WEBVTT - San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly Talks 2025 Rate Cuts

0:00:02.400 --> 0:00:06.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.000 --> 0:00:09.600
<v Speaker 2>Turning to the Federal Reserve cunning interest rates by another

0:00:09.640 --> 0:00:12.560
<v Speaker 2>twenty five basis points this month, but signaling the path

0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:15.920
<v Speaker 2>is unclear for twenty twenty five, Fedchaed J. Powell saying

0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:18.000
<v Speaker 2>he feels good about the economy, but we are in

0:00:18.040 --> 0:00:21.200
<v Speaker 2>a new phase in the fight against inflation. Pleased to

0:00:21.239 --> 0:00:23.560
<v Speaker 2>say they're joining us around the table alongside Mike m

0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:26.640
<v Speaker 2>Key and us is the San Francisco Fed President, Mary Daily,

0:00:26.680 --> 0:00:28.720
<v Speaker 2>President Daily. It's good to see you, Nice to see you.

0:00:28.760 --> 0:00:30.520
<v Speaker 2>Thank you for giving us some time. Let's start with

0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:33.599
<v Speaker 2>the forecast. Some controversy around the forecast. I'll go through

0:00:33.600 --> 0:00:36.600
<v Speaker 2>the controversy. We don't speculate, we don't assume, we don't guess.

0:00:36.680 --> 0:00:38.559
<v Speaker 2>And then a month later it found like there was

0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:41.440
<v Speaker 2>some speculation and some guessing about policy next year. I

0:00:41.479 --> 0:00:43.640
<v Speaker 2>just want to talk about your approach to the forecast.

0:00:44.120 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 2>Was it about the data for you? Or was it

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:47.360
<v Speaker 2>about the incoming administration?

0:00:47.640 --> 0:00:50.000
<v Speaker 3>It's about the data. It's always about the data for me.

0:00:50.200 --> 0:00:53.360
<v Speaker 3>We don't know what the incoming administration is going to do.

0:00:53.960 --> 0:00:57.440
<v Speaker 3>You know, new administrations, no matter when they come, always

0:00:57.440 --> 0:01:00.520
<v Speaker 3>put a slate of programs together, and really, as a

0:01:00.520 --> 0:01:02.320
<v Speaker 3>policy maker, I look at I want to see the

0:01:02.360 --> 0:01:05.600
<v Speaker 3>net net effects once I see clarity about what those

0:01:05.600 --> 0:01:08.399
<v Speaker 3>policies will be. So I was focused on the incoming

0:01:08.440 --> 0:01:11.559
<v Speaker 3>information and what it means for the outlook. And today

0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:13.600
<v Speaker 3>I feel like we've got policy in a good place,

0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:15.600
<v Speaker 3>the economy is in a good place, and we are

0:01:15.640 --> 0:01:17.959
<v Speaker 3>prepared for whatever comes before us.

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:21.560
<v Speaker 1>What happened in the past three months that caused the

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:25.080
<v Speaker 1>FED and perhaps yourself to be much more concerned about

0:01:25.120 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>the stickiness and inflation.

0:01:27.000 --> 0:01:29.360
<v Speaker 3>Well, the data happened, and you look at the data,

0:01:29.440 --> 0:01:32.840
<v Speaker 3>and what's happened is that there's two things that have occurred.

0:01:32.920 --> 0:01:35.559
<v Speaker 3>First of all, the economy remains in a good place,

0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:38.600
<v Speaker 3>and the risks to the outlook are equally balanced between

0:01:38.640 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 3>a risk to inflation or a risk to employment. That's

0:01:40.800 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 3>where we wanted our goals to be. And we adjusted

0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:46.600
<v Speaker 3>policy when we had confidence that inflation was heading down,

0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 3>and we adjusted policy some more to ensure that we

0:01:50.080 --> 0:01:52.640
<v Speaker 3>have a balanced labor market that continues. So that's where

0:01:52.640 --> 0:01:55.040
<v Speaker 3>we are. But then the data on inflation have been

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 3>coming in a little slower. I wouldn't even say sticky

0:01:58.520 --> 0:02:01.320
<v Speaker 3>or stalled. I would say the progress is just slowed

0:02:01.560 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 3>relative to what we had wanted. But that's a typical pattern.

