WEBVTT - Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran Talks Oil Prices, Monetary Policy

0:00:02.480 --> 0:00:07.000
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.360 --> 0:00:09.799
<v Speaker 2>So in the market right now, Equery's near session highs

0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:12.240
<v Speaker 2>up two percent on the SMP. This bond market some

0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:15.240
<v Speaker 2>wild moves earlier on this morning, yields three four percent

0:00:15.240 --> 0:00:17.200
<v Speaker 2>at the front end of the curve high shield we've

0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:19.800
<v Speaker 2>seen since last summer three eighty five. Now, because we've

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:22.720
<v Speaker 2>pulled back following those headlines, we're down five basis points

0:00:22.760 --> 0:00:24.720
<v Speaker 2>on the session. We've priced out the easing. At one

0:00:24.720 --> 0:00:27.880
<v Speaker 2>point we were talking about price again rate hikes at

0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:30.120
<v Speaker 2>the Federal Reserve. Let's have that conversation right now with

0:00:30.160 --> 0:00:32.120
<v Speaker 2>the Federal Reserve government of Stephen Mara and the lone

0:00:32.200 --> 0:00:36.160
<v Speaker 2>voice dissenting at last week's FMC meeting, continuing his push

0:00:36.400 --> 0:00:39.200
<v Speaker 2>for interest rate cuts. Governor Maron joins us now for more. Steve,

0:00:39.200 --> 0:00:41.320
<v Speaker 2>good to see you, good morning. Thanks for having me back. Governor,

0:00:41.360 --> 0:00:44.040
<v Speaker 2>Where do we begin with these headlines right here? As

0:00:44.040 --> 0:00:47.080
<v Speaker 2>a policymaker, as an official, when things are moving this fast,

0:00:47.280 --> 0:00:47.760
<v Speaker 2>what do you do?

0:00:48.640 --> 0:00:52.040
<v Speaker 1>Well? Look, we've already hands whiplash this morning, and I

0:00:52.040 --> 0:00:55.040
<v Speaker 1>think that underlines that we shouldn't be making policy based

0:00:55.080 --> 0:00:57.959
<v Speaker 1>on short term headlines. Right We should wait for all

0:00:57.960 --> 0:01:00.920
<v Speaker 1>the information to come in before really changing our outlook,

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:03.279
<v Speaker 1>and I think it's just still premature to have a

0:01:03.360 --> 0:01:05.319
<v Speaker 1>clear view about what this is going to look like

0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:07.960
<v Speaker 1>as you look twelve months out, and because of monetary

0:01:07.959 --> 0:01:09.840
<v Speaker 1>policy lags, we really need to be looking a year

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:12.000
<v Speaker 1>to a year and a half out, and there's just

0:01:12.400 --> 0:01:14.080
<v Speaker 1>not enough information yet about what that looks like.

0:01:14.120 --> 0:01:16.520
<v Speaker 2>Communication in the near term, of course, matters. The chairman

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:19.360
<v Speaker 2>in the news conference last week really vowing to anchor

0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:23.040
<v Speaker 2>inflation expectations. Do you think that's a worthwhile pursuit at

0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:23.440
<v Speaker 2>this point?

0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:26.839
<v Speaker 1>I do. Look, you know, traditional central banking Federal Reserve

0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:30.920
<v Speaker 1>wisdom is that oil shocks head headline inflation, but they

0:01:30.920 --> 0:01:33.600
<v Speaker 1>don't really pass that much into core as by as

0:01:33.680 --> 0:01:36.280
<v Speaker 1>much as they do as they do into headline and

0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:38.880
<v Speaker 1>the two ways that you would want to respond to,

0:01:39.000 --> 0:01:41.479
<v Speaker 1>and so therefore you typically look through an oil shock. Now,

0:01:41.520 --> 0:01:45.280
<v Speaker 1>the two exceptions would be if inflation expectations beyond the

0:01:45.319 --> 0:01:48.240
<v Speaker 1>first year start to move higher. That hasn't happened thus far.

0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:50.600
<v Speaker 1>Inflation expectations for the first year out have moved higher,

0:01:50.640 --> 0:01:52.680
<v Speaker 1>of course, But as I look at the CBI swop

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:55.360
<v Speaker 1>market beyond the first year, there hasn't been that much movement.

