WEBVTT - Benchmark Special: Five Things to Know About the Fed Meeting

0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:02.920
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Benchmark is brought to you by Stage Summit, the

0:00:02.920 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>world's largest gathering of small and medium businesses, featuring Sir

0:00:06.880 --> 0:00:12.040
<v Speaker 1>Richard Branson. July in Chicago. Register with promo code business

0:00:12.119 --> 0:00:22.880
<v Speaker 1>at stage summit dot com for just ninety dollars. Hello,

0:00:23.000 --> 0:00:26.320
<v Speaker 1>and welcome back to the Bloomberg Benchmark podcast show about

0:00:26.320 --> 0:00:31.840
<v Speaker 1>the global economy. It's July. I'm Scott Landman and economics

0:00:31.920 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 1>editor for Bloomberg News in Washington. Today we're bringing you

0:00:35.280 --> 0:00:39.000
<v Speaker 1>a special bonus edition devoted to the Federal Reserves meeting

0:00:39.080 --> 0:00:41.960
<v Speaker 1>this week. Joining me in our DC studio are my

0:00:42.120 --> 0:00:46.120
<v Speaker 1>colleagues Chris Condon and Ginas Smilek, who cover the Federal Reserve.

0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:52.880
<v Speaker 1>Al Right, the Federal release its interest rate decision on Wednesday. Now,

0:00:53.000 --> 0:00:55.600
<v Speaker 1>no rate hike is expected, and we're just going to

0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:58.920
<v Speaker 1>get a statement with no press conference from Chair Janet Yellen.

0:00:59.400 --> 0:01:02.240
<v Speaker 1>So what should we care about? We're going to tell

0:01:02.280 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 1>you the five things you need to know. Chris, you

0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:10.160
<v Speaker 1>lead off with number one, jobs and the economy. So

0:01:10.400 --> 0:01:12.120
<v Speaker 1>right off the top of the statement, we're going to

0:01:12.240 --> 0:01:15.360
<v Speaker 1>get this usual assessment of the economic conditions, and I

0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:18.760
<v Speaker 1>think right there we're gonna start with a pretty positive

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:22.600
<v Speaker 1>note overall economic conditions. Now, remember, I think it's important

0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:26.240
<v Speaker 1>to remember the first quarter of this year was pretty disappointing.

0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:31.320
<v Speaker 1>The second quarter was a fairly good rebound, and already

0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:34.880
<v Speaker 1>by June we saw the Committee saying that economic activity

0:01:34.920 --> 0:01:37.640
<v Speaker 1>appeared to have picked up. They have more reason for

0:01:37.800 --> 0:01:40.559
<v Speaker 1>a little more confidence, I think now this meeting Scott,

0:01:41.080 --> 0:01:45.080
<v Speaker 1>from the numbers, we're seeing growth on an annualized basis

0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:48.240
<v Speaker 1>in the second quarter could be over two percent, and

0:01:48.360 --> 0:01:51.160
<v Speaker 1>some of the initial indications are that the third quarter

0:01:51.320 --> 0:01:54.840
<v Speaker 1>is also going pretty well. So there again we're going

0:01:54.880 --> 0:01:57.960
<v Speaker 1>to see something positive on the job side, to again

0:01:58.160 --> 0:02:02.600
<v Speaker 1>a positive signal. Again, let's step back. May was an

0:02:02.600 --> 0:02:07.080
<v Speaker 1>absolutely stinker of an employment report, what eleven thousand new

0:02:07.160 --> 0:02:10.520
<v Speaker 1>jobs in that month, but rebounded very strongly in June

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 1>two eighty seven thousand. Now, the Committee is not likely

0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:18.800
<v Speaker 1>to sort of swing wildly from one reaction to another.

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:24.840
<v Speaker 1>There more likely to somehow acknowledge that the trend, looking

0:02:24.840 --> 0:02:28.200
<v Speaker 1>at all of these, while slowing down a bit, is

0:02:28.280 --> 0:02:32.959
<v Speaker 1>still pretty positive, still strong enough to add jobs in

0:02:33.080 --> 0:02:36.440
<v Speaker 1>lower unemployment. So the takeaway from that is that that's

0:02:36.480 --> 0:02:39.400
<v Speaker 1>a sign that they that they might actually raise interest

0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:41.960
<v Speaker 1>rates this year, right, that would push them in that direction.