0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:07.000
<v Speaker 3>It's bumpy as you get to the you know, from

0:02:07.560 --> 0:02:09.679
<v Speaker 3>point five or two point eight to two it's just

0:02:09.760 --> 0:02:11.919
<v Speaker 3>a bumpy path. This okay, go ahead.

0:02:12.120 --> 0:02:14.520
<v Speaker 1>At the same time, some people were wondering if there

0:02:14.639 --> 0:02:16.840
<v Speaker 1>was the stickiness. And I'm looking right now at say

0:02:16.840 --> 0:02:19.680
<v Speaker 1>the Cleveland CPI now and it actually has ticked up

0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:24.520
<v Speaker 1>for the month of December from November. There was this question,

0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:26.239
<v Speaker 1>why did the FED cut it all?

0:02:26.639 --> 0:02:29.840
<v Speaker 3>Sure, and again I'm going to reassert that it's bumpy.

0:02:30.000 --> 0:02:32.000
<v Speaker 3>You know, remember earlier in the year we had two

0:02:32.040 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 3>months of data and people said, oh my gosh, it's reaccelerating,

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 3>and then we had it come down. So inflation data

0:02:37.240 --> 0:02:39.400
<v Speaker 3>can't you can't focus on one month or two months.

0:02:39.600 --> 0:02:41.960
<v Speaker 3>The most important thing for me was that we needed

0:02:42.000 --> 0:02:44.359
<v Speaker 3>to recalibrate policy. I saw this as a close call.

0:02:44.840 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 3>You know, I was seventy five enough to be the recalibration.

0:02:48.560 --> 0:02:51.080
<v Speaker 3>We were looking for right size policy to meet the

0:02:51.120 --> 0:02:54.280
<v Speaker 3>economy we expect, or do we need more. Ultimately, I

0:02:54.320 --> 0:02:56.640
<v Speaker 3>determined that the one hundred basis points was really the

0:02:56.720 --> 0:03:00.000
<v Speaker 3>right level. Now I feel we've got that recalibration phase

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:02.240
<v Speaker 3>behind us and we're in the next phase. And the

0:03:02.240 --> 0:03:05.800
<v Speaker 3>next phase is really looking at the incoming information. We

0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:09.240
<v Speaker 3>can return to a more typical pattern of gradualism for

0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:11.760
<v Speaker 3>the fad you know we've been we've practiced that where

0:03:11.800 --> 0:03:15.720
<v Speaker 3>you with a lot of uncertainty, you adjust the policy rate,

0:03:15.760 --> 0:03:19.440
<v Speaker 3>then you wait watchfully and you see what transpires, and

0:03:19.480 --> 0:03:21.880
<v Speaker 3>then you make further adjustments. That's the phase I think

0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:22.800
<v Speaker 3>we're now entering.

0:03:23.160 --> 0:03:26.639
<v Speaker 4>From September, the expectation in the markets was going into

0:03:26.680 --> 0:03:30.040
<v Speaker 4>every meeting that you'd be cutting Has that changed now?

0:03:30.040 --> 0:03:33.200
<v Speaker 4>Should the expectation be that you won't be doing anything

0:03:33.800 --> 0:03:38.120
<v Speaker 4>at any particular meeting? And from that question flows a

0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:41.880
<v Speaker 4>second question, what are the criteria that you need to

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 4>see to decide to go back to cutting rates?

0:03:45.400 --> 0:03:49.120
<v Speaker 3>Well, as you saw from the SEP the median projection

0:03:49.240 --> 0:03:53.080
<v Speaker 3>is to rate cuts next year, so that's already not

0:03:53.120 --> 0:03:55.600
<v Speaker 3>in every meeting or every other meeting. That's two rate cuts.

0:03:55.600 --> 0:03:58.080
<v Speaker 3>I was very comfortable with that meeting, and that makes

0:03:58.120 --> 0:04:01.040
<v Speaker 3>sense to me. But we have to agile. I mean,

0:04:01.160 --> 0:04:03.839
<v Speaker 3>you know, the thing that's got us here is being

0:04:03.880 --> 0:04:07.720
<v Speaker 3>resolute to achieve our dual mandate goals. Price stability was

0:04:07.720 --> 0:04:11.480
<v Speaker 3>our focus when inflation was very high. The employment has

0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:13.840
<v Speaker 3>come into the frame so that we're focused on both.

