WEBVTT - Former Kansas City Fed President Esther George Talks Fed Rate Strategy

0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:06.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:06.960 --> 0:00:11.000
<v Speaker 2>I'm SMALLI Batik. I'm here at the Citadel Securities Global

0:00:11.080 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 2>Macro Conference, of course for Bloomberg Open Interest, and I'm

0:00:14.400 --> 0:00:19.120
<v Speaker 2>standing by now with former Kansas City Fed President Esther George.

0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:22.280
<v Speaker 2>What a great time to have you a day before CPI,

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:25.480
<v Speaker 2>just after the last jobsprint. That's actually just where I

0:00:25.560 --> 0:00:27.840
<v Speaker 2>want to start, because of course, with jobs coming in

0:00:27.960 --> 0:00:31.400
<v Speaker 2>hotter than every analyst and economy is surveyed by Bloomberg,

0:00:31.800 --> 0:00:35.560
<v Speaker 2>even revisions for the month before revised hire. Do you think,

0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:37.520
<v Speaker 2>and I think this is the most direct question here,

0:00:37.840 --> 0:00:40.600
<v Speaker 2>do you think that fifty basis points was too much?

0:00:41.600 --> 0:00:44.680
<v Speaker 1>Well, that will be something for history to judge, I

0:00:44.680 --> 0:00:48.160
<v Speaker 1>think in this scenario. But certainly, how great to see

0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:51.120
<v Speaker 1>a jobs report like that, But I would just keep

0:00:51.159 --> 0:00:54.680
<v Speaker 1>in mind it is one that will come in a series,

0:00:54.720 --> 0:00:57.560
<v Speaker 1>and we have seen because of how this economy is

0:00:57.600 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 1>really trying to reach its footing post pandem that we've

0:01:01.200 --> 0:01:04.080
<v Speaker 1>seen things move up and down from inflation to the

0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:08.000
<v Speaker 1>job market. So very much a welcome report, but too

0:01:08.040 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>soon to draw big conclusions about what it might mean

0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:11.160
<v Speaker 1>longer term.

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:14.039
<v Speaker 2>Even in the near term, how much more room do

0:01:14.080 --> 0:01:15.679
<v Speaker 2>you think it gives the fad to cut for the

0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:17.080
<v Speaker 2>rest of this year alone.

0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:19.160
<v Speaker 1>So I think what the FED is trying to figure

0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>out is how to balance its two objectives for thinking

0:01:23.160 --> 0:01:25.600
<v Speaker 1>about the labor market, for making sure that it gets

0:01:25.680 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 1>back to its two percent target in a timely way.

0:01:30.040 --> 0:01:32.920
<v Speaker 1>It means now they have to judge risk around each

0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:35.400
<v Speaker 1>of those and as those come into better balance, as

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:38.880
<v Speaker 1>they say, they're trying to decide where to put the

0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:40.720
<v Speaker 1>weight on that. And I think when you heard the

0:01:40.800 --> 0:01:45.040
<v Speaker 1>chairman talk at the NAME conference that we're going to

0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 1>look at our SEP forecast, which shows two more cuts

0:01:49.560 --> 0:01:52.040
<v Speaker 1>the rest of the year. That's a baseline, but I

0:01:52.080 --> 0:01:54.640
<v Speaker 1>think not a given yet until we see how some

0:01:54.680 --> 0:01:56.559
<v Speaker 1>of the other data, including tomorrow's print.

0:01:56.640 --> 0:02:00.000
<v Speaker 2>Well, let's out go right there. How comfortable are you

0:02:00.080 --> 0:02:02.400
<v Speaker 2>that we're on a path sustainably to two percent?

0:02:03.120 --> 0:02:05.840
<v Speaker 1>So I think, like others, I'm confident that we have

0:02:05.920 --> 0:02:08.720
<v Speaker 1>seen that inflation come down. But I've always been among

0:02:08.800 --> 0:02:12.480
<v Speaker 1>those that believe this last mile can be the most difficult,

0:02:12.720 --> 0:02:14.880
<v Speaker 1>because now you're trying to get from something in the

0:02:14.880 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 1>neighborhood of three percent inflation to two and over what

0:02:19.360 --> 0:02:22.360
<v Speaker 1>period of time can you do that and still ensure

0:02:22.400 --> 0:02:24.440
<v Speaker 1>that the public believes you will get back there, that

0:02:24.440 --> 0:02:29.040
<v Speaker 1>those inflation expectations stay anchored. So I remain pretty focused

0:02:29.160 --> 0:02:32.320
<v Speaker 1>on where we are with the current inflation dynamics.