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:46.320
<v Speaker 1>That's right, all right, Gina. Number two, what do they

0:02:46.320 --> 0:02:50.200
<v Speaker 1>say about global developments now that Brexit has shaken things up?

0:02:50.639 --> 0:02:52.720
<v Speaker 1>So the global outlook is going to be a major

0:02:52.760 --> 0:02:55.600
<v Speaker 1>focal point at this meeting, And like you said, because

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:57.880
<v Speaker 1>of Brexit, what we saw in the June meeting is

0:02:57.880 --> 0:02:59.840
<v Speaker 1>the FED was giving us an indication that is going

0:02:59.880 --> 0:03:04.120
<v Speaker 1>to continue to closely monitor global developments. Now we've since

0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:06.600
<v Speaker 1>that meeting, we've had the Brexit, so British vote to

0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:09.200
<v Speaker 1>exit the European Union, and we know that that could

0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:13.080
<v Speaker 1>introduce a lot of uncertainty going forward because obviously they

0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:15.400
<v Speaker 1>still have to negotiate the terms of that now. At

0:03:15.400 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 1>the same time, we've heard from quite a few FED

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:20.640
<v Speaker 1>officials that they're not overly concerned about Brexit, you know,

0:03:20.639 --> 0:03:23.359
<v Speaker 1>they think it could be sort of something marginal to

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:25.520
<v Speaker 1>the U. S economy, but it does introduce a lot

0:03:25.520 --> 0:03:28.360
<v Speaker 1>of uncertainty into the outlook. So I think what kind

0:03:28.400 --> 0:03:31.720
<v Speaker 1>of indication we see around Brexit, whether there's any sort

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:33.880
<v Speaker 1>of explicit reference to it, is going to be a

0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:37.800
<v Speaker 1>really strong either devish or hawkish signal. Okay, let's go

0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 1>back to Christopher number three, what do they say about

0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:45.480
<v Speaker 1>the pace of rate hikes and their timing? Right? So here,

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:48.680
<v Speaker 1>I think we're gonna run up into the problem of

0:03:49.720 --> 0:03:55.920
<v Speaker 1>very short and rather vague, sometimes purposefully vague statement. What

0:03:56.000 --> 0:03:58.040
<v Speaker 1>do we see in June? We saw this that the

0:03:58.120 --> 0:04:02.080
<v Speaker 1>committee expects that anomic conditions will evolve in a manner

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:06.560
<v Speaker 1>that will warrant only gradual increases in federal funds rate.

0:04:06.840 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>Probably reasonable to expect that they're going to keep that

0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:15.480
<v Speaker 1>exact language in there, so we don't learn anything explicitly new.

0:04:16.080 --> 0:04:19.000
<v Speaker 1>But at the same time, we know that there will

0:04:19.040 --> 0:04:23.160
<v Speaker 1>be a debate going on about how many times they

0:04:23.200 --> 0:04:26.720
<v Speaker 1>should be prepared to raise interest rates this year, with

0:04:26.880 --> 0:04:31.039
<v Speaker 1>some of the Hawks arguing, like Esther George from Kansas

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:34.480
<v Speaker 1>City Loretta Master from Cleveland, who are both voters this year,

0:04:34.880 --> 0:04:38.440
<v Speaker 1>they'll likely be urging the committee to keep the door

0:04:38.600 --> 0:04:43.279
<v Speaker 1>open for a September rate increase. Others will be arguing

0:04:43.320 --> 0:04:46.320
<v Speaker 1>more dubbish ly that perhaps the Fed may not be

0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:49.560
<v Speaker 1>able to raise at all this year. Where does the

0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:52.640
<v Speaker 1>center of the committee fall, Where does chair yell and fall?