0:01:55.600 --> 0:01:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Medium term five year, five year, longer term five year,

0:01:58.240 --> 0:02:01.160
<v Speaker 1>five year forward expectations have actually been come down lately,

0:02:01.440 --> 0:02:03.400
<v Speaker 1>so there's no evidence of that. And the other reason

0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>why you would want to respond to an oil shock

0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:07.160
<v Speaker 1>is if you saw a wage price spiral, if you

0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:11.120
<v Speaker 1>saw wages responding to oil price increases, gas price increases,

0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 1>that could result in the type of reinforcing inflation dynamics

0:02:14.000 --> 0:02:16.720
<v Speaker 1>that you want to forestall. Now Again, thus far, there's

0:02:16.760 --> 0:02:19.000
<v Speaker 1>little evidence of that. In fact, wage pressures have been

0:02:19.000 --> 0:02:22.040
<v Speaker 1>declining for the last few years on a steady, steady,

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:24.480
<v Speaker 1>steady basis, So that's also something that I don't really

0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:25.160
<v Speaker 1>see right now.

0:02:25.240 --> 0:02:27.080
<v Speaker 2>So the market, the labor market is just not strong

0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:28.200
<v Speaker 2>enough to worry about it.

0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.160
<v Speaker 1>I think the labor markets still could use additional support

0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:33.960
<v Speaker 1>from Monterey policy, and that's why I dissented last meeting,

0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:36.320
<v Speaker 1>as I have continued to send for all previous meetings.

0:02:36.360 --> 0:02:39.120
<v Speaker 2>How lonely were you at that committee meeting just last

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 2>week voting for a twenty five basis point reduction in

0:02:41.600 --> 0:02:43.920
<v Speaker 2>the face of an energy shock. How robust was the

0:02:43.919 --> 0:02:45.480
<v Speaker 2>conversation around the table.

0:02:45.639 --> 0:02:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Look, I think a lot of people around the table,

0:02:47.520 --> 0:02:51.079
<v Speaker 1>like me, were hesitant to draw conclusions from the oil

0:02:51.240 --> 0:02:53.760
<v Speaker 1>from the oil news thus far, because as I said before,

0:02:53.800 --> 0:02:55.640
<v Speaker 1>we have to look twelve to eighteen months out, not

0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:58.520
<v Speaker 1>what happened to the oil price yesterday. And so looking

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>twelve to eighteen months out, there's still no not enough

0:03:00.800 --> 0:03:04.160
<v Speaker 1>clarity to think that montery policy itself should adjust in

0:03:04.240 --> 0:03:05.080
<v Speaker 1>response to what's happened.

0:03:05.120 --> 0:03:07.200
<v Speaker 2>Well, check out the old futures curve that has changed.

0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:09.400
<v Speaker 2>I've just had one eye on December over the last

0:03:09.480 --> 0:03:11.760
<v Speaker 2>three weeks or something that's gone from the sixties and

0:03:11.760 --> 0:03:14.000
<v Speaker 2>threatening to break out into the nineties at one point

0:03:14.200 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 2>earlier on this morning. That's a change, that's a real

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:17.400
<v Speaker 2>step up now.

0:03:17.440 --> 0:03:19.519
<v Speaker 1>It has, and I boosted my you know, in the

0:03:19.560 --> 0:03:22.120
<v Speaker 1>summary of economic projections, I boosted my inflation dot for

0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:23.760
<v Speaker 1>the end of the year to two point seven percent,

0:03:23.919 --> 0:03:26.720
<v Speaker 1>reflecting that in part right, so, there is some expectation

0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:29.359
<v Speaker 1>of higher headline inflation. However, I said before, I think

0:03:29.360 --> 0:03:32.120
<v Speaker 1>it's way too early to draw conclusions that it's bleeding

0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:35.320
<v Speaker 1>beyond headline inflation in a way that matters for monteria policy.

0:03:35.400 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Don't forget higher oil prices also depressed demand, right, they

0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:40.400
<v Speaker 1>take money out of the pockets of consumers that were

0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:43.160
<v Speaker 1>spending on other goods and services and redirects it towards

0:03:43.320 --> 0:03:46.320
<v Speaker 1>gas and other energy costs, and that depresses demand and

0:03:46.320 --> 0:03:48.960
<v Speaker 1>causes unemployment to move a little bit higher. That offsets

0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:50.040
<v Speaker 1>some of the increase in inflation.

0:03:50.080 --> 0:03:52.520
<v Speaker 2>To your colleagues. This morning, Gustin goesby at the Chicago

0:03:52.600 --> 0:03:54.520
<v Speaker 2>FED speaking to the press saying, we could see a

0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:57.840
<v Speaker 2>circumstance where we'd need to raise interest rates. How high

0:03:57.960 --> 0:04:01.320
<v Speaker 2>is the bar to raise interest rates on circumstances? Would

0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:03.119
<v Speaker 2>you personally need to say? Yeah?