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:15.840
<v Speaker 3>But then we also have to be agile. You know,

0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:19.560
<v Speaker 3>the world is uncertain, so we pencil into and you know,

0:04:19.640 --> 0:04:23.520
<v Speaker 3>as that estimate or that projection gets further from when

0:04:23.560 --> 0:04:26.359
<v Speaker 3>we made it, the accuracy of it probably falls. And

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:28.960
<v Speaker 3>so we're just going to continually take in more information,

0:04:29.440 --> 0:04:33.400
<v Speaker 3>consider it, and every meeting your listener should think about this.

0:04:33.520 --> 0:04:37.160
<v Speaker 3>Every meeting is live from the standpoint that you're debating,

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:40.440
<v Speaker 3>you're discussing, you're thinking what's the right level of policy.

0:04:40.800 --> 0:04:44.400
<v Speaker 3>But my projection is that it will take much many

0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:47.160
<v Speaker 3>fewer rate cuts next year than we thought. But I'll

0:04:47.160 --> 0:04:49.200
<v Speaker 3>watch the economy and see if that works out.

0:04:49.480 --> 0:04:52.240
<v Speaker 4>When we went into the cutting cycle, you were out

0:04:52.279 --> 0:04:54.679
<v Speaker 4>front and saying you were concerned about the labor market

0:04:54.920 --> 0:04:57.039
<v Speaker 4>and that we needed to make sure that we didn't

0:04:57.080 --> 0:05:01.320
<v Speaker 4>lose the gains that we had. Now, at least coming

0:05:01.320 --> 0:05:04.480
<v Speaker 4>out of Chairman Powell's press conference, it sounds like the

0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:08.760
<v Speaker 4>focus has shifted to inflation again. Are you comfortable with

0:05:08.760 --> 0:05:11.400
<v Speaker 4>that as this new phase that he's talking.

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:13.000
<v Speaker 3>About, Well, I think of it as a new phase

0:05:13.000 --> 0:05:15.600
<v Speaker 3>as well, and I would characterize it slightly differently. I

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:19.359
<v Speaker 3>would say that for a long time, a persistent amount

0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:23.560
<v Speaker 3>of time protracted, we were focused almost entirely on inflation.

0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.279
<v Speaker 3>That's because the labor market was quite robust and inflation

0:05:26.440 --> 0:05:29.200
<v Speaker 3>was seven six ' five. That was the right way

0:05:29.240 --> 0:05:32.240
<v Speaker 3>to focus. Then the labor market came into the frame.

0:05:32.480 --> 0:05:35.040
<v Speaker 3>That didn't mean we turned our focus totally to it.

0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:37.080
<v Speaker 3>It just meant that after a long period of focusing

0:05:37.160 --> 0:05:40.120
<v Speaker 3>only on inflation, we were now focused on both. I

0:05:40.120 --> 0:05:42.920
<v Speaker 3>think that is still the case, but I see policy

0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:45.960
<v Speaker 3>as already in that position where it's supporting both. That

0:05:46.320 --> 0:05:49.200
<v Speaker 3>policy is restrictive. It's going to continue to bring inflation down,

0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:52.039
<v Speaker 3>and it's going to do so in a way that

0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:55.760
<v Speaker 3>doesn't strangle the labor market, break it and then give

0:05:55.760 --> 0:05:59.120
<v Speaker 3>people lower price, lower inflation, but take their jobs. And

0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:01.320
<v Speaker 3>that's not what we're trying to do. We're really working

0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:02.880
<v Speaker 3>towards that soft landing.

0:06:02.680 --> 0:06:05.000
<v Speaker 2>Mat Now you've used the word we a lot when

0:06:05.000 --> 0:06:07.120
<v Speaker 2>you talk about what's happening in the Federal Reserve. We've

0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:09.479
<v Speaker 2>had some people who are quite critical of the Federal Reserve,

0:06:09.480 --> 0:06:12.960
<v Speaker 2>and Chairman Pouse performance specifically in this news conference. One

0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:15.640
<v Speaker 2>excuse that was given was that maybe he was struggling

0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:18.480
<v Speaker 2>to reflect the lack of a consensus on the committee.