0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:58.000
<v Speaker 1>We don't really know, and we're unlikely to learn anything

0:04:58.279 --> 0:05:02.040
<v Speaker 1>very specific from the state. One thing we do know

0:05:02.200 --> 0:05:05.320
<v Speaker 1>about this committee under Janet Yellen, they do like to

0:05:05.400 --> 0:05:09.000
<v Speaker 1>keep their options open. So I think it's fair to

0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:12.520
<v Speaker 1>expect that we're not going to get language that rules

0:05:12.560 --> 0:05:16.440
<v Speaker 1>out September. But neither are we going to get language

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:21.440
<v Speaker 1>that explicitly signals us that they're likely to move in September.

0:05:21.520 --> 0:05:23.600
<v Speaker 1>But if they don't change the language at all, then

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.320
<v Speaker 1>people are going to take If they don't actively signal

0:05:26.400 --> 0:05:28.560
<v Speaker 1>that they're probably going to move in September, people are

0:05:28.560 --> 0:05:31.040
<v Speaker 1>probably going to think that they're going to skip that, right,

0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:35.320
<v Speaker 1>They could well do that. One thing to bear in mind, though,

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:40.479
<v Speaker 1>if additional really strong data does come in after this

0:05:40.560 --> 0:05:43.719
<v Speaker 1>meeting and the Fed thinks that they're going to have

0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:47.080
<v Speaker 1>to prepare the markets for a move in September. Janet

0:05:47.120 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 1>Yellen is scheduled to speak in late August in Jackson Hole,

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:54.680
<v Speaker 1>Wyoming at the Kansas City FEDS Annual Symposium. That will

0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:58.279
<v Speaker 1>be very closely watched. She'll have all the opportunity in

0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:01.480
<v Speaker 1>the world to give a different and signal. At that point, Gina,

0:06:01.560 --> 0:06:05.359
<v Speaker 1>you're up for number four. Inflation is still low and

0:06:05.440 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 1>bond yields have fallen even further since the last meeting,

0:06:09.080 --> 0:06:12.320
<v Speaker 1>What could they say about this? You know, the fact,

0:06:12.440 --> 0:06:14.600
<v Speaker 1>as you mentioned, inflation is still low, bond yields have

0:06:14.800 --> 0:06:16.880
<v Speaker 1>fallen lower. I think that gives them a lot of room,

0:06:17.320 --> 0:06:20.640
<v Speaker 1>um to remain cautious about inflation. UM. So we have

0:06:20.720 --> 0:06:23.440
<v Speaker 1>seen a core inflation in particular start to move up

0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:27.039
<v Speaker 1>a little bit. But in their past statement they mentioned that,

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:29.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, inflation has continued to run below the committees

0:06:29.400 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 1>to percent longer run objective, and you know that allowed

0:06:32.760 --> 0:06:34.520
<v Speaker 1>them to sort of still take their time with hiking.

0:06:35.000 --> 0:06:37.479
<v Speaker 1>And I think that that status quo sort of still

0:06:37.520 --> 0:06:40.760
<v Speaker 1>stands because even as core inflation moves up, there are

0:06:40.760 --> 0:06:42.960
<v Speaker 1>all these factors that are keeping it down on the

0:06:43.080 --> 0:06:45.520
<v Speaker 1>edges um, and I think that they're going to take

0:06:45.520 --> 0:06:47.560
<v Speaker 1>all the room and back and give them. So that

0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:50.880
<v Speaker 1>would probably be a factor in not raising rates any

0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:53.920
<v Speaker 1>time immediately, right right, absolutely. I think in a world

0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:56.000
<v Speaker 1>where you're worried about job growth, you're worried about the

0:06:56.200 --> 0:06:59.960
<v Speaker 1>global economic outlook, the fact that inflation still remains subdued

0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:01.839
<v Speaker 1>means that you don't have to be in any hurry

0:07:01.839 --> 0:07:05.120
<v Speaker 1>to move those rates up really quickly. All right. Finally,

0:07:05.240 --> 0:07:10.320
<v Speaker 1>number five, the actual vote it was unanimous last time

0:07:10.320 --> 0:07:13.240
<v Speaker 1>in favor of leaving rates unchanged. What do you think

0:07:13.280 --> 0:07:15.920
<v Speaker 1>is going to happen this time? I think many people

0:07:15.920 --> 0:07:20.080
<v Speaker 1>will expect the previous dissenter, Esther George to return to

0:07:20.200 --> 0:07:23.440
<v Speaker 1>that column. I in fact, was out to Lake Ozark,

0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:26.760
<v Speaker 1>Missouri a couple of weeks ago and heard her speak. Um.

0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 1>That was after the June meeting, and Esther acknowledged that

0:07:31.040 --> 0:07:34.000
<v Speaker 1>at that June meeting she she voted with the rest

0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:37.240
<v Speaker 1>of the committee out of her concerns about the main

0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:42.120
<v Speaker 1>jobs report and the then pending Brexit vote. Um. But

0:07:42.400 --> 0:07:45.520
<v Speaker 1>since those things, because of the June jobs report, because

0:07:45.520 --> 0:07:47.920
<v Speaker 1>of how markets had calmed down after the vote in

0:07:47.920 --> 0:07:52.160
<v Speaker 1>the UK, that she was back basically to her usual

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:57.040
<v Speaker 1>stump speech about the risks of moving too late. So

0:07:57.120 --> 0:08:01.440
<v Speaker 1>I think it's fairly reasonable to expect a descent from her.

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:03.160
<v Speaker 1>I think do you think that as well? Yeah, I

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:05.560
<v Speaker 1>think that's accurate. And you know, another person of interest

0:08:05.640 --> 0:08:09.000
<v Speaker 1>at this meeting I think is James Bullard. So he

0:08:09.160 --> 0:08:11.760
<v Speaker 1>at the after the last meeting released a special statement

0:08:11.760 --> 0:08:13.600
<v Speaker 1>where he said, you know, I think we have one

0:08:13.600 --> 0:08:16.360
<v Speaker 1>more rate increase and then we're pretty much on hold.

0:08:16.640 --> 0:08:18.840
<v Speaker 1>And he didn't say when that one rate increase should be.

0:08:19.320 --> 0:08:21.120
<v Speaker 1>And so I was at a press groom with him

0:08:21.160 --> 0:08:22.760
<v Speaker 1>the other day, and you know, he got the question,

0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:24.760
<v Speaker 1>why wait, you know, if you expect one more to

0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:26.840
<v Speaker 1>be necessary, why not just go ahead and do it?

0:08:27.280 --> 0:08:29.680
<v Speaker 1>Um And so I think some some focus is going

0:08:29.720 --> 0:08:32.360
<v Speaker 1>to be focused on him, just you know, is he

0:08:32.440 --> 0:08:33.960
<v Speaker 1>going to be is he going to descend? Is he

0:08:33.960 --> 0:08:35.280
<v Speaker 1>going to say we ought to just go ahead and

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:38.080
<v Speaker 1>do this one rate increase. But it's interesting because his

0:08:38.160 --> 0:08:40.760
<v Speaker 1>reply to this question was, you know, I move on

0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:43.520
<v Speaker 1>good news. I only move on good news. And it

0:08:43.679 --> 0:08:45.400
<v Speaker 1>seems to me like we haven't had the kind of

0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:48.080
<v Speaker 1>good news he'd be looking for. But it should be

0:08:48.080 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 1>interesting to watch that vote and how that plays out.

0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:52.800
<v Speaker 1>So in that case, I would say we we kind

0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:56.800
<v Speaker 1>of take in favor of raising rates, uh sooner given

0:08:56.800 --> 0:08:59.640
<v Speaker 1>that if Esther George switches back to it. Is that

0:08:59.720 --> 0:09:04.800
<v Speaker 1>fair marginally? So? Yes? Alright? Well overall, I think from

0:09:04.800 --> 0:09:09.320
<v Speaker 1>that I counted slightly more factors in favor of keeping

0:09:09.400 --> 0:09:13.200
<v Speaker 1>rates on hold for the next meeting or so rather

0:09:13.280 --> 0:09:16.560
<v Speaker 1>than moving closer to a rate increase. Is that fair?

0:09:17.000 --> 0:09:18.760
<v Speaker 1>I think that's what we're hearing and I you know,

0:09:19.320 --> 0:09:21.920
<v Speaker 1>one thing to caution is, no one's really expecting a

0:09:22.000 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 1>rate increase this month. Obviously, everyone is looking at what

0:09:25.200 --> 0:09:26.960
<v Speaker 1>this is going to mean for September and how it's

0:09:26.960 --> 0:09:28.880
<v Speaker 1>going to set September up. And I think what we're

0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:32.280
<v Speaker 1>hearing is the feed is probably not going to really

0:09:32.320 --> 0:09:34.880
<v Speaker 1>really bring September onto the table. That that's what economists

0:09:34.920 --> 0:09:37.080
<v Speaker 1>are telling me, not yet, and and and don't forget

0:09:37.120 --> 0:09:39.440
<v Speaker 1>they'll repeat their refrain, maybe not in the statement, but

0:09:39.520 --> 0:09:44.120
<v Speaker 1>they'll be very soon repeating their refrain that their data dependent.

0:09:44.760 --> 0:09:46.720
<v Speaker 1>They will want to see more data, and there will

0:09:46.760 --> 0:09:53.760
<v Speaker 1>be some significant economic data coming in between this meeting

0:09:53.800 --> 0:09:56.800
<v Speaker 1>and the meeting in September. And one thing that Chris

0:09:56.840 --> 0:10:00.000
<v Speaker 1>continually cautions me to remember, which is a really good point,

0:10:00.559 --> 0:10:03.480
<v Speaker 1>is while the FED lights to signal rate rate increases

0:10:03.520 --> 0:10:05.600
<v Speaker 1>before they happen, they are going to have Jackson Hole

0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:07.880
<v Speaker 1>to do it this time. So there's no real pressure

0:10:07.920 --> 0:10:09.880
<v Speaker 1>for them to get that in this statement because they'll

0:10:09.920 --> 0:10:12.400
<v Speaker 1>have more messaging time in between now and the next meeting,

0:10:12.440 --> 0:10:15.920
<v Speaker 1>and that takes place in late August, right right exactly, Well,

0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:19.240
<v Speaker 1>that was really fascinating. Uh, we're all going to be

0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:22.880
<v Speaker 1>on the edge of our seats as always this Wednesday

0:10:23.280 --> 0:10:26.120
<v Speaker 1>at exactly two pm when the headlines hit our wire.

0:10:26.920 --> 0:10:29.720
<v Speaker 1>So thanks Chris, thanks Gina for taking the time to

0:10:29.720 --> 0:10:33.559
<v Speaker 1>talk about this today. Awesome, Thanks Guy. Thanks. Benchmark will

0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:36.120
<v Speaker 1>be back with our regular episode later this week, and

0:10:36.280 --> 0:10:38.680
<v Speaker 1>until then, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal

0:10:38.760 --> 0:10:42.480
<v Speaker 1>and Bloomberg dot com, as well as on iTunes, pocket casts,

0:10:42.480 --> 0:10:45.440
<v Speaker 1>and Stitcher. You can talk to and follow us on Twitter.

0:10:45.720 --> 0:10:49.320
<v Speaker 1>Chris is at Chris ja Condon, Gina is at at

0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Gina Smile s M I A L E K, and

0:10:52.559 --> 0:10:55.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm at Scott Lanman s c O T T L

0:10:55.360 --> 0:11:03.160
<v Speaker 1>A N M A N. See you next time. Bloomberg

0:11:03.200 --> 0:11:05.720
<v Speaker 1>Benchmark is brought to you by Sage Summit, the world's

0:11:05.760 --> 0:11:09.600
<v Speaker 1>largest gathering of small and medium businesses, featuring Sir Richard

0:11:09.600 --> 0:11:13.319
<v Speaker 1>Branson July twenty fifth to twenty eighth in Chicago. Registered

0:11:13.360 --> 0:11:15.960
<v Speaker 1>with promo code business at Sage Summit dot com for

0:11:16.040 --> 0:11:17.160
<v Speaker 1>just ninety nine dollars