0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:04.840
<v Speaker 1>So, I just laid out a couple of them before. Right,

0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:07.320
<v Speaker 1>If it looks like the oil like the oil shock,

0:04:07.400 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 1>is bleeding into inflation expectations beyond the first year, then

0:04:10.240 --> 0:04:12.760
<v Speaker 1>you get really concerned about second rend effects. Or it

0:04:12.760 --> 0:04:14.760
<v Speaker 1>looks like you're starting to cause a wage price spiral,

0:04:14.800 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 1>then you get really concerned about second rend effects. First

0:04:17.120 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>und effects are not something you traditionally respond to as

0:04:19.400 --> 0:04:22.240
<v Speaker 1>a central bank. Now, I'll say one thing beyond that,

0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:25.560
<v Speaker 1>which is that these oil shocks have been things that

0:04:25.600 --> 0:04:28.320
<v Speaker 1>this FED has looked through for a long time. Right,

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:30.520
<v Speaker 1>it would be highly unusual for the FED to start

0:04:30.520 --> 0:04:32.279
<v Speaker 1>looking through them now, and when you think about what

0:04:32.279 --> 0:04:35.200
<v Speaker 1>happened in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two, we

0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:37.880
<v Speaker 1>did have negative supply shocks, like the oil shock from

0:04:37.880 --> 0:04:40.600
<v Speaker 1>the Russia Ukraine invasion. But in my view, part of

0:04:40.640 --> 0:04:42.479
<v Speaker 1>the reason why it was able to reverberate through the

0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:44.880
<v Speaker 1>economy the way it did was because policy settings of

0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:47.679
<v Speaker 1>the time were very different. Monetary policy and fiscal policy

0:04:47.720 --> 0:04:51.560
<v Speaker 1>were at all time historical accommodative levels. We were doing

0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:53.640
<v Speaker 1>one hundred and twenty billion dollars a month of QWI,

0:04:53.839 --> 0:04:56.400
<v Speaker 1>we were doing two trillion dollars fiscal packages at a time.

0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:59.000
<v Speaker 1>That's not the case right now. We're not hitting the

0:04:59.080 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 1>gas on demand that would interact with the higher oil

0:05:02.680 --> 0:05:05.159
<v Speaker 1>price in a way that reverberate these prices through the economy.

0:05:05.200 --> 0:05:06.480
<v Speaker 1>Now that's not the case at all.

0:05:06.520 --> 0:05:10.560
<v Speaker 3>But right now we're just seeing price spike on paper market.

0:05:10.600 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 3>But what's happening in the physical market is actually avoid

0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:15.880
<v Speaker 3>We are seeing not just shut in, but some of

0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:18.719
<v Speaker 3>these installations going to take years to rebuild. At what

0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:22.960
<v Speaker 3>point does that start to potentially de anchor inflation expectations?

0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:25.560
<v Speaker 1>Yes, so you'd want to see you'd want to see

0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:29.360
<v Speaker 1>the oil price shocks start to reverberate through supply chains

0:05:29.360 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 1>and pushing up prices. More broadly, we are.

0:05:31.120 --> 0:05:34.480
<v Speaker 3>There in terms of airlines diesel. That means that it's

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:36.280
<v Speaker 3>going to be more expensive in terms of some goods

0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:37.960
<v Speaker 3>and services that are delivered by truck.

0:05:38.200 --> 0:05:39.880
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, there's been a few instances, but you want to

0:05:39.920 --> 0:05:41.720
<v Speaker 1>see that in a broad based way that starts to

0:05:41.720 --> 0:05:43.919
<v Speaker 1>bleed into core inflation and boost it and boost it

0:05:43.920 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 1>in a way that's sort of not just a one

0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:46.920
<v Speaker 1>off time, but you start to see really second round

0:05:46.920 --> 0:05:49.280
<v Speaker 1>effects that are concerning for the longer term. And if

0:05:49.320 --> 0:05:51.359
<v Speaker 1>that starts to happen, then you start to get concerned

0:05:51.360 --> 0:05:53.840
<v Speaker 1>about inflation. And I think that that is that is

0:05:53.920 --> 0:05:55.880
<v Speaker 1>what you did see happen in twenty one twenty two,

0:05:56.200 --> 0:05:57.919
<v Speaker 1>and thus far I don't see it happening on a

0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:00.760
<v Speaker 1>broad basis. Now it could happen, right, but thus far

0:06:00.800 --> 0:06:02.359
<v Speaker 1>it hasn't happened on a broad base. You get some

0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:05.599
<v Speaker 1>usyncratic stories like airline prices that are more directly tied

0:06:05.880 --> 0:06:09.080
<v Speaker 1>to jet fuel, but beyond that you haven't really seen it.