0:02:32.680 --> 0:02:35.320
<v Speaker 3>Hey Esther Matt Miller here in the studio at seven

0:02:35.400 --> 0:02:38.600
<v Speaker 3>thirty one. Lex really appreciate you joining us today. I

0:02:38.639 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 3>want to ask about the Fed's data dependency. Is it

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:46.320
<v Speaker 3>too sort of immediate, too much in the now? Do

0:02:46.360 --> 0:02:49.520
<v Speaker 3>they need to look ahead if we get, for example,

0:02:50.960 --> 0:02:56.440
<v Speaker 3>you know, more deficit spending from the US government, bigger debt,

0:02:56.600 --> 0:03:01.840
<v Speaker 3>inflationary policies from whomever wins the residential election, should the

0:03:01.880 --> 0:03:04.960
<v Speaker 3>FEDS start to worry about that now or just wait

0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:06.280
<v Speaker 3>until it happens.

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:12.239
<v Speaker 1>Well, they have to worry about it now in terms

0:03:12.240 --> 0:03:15.200
<v Speaker 1>of developing what I call a set of scenarios that

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:18.480
<v Speaker 1>could unfold in the economy. And of course that's at

0:03:18.480 --> 0:03:22.280
<v Speaker 1>the root of how a committee, how forecasters develop a

0:03:22.400 --> 0:03:25.639
<v Speaker 1>view of what the future looks like. So yes, they

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:29.639
<v Speaker 1>have to look at today's data to help shape that forecast.

0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:32.639
<v Speaker 1>And that's why you hear them talk about being data dependent,

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 1>is because each one of those data points has the

0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:39.200
<v Speaker 1>potential to give them a different read on trends or

0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:43.480
<v Speaker 1>something that's changing in the economy. But as you've noted,

0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:47.160
<v Speaker 1>there are many things that right now maybe question marks

0:03:47.440 --> 0:03:50.400
<v Speaker 1>that lie ahead that they will have to prepare for

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:53.520
<v Speaker 1>when they think about it. And I think they have

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:56.600
<v Speaker 1>also noted we think our policy is in a good place.

0:03:56.640 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 1>In other words, we can move more aggressively the economy weekends,

0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:05.480
<v Speaker 1>we can stay longer at this interest rate if it

0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:08.680
<v Speaker 1>looks like things are heating up again, and so they've

0:04:08.680 --> 0:04:12.560
<v Speaker 1>given themselves some latitude, some options if you will, for

0:04:12.640 --> 0:04:14.520
<v Speaker 1>how to think about an uncertain future.

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:17.600
<v Speaker 3>I also wonder about the FED balance sheet. On the

0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:21.159
<v Speaker 3>Bloomberg we have a great function. If you type FED

0:04:21.360 --> 0:04:24.880
<v Speaker 3>bal go you can see the enormity of it. It's

0:04:24.920 --> 0:04:27.360
<v Speaker 3>come down, of course, from eight and a half trillion dollars,

0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:30.920
<v Speaker 3>but we're still looking at about more than six and

0:04:30.920 --> 0:04:35.159
<v Speaker 3>a half trillion. Can the Fed continue to run this off?

0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:37.039
<v Speaker 3>Is there more room for quantitative tightening?

0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:44.760
<v Speaker 1>Well, if you follow the FED stated game plan, which

0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:48.760
<v Speaker 1>is a goal to shrink that balance sheet to the

0:04:48.800 --> 0:04:54.400
<v Speaker 1>smallest size needed to continue their operating framework, you would

0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:56.920
<v Speaker 1>have to say yes, there is more room to go,

0:04:57.000 --> 0:05:01.200
<v Speaker 1>and it's a little bit of a dynamic of saying

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:04.960
<v Speaker 1>you are tightening by rolling off your balance sheet while

0:05:05.000 --> 0:05:07.960
<v Speaker 1>you are easing the short term interest rate. But of

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:11.799
<v Speaker 1>course this is important I think in the long run

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:16.280
<v Speaker 1>for how the FED conducts monetary policy, for the implications

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:19.720
<v Speaker 1>of that balance sheet, should they need more capacity at

0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:23.280
<v Speaker 1>some point due to a disruption, And of course they

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:27.279
<v Speaker 1>don't know this stated endpoint for this. So when people

0:05:27.320 --> 0:05:30.120
<v Speaker 1>say what will be the size of the balance sheet

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:33.400
<v Speaker 1>when they finish, that's an unknown. They have to watch

0:05:33.480 --> 0:05:37.280
<v Speaker 1>the demand for reserves from the banking system, they have

0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to watch treasury market functioning to make sure that that

0:05:40.839 --> 0:05:45.680
<v Speaker 1>remains healthy. And so I think it's an unknown destination

0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:48.440
<v Speaker 1>at this point. The direction of travel, I think really

0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:51.400
<v Speaker 1>important in terms of how they've laid out their plan

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:52.839
<v Speaker 1>to reduce that balance sheet.

