and my sense

0:07:15.600 --> 0:07:17.680
<v Speaker 2>is that once we do get that first cut, or

0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:20.880
<v Speaker 2>once it more or less gets priced in one hundred percent,

0:07:21.280 --> 0:07:24.080
<v Speaker 2>you will see you will see start to see a

0:07:24.080 --> 0:07:28.280
<v Speaker 2>lot of moving in the direction of the steepening bias.

0:07:29.040 --> 0:07:32.520
<v Speaker 1>Rich You're in Europe, you're in Zurich. We're watching quite

0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:35.640
<v Speaker 1>a lot of political consternation here in Europe, and I'm

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:40.440
<v Speaker 1>just wondering how you're thinking about how investors, how portfolio

0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:43.680
<v Speaker 1>managers should be thinking about political risk right now. It

0:07:43.720 --> 0:07:46.440
<v Speaker 1>suddenly seems to have inserted itself into the debate in

0:07:46.480 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 1>a way that it hasn't for a while. We're sitting

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:51.200
<v Speaker 1>it in France right now. We've seen in some emerging markets.

0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:53.760
<v Speaker 1>We're all looking so carefully at what is going to

0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:56.280
<v Speaker 1>happen in November in the United States. How are you,

0:07:56.320 --> 0:07:59.520
<v Speaker 1>guys at PIMCO, how are you thinking about kind of

0:07:59.520 --> 0:08:02.720
<v Speaker 1>trying to navigate that and what is the best advice

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:05.239
<v Speaker 1>you've got? How are you thinking about what that process

0:08:05.280 --> 0:08:05.960
<v Speaker 1>is going to look like?

0:08:06.320 --> 0:08:06.560
<v Speaker 3>Well?

0:08:06.600 --> 0:08:10.880
<v Speaker 2>It certainly it was a focus of our recent secular form.

0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:14.040
<v Speaker 2>You know, we are certainly now moving into a multipolar world.

0:08:14.160 --> 0:08:17.360
<v Speaker 2>More than sixty percent of the world GDP is in

0:08:17.440 --> 0:08:19.440
<v Speaker 2>countries that are having or have had elections.

0:08:19.480 --> 0:08:19.840
<v Speaker 3>This year.

0:08:19.880 --> 0:08:23.640
<v Speaker 2>We've seen surprises on both side. You know, a surprise

0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:26.240
<v Speaker 2>in India where Modi did not get the support expected.

0:08:26.320 --> 0:08:29.240
<v Speaker 2>On the other hand in Mexico where Shinbaum got more

0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:33.080
<v Speaker 2>support than expected. Obviously an early election in the UK

0:08:33.320 --> 0:08:38.560
<v Speaker 2>Macron now indicating elections for the parliament in France, the

0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:39.520
<v Speaker 2>European Parliament.

0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:42.040
<v Speaker 3>We could go on and on for several segments.

0:08:42.040 --> 0:08:44.160
<v Speaker 2>The way we look at it at PIMCO guys that

0:08:44.200 --> 0:08:47.840
<v Speaker 2>there's always some element of geopolitical risk. But I think

0:08:47.840 --> 0:08:50.000
<v Speaker 2>you'd have to argue now, given that we have a

0:08:50.000 --> 0:08:52.120
<v Speaker 2>hot war in Europe and in the Middle East and

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:55.760
<v Speaker 2>the geopolitical risk, it just emphasizes that this is a volatile,

0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:59.120
<v Speaker 2>uncertain world and what we're doing is trying to put

0:08:59.160 --> 0:09:02.600
<v Speaker 2>together for our clob gcience robust portfolios that that are

0:09:02.640 --> 0:09:06.800
<v Speaker 2>that are that do well in all circumstances. It's a challenge,

0:09:06.840 --> 0:09:09.280
<v Speaker 2>but I think there are opportunities there which.

0:09:09.080 --> 0:09:11.040
<v Speaker 1>I couldn't have thought of a more perfect person to

0:09:11.080 --> 0:09:14.720
<v Speaker 1>talk to, to digest and analyze. Thank you yesterday, CPI

0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:17.440
<v Speaker 1>the Fed genuine pleasure, sir, Thank you very much. Indeed

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:21.439
<v Speaker 1>we always appreciate your time. Richard Clarida, global Economic Advisor

0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:25.080
<v Speaker 1>at PIMCO and of course former Federal Reserve Vice Chair