0:06:09.080 --> 0:06:11.000
<v Speaker 1>And I think part of the reason why is because

0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:13.000
<v Speaker 1>we're not hitting on the gas we're not hitting the

0:06:13.040 --> 0:06:16.040
<v Speaker 1>gas on demand. We're not boosting demand with all time

0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:19.680
<v Speaker 1>record accommodative policy in a way that would allow pricing

0:06:19.680 --> 0:06:21.120
<v Speaker 1>to accommodate a supply shock like that.

0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 2>It's fair to say that I think a lot of

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:24.960
<v Speaker 2>FED watchers watching this right now, and I'm getting some

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:27.560
<v Speaker 2>reaction from them in real time, agree with you that

0:06:27.600 --> 0:06:30.440
<v Speaker 2>this isn't the environment to high grate. The opposite, though,

0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:32.560
<v Speaker 2>is a difficult argument to make. Is it the right

0:06:32.600 --> 0:06:36.680
<v Speaker 2>time to cut interest rates this quickly, this soon? Yeah?

0:06:36.839 --> 0:06:39.040
<v Speaker 1>So, as I said before, traditionally you would look through

0:06:39.040 --> 0:06:40.760
<v Speaker 1>an oil price shock like this, which means that my

0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:43.719
<v Speaker 1>policy outlook from before is unchanged, and my policy outlook

0:06:43.760 --> 0:06:46.560
<v Speaker 1>from before would be gradual cuts of interest rates. I

0:06:46.640 --> 0:06:49.080
<v Speaker 1>had about six cuts for the year at the last

0:06:49.120 --> 0:06:51.680
<v Speaker 1>step in December. I reduced that to four cuts for

0:06:51.720 --> 0:06:54.560
<v Speaker 1>the year in response to the inflation data right that

0:06:54.960 --> 0:06:58.040
<v Speaker 1>we received between the two between the two projection periods.

0:06:58.200 --> 0:06:59.800
<v Speaker 1>So I'm maintaining my outlook.

0:06:59.839 --> 0:07:03.039
<v Speaker 2>That doesn't change government forgive me for jumping in, but

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:05.680
<v Speaker 2>the balance of risks around the outlook should change. That

0:07:05.839 --> 0:07:08.480
<v Speaker 2>should change off the Bank of energy shock. Isn't that

0:07:08.520 --> 0:07:10.120
<v Speaker 2>a fair summary of where we should be.

0:07:10.360 --> 0:07:12.240
<v Speaker 1>Well, the balance of rice does change, but I think

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:14.640
<v Speaker 1>it's actually changed on both sides equally. The inflation risks

0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:16.640
<v Speaker 1>have got a little more concerning, but the unemployment risks

0:07:16.680 --> 0:07:19.640
<v Speaker 1>have gotten more concerning too, because the negative supply shock

0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:22.119
<v Speaker 1>that is the oil price is also a negative demand shock.

0:07:22.320 --> 0:07:24.520
<v Speaker 1>You're taking money out of goods and services that are

0:07:24.520 --> 0:07:26.240
<v Speaker 1>not energy that would have been spent on those goods

0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 1>and services anyway. And I view the labor market as

0:07:28.800 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 1>continuing its gradual softening trend for the last three years.

0:07:31.920 --> 0:07:33.680
<v Speaker 1>That trend has been in place for three years. I've

0:07:33.720 --> 0:07:35.840
<v Speaker 1>seen nothing that would convince me the trend is stopped.

0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:36.120
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:07:36.160 --> 0:07:38.880
<v Speaker 1>That's a very very powerful medium term trend that's been

0:07:38.880 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 1>in place for several years now. And taking money out

0:07:41.760 --> 0:07:44.200
<v Speaker 1>of goods and services that's not energy to devote to

0:07:44.240 --> 0:07:46.680
<v Speaker 1>higher energy prices is exactly the type of thing that

0:07:46.720 --> 0:07:49.360
<v Speaker 1>worries me that trend might accelerate. So the balance of

0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:51.520
<v Speaker 1>risk changed, but I think it got worse on both sides.

0:07:51.560 --> 0:07:53.120
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it changed asymmetrically.

0:07:53.280 --> 0:07:55.240
<v Speaker 2>Governor. It's good to say that's what making time for us.

0:07:55.240 --> 0:07:57.760
<v Speaker 2>As always, we appreciate it, Sir Governor, Stephen Maren at

0:07:57.760 --> 0:07:59.960
<v Speaker 2>the Federal Reserve on the argument for lower interest rights

0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:02.320
<v Speaker 2>following a major energy shock,