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:55.720
<v Speaker 4>And so this is Katie Greifeld sitting at Samat in

0:05:55.800 --> 0:05:56.520
<v Speaker 4>seven thirty one.

0:05:56.640 --> 0:05:56.880
<v Speaker 2>Lex.

0:05:56.960 --> 0:05:58.919
<v Speaker 4>I do want to build on what Shanali asked you,

0:05:59.000 --> 0:06:01.359
<v Speaker 4>of course about how much room the Fed has to

0:06:01.400 --> 0:06:03.880
<v Speaker 4>cut rates. I'm curious about when you look at the

0:06:04.000 --> 0:06:06.719
<v Speaker 4>dynamics of the inflation that we have in this economy

0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:09.520
<v Speaker 4>right now. Of course, we got hotter than expected wage

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:12.920
<v Speaker 4>growth last Friday and the jobs report. There's some people

0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:15.359
<v Speaker 4>saying that we could get a hotter than expected CPI

0:06:15.480 --> 0:06:18.880
<v Speaker 4>report tomorrow. Could you see a scenario where actually the

0:06:18.880 --> 0:06:22.360
<v Speaker 4>Fed stays on hold in November and potentially entering into

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:25.640
<v Speaker 4>service stop and start rate cutting cycle.

0:06:29.360 --> 0:06:31.600
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think they will have to think about that,

0:06:31.720 --> 0:06:35.840
<v Speaker 1>depending on how again this report comes in the composition

0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:39.840
<v Speaker 1>of it very important. So they've seen goods inflation really

0:06:40.040 --> 0:06:43.719
<v Speaker 1>back off, services inflation has started come down, the housing

0:06:43.760 --> 0:06:48.400
<v Speaker 1>component is continuing to stay sticky. And so with the

0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:52.920
<v Speaker 1>CPI currently at a core level running closer to three,

0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:56.920
<v Speaker 1>the PCE also running well over their target, they have

0:06:57.040 --> 0:07:00.640
<v Speaker 1>to be very mindful because in the long run, inflation

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:05.200
<v Speaker 1>is what their policy toolkit is able to control. The

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 1>labor market, of course, is a byproduct of how stable

0:07:08.680 --> 0:07:12.120
<v Speaker 1>that inflationary dynamic is, so it remains a very key

0:07:12.440 --> 0:07:16.120
<v Speaker 1>aspect of decision making, I think for this committee.

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 4>And a sir, I know it's an impossible question, but

0:07:17.840 --> 0:07:20.400
<v Speaker 4>I am curious about where you think the neutral rate

0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:23.920
<v Speaker 4>might be in this cycle. Of course, in sort of

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:25.640
<v Speaker 4>a range. I mean, do you think that we're going

0:07:25.680 --> 0:07:28.320
<v Speaker 4>back to and a half percent neutral rate or do

0:07:28.360 --> 0:07:30.000
<v Speaker 4>you think that maybe it could be a little bit

0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:30.920
<v Speaker 4>higher nowadays.

0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:36.480
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Well, my view is that I think it is

0:07:36.520 --> 0:07:38.400
<v Speaker 1>a little bit higher, And of course we don't know.

0:07:38.720 --> 0:07:42.360
<v Speaker 1>The economy is still trying to find an equilibrium, I

0:07:42.400 --> 0:07:46.040
<v Speaker 1>would argue, as is the FED trying to judge. We

0:07:46.080 --> 0:07:49.240
<v Speaker 1>don't want to stimulate the economy, we don't want to

0:07:49.280 --> 0:07:53.280
<v Speaker 1>slow it down unnecessarily. But knowing where that neutral rate

0:07:53.480 --> 0:07:56.560
<v Speaker 1>is is a tough call, and I believe you've heard

0:07:56.600 --> 0:07:59.000
<v Speaker 1>the Chairman say we're going to kind of feel our way.

0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:02.119
<v Speaker 1>We'll know it by its works. There are two things

0:08:02.120 --> 0:08:04.400
<v Speaker 1>that I think though are important to look and why

0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:06.760
<v Speaker 1>I would think that neutral rate is higher. One is

0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:10.200
<v Speaker 1>looking at productivity growth, so that can bounce around, but

0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:15.000
<v Speaker 1>we have seen some pretty interesting productivity come out of

0:08:15.040 --> 0:08:18.000
<v Speaker 1>this period that could mean that that neutral rate is higher.