0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:21.520
<v Speaker 2>How much diversity of thought disagreement is there on the committee?

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:23.720
<v Speaker 2>You call it a close call for yourself, but was

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:26.120
<v Speaker 2>there some disagreement on the committee at this meeting?

0:06:26.279 --> 0:06:27.640
<v Speaker 3>Well, you know, I'm not going to speak about the

0:06:27.800 --> 0:06:31.200
<v Speaker 3>entire committee when I say, focused on the things we

0:06:31.240 --> 0:06:33.839
<v Speaker 3>all agree on, which is price stability and full employment,

0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:36.479
<v Speaker 3>on our efforts to get there. You know, what I

0:06:36.760 --> 0:06:40.040
<v Speaker 3>would offer is that we have, in my mind, the

0:06:40.080 --> 0:06:44.120
<v Speaker 3>healthy level of discussion and disagreement. You know, you don't

0:06:44.160 --> 0:06:48.320
<v Speaker 3>want an FMC that things exactly alike. And I believe

0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:50.560
<v Speaker 3>that what people are looking at is the fact that

0:06:50.680 --> 0:06:53.919
<v Speaker 3>now the world is more uncertain and people are debating

0:06:54.160 --> 0:06:57.000
<v Speaker 3>and bringing in their views. And that's appropriate. When it

0:06:57.040 --> 0:06:59.159
<v Speaker 3>was a pandemic and there was only one direction that

0:06:59.200 --> 0:07:00.920
<v Speaker 3>we were interest rates, we had to do it quickly.

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.200
<v Speaker 3>It was obvious everyone agreed. When inflation's high, there was

0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:07.359
<v Speaker 3>no disagreement. Right, we're all merging up. Now. You should

0:07:07.360 --> 0:07:10.880
<v Speaker 3>expect more disagreement, more differences of opinion, but they're always

0:07:10.880 --> 0:07:13.120
<v Speaker 3>framed to the same thing, how do we get inflation

0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:15.720
<v Speaker 3>to do and restore or keep full employment.

0:07:15.760 --> 0:07:18.480
<v Speaker 2>When I hear the world is more uncertain a lot

0:07:18.520 --> 0:07:20.960
<v Speaker 2>of people here, Well, that's not about the data, that's

0:07:21.000 --> 0:07:22.360
<v Speaker 2>about the incoming administration.

0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:25.760
<v Speaker 3>I would disagree. Why would you disagree, because we have

0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:28.480
<v Speaker 3>a variety of risks that are the ones we always

0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:33.880
<v Speaker 3>deal with. Right the housing inflation. Right now, there's a

0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:37.520
<v Speaker 3>substantial housing imbalance in the United States. The models, in

0:07:37.560 --> 0:07:40.080
<v Speaker 3>our data and our past experience, I'll say housing inflation

0:07:40.160 --> 0:07:43.280
<v Speaker 3>will come down, but we are uncertain about that. Right.

0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:45.640
<v Speaker 3>It hasn't come down as quickly as the models would

0:07:45.360 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 3>have predicted, and so that's an issue. The labor market

0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:53.120
<v Speaker 3>and consumer spending and growth are much faster and stronger

0:07:53.160 --> 0:07:55.520
<v Speaker 3>than people would have predicted at this point. Given the

0:07:55.520 --> 0:07:58.640
<v Speaker 3>titaning we've done. There's a lot of uncertainty about the

0:07:58.720 --> 0:08:01.640
<v Speaker 3>natural rate of interest, where's the stopping point? And then

0:08:01.640 --> 0:08:04.800
<v Speaker 3>of course there's geopolitical risks, the risks of global growth.

0:08:05.080 --> 0:08:08.880
<v Speaker 3>That's going to be the backdrop. And then you have

0:08:08.920 --> 0:08:11.800
<v Speaker 3>a change in administration. So I would say this level

0:08:11.800 --> 0:08:15.040
<v Speaker 3>of uncertainty is normal in the sense that we've had

0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:18.200
<v Speaker 3>all those things going on, and it's not as excessive

0:08:18.800 --> 0:08:22.480
<v Speaker 3>uncertainty as after the pandemic, the financial crisis. Those were

0:08:22.560 --> 0:08:25.000
<v Speaker 3>really big periods of uncertainty. So I think if you're

0:08:25.040 --> 0:08:27.240
<v Speaker 3>a central banker, you just get used to uncertainty and

0:08:27.520 --> 0:08:28.400
<v Speaker 3>you manage.

0:08:28.080 --> 0:08:31.160
<v Speaker 1>It before we get into what some of the uncertainty

0:08:31.160 --> 0:08:34.480
<v Speaker 1>about next year could look like. I am curious about

0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:37.680
<v Speaker 1>how you're weighing how to preserve the job gains with

0:08:38.080 --> 0:08:41.240
<v Speaker 1>the risk of running the economy for too long. And

0:08:41.480 --> 0:08:44.400
<v Speaker 1>that's I think something people are struggling with. Is there

0:08:44.400 --> 0:08:47.679
<v Speaker 1>an emphasis on the labor market even at the behease

0:08:47.720 --> 0:08:51.520
<v Speaker 1>of inflation, just because it's been deemed better for inflation

0:08:51.600 --> 0:08:54.640
<v Speaker 1>to be a little hotter as long as people keep

0:08:54.679 --> 0:08:55.360
<v Speaker 1>their jobs.

0:08:55.559 --> 0:08:58.360
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I would characterize it a little differently, But that

0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:00.920
<v Speaker 3>is a terrific question. So when we spend you know,

0:09:00.960 --> 0:09:03.120
<v Speaker 3>as you know, reserve bank presidents spend a lot of

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:05.800
<v Speaker 3>time in the field work in our district, I have

0:09:05.880 --> 0:09:09.920
<v Speaker 3>the whole Western United States, And so I ask people

0:09:09.920 --> 0:09:12.080
<v Speaker 3>the question, you know, where are you on this? And

0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:14.600
<v Speaker 3>again and again I hear that the economy is sort

0:09:14.600 --> 0:09:17.760
<v Speaker 3>of in a good place right. Inflation's coming down, it's gradual,

0:09:18.200 --> 0:09:23.000
<v Speaker 3>and the labor market is solid, but there's one job

0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:26.440
<v Speaker 3>for every unemployed worker. You know, that's in perfect balance.

0:09:26.679 --> 0:09:28.880
<v Speaker 3>And our firms are saying we can find workers, and

0:09:28.920 --> 0:09:31.480
<v Speaker 3>our workers are saying we can find jobs, and no

0:09:31.520 --> 0:09:34.600
<v Speaker 3>one really wants that to break. So what people do

0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:37.680
<v Speaker 3>not want is a recession. And I think one of

0:09:37.679 --> 0:09:40.080
<v Speaker 3>the reasons sentiments been rising since the middle of this

0:09:40.240 --> 0:09:43.839
<v Speaker 3>year is because the recession risk is now behind us

0:09:43.880 --> 0:09:46.480
<v Speaker 3>in people's minds, and they feel good about that. So

0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:49.959
<v Speaker 3>what I hear more than you would think is don't

0:09:50.120 --> 0:09:54.119
<v Speaker 3>get one tenth off inflation just and then break the economy.

0:09:54.160 --> 0:09:56.520
<v Speaker 3>That's like, we can be patient, but you just have

0:09:56.559 --> 0:09:58.960
<v Speaker 3>to head for two and we don't want the economy

0:09:58.960 --> 0:09:59.319
<v Speaker 3>to break.

0:09:59.440 --> 0:10:02.480
<v Speaker 1>That's why I thought it was interesting that the inflation

0:10:02.559 --> 0:10:06.280
<v Speaker 1>forecast for next year was shifted upward even at a

0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:09.600
<v Speaker 1>time where the unemployment rate was shifted downward. There was

0:10:09.640 --> 0:10:12.560
<v Speaker 1>a sense that that was okay to tap two and

0:10:12.559 --> 0:10:15.000
<v Speaker 1>a half percent inflation at the end of next year,

0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:17.720
<v Speaker 1>even though it was above two percent. Is that the

0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 1>sort of feeling right now on the FED to be

0:10:19.600 --> 0:10:22.400
<v Speaker 1>more patient with inflation because it's thought of as less

0:10:22.400 --> 0:10:25.800
<v Speaker 1>punitive at a level below three percent. Than say, arise

0:10:25.800 --> 0:10