0:08:18.440 --> 0:08:21.400
<v Speaker 1>And of course the other thing is looking at fiscal policy.

0:08:21.560 --> 0:08:25.680
<v Speaker 1>With the level of interest that's compounding and the deficits

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:29.160
<v Speaker 1>that we see underway right now, that could also suggest

0:08:29.200 --> 0:08:31.760
<v Speaker 1>we're going to have higher levels of interest rates. And

0:08:31.840 --> 0:08:35.319
<v Speaker 1>this idea that we will be going back pre pandemic

0:08:35.640 --> 0:08:39.720
<v Speaker 1>looks a little more iffy to me than the period

0:08:39.720 --> 0:08:40.560
<v Speaker 1>we've just come off.

0:08:40.600 --> 0:08:42.959
<v Speaker 2>Of now, I want to double down on just that point,

0:08:43.080 --> 0:08:45.040
<v Speaker 2>because you were a co signer to a report that

0:08:45.080 --> 0:08:46.800
<v Speaker 2>came out this week from the Committee of a Response

0:08:46.840 --> 0:08:49.959
<v Speaker 2>for a Responsible Federal Budget that says Vice President Harris,

0:08:50.000 --> 0:08:53.440
<v Speaker 2>if elected, would add three point five trillion dollars through

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:58.600
<v Speaker 2>the federal debt through twenty thirty five. President Trump would however,

0:08:58.679 --> 0:09:01.520
<v Speaker 2>add seven point five trillion no matter what you have more.

0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:04.360
<v Speaker 2>But it's the degree of how much more you see

0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:07.600
<v Speaker 2>through their policies, how much uncertainty does that add to

0:09:07.640 --> 0:09:10.200
<v Speaker 2>the interest rate outlook in addition to the current out

0:09:10.240 --> 0:09:11.280
<v Speaker 2>load that you were talking about.

0:09:12.280 --> 0:09:15.640
<v Speaker 1>So for the Federal Reserve, they're not able to make

0:09:15.720 --> 0:09:20.880
<v Speaker 1>decisions based on those kinds of potential policy agendas, and

0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:22.920
<v Speaker 1>of course a lot will have to happen next year

0:09:22.960 --> 0:09:25.760
<v Speaker 1>for us to see how that unfolds. I think what's

0:09:25.840 --> 0:09:28.240
<v Speaker 1>really important, and I hope what the sentiment of this

0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:32.160
<v Speaker 1>letter was, We're already in a place that we need

0:09:32.200 --> 0:09:37.319
<v Speaker 1>to address our fiscal situation, and depending on how elections

0:09:37.360 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 1>go and how Congress and policymakers think about the US

0:09:41.800 --> 0:09:45.920
<v Speaker 1>fiscal position, it will have dramatic implications for the country.

0:09:45.960 --> 0:09:50.079
<v Speaker 1>And so the sooner those are addressed. The more specifically

0:09:50.120 --> 0:09:53.240
<v Speaker 1>they're addressed, the better it will be in terms of

0:09:53.280 --> 0:09:55.319
<v Speaker 1>tackling what is an enormous problem.

0:09:55.440 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 2>We only have about thirty seconds left here, But do

0:09:57.559 --> 0:09:59.240
<v Speaker 2>you think that there could even be a chance for

0:09:59.320 --> 0:10:02.240
<v Speaker 2>an interest rate in increase next year if these policies

0:10:02.240 --> 0:10:04.160
<v Speaker 2>become inflationary, well.

0:10:03.960 --> 0:10:07.440
<v Speaker 1>I think under different scenarios, of course, that could be

0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:10.520
<v Speaker 1>an outcome, because that, of course is a direct mandate

0:10:10.559 --> 0:10:13.680
<v Speaker 1>for the Federal Reserve is to try to head toward

0:10:13.760 --> 0:10:17.360
<v Speaker 1>its two percent targets. So a lot can happen between

0:10:17.400 --> 0:10:20.679
<v Speaker 1>now and next year, and we'll have to stay tuned.

0:10:20.679 --> 0:10:21.679
<v Speaker 1>As I know, the Fed is.

0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:24.000
<v Speaker 2>Ester George, We thank you so very much for your time.

0:10:24.000 --> 0:10:26.559
<v Speaker 2>Of course, that is former Kansas City Fed President Ester

0:10:26.640 --> 0:10:26.960
<v Speaker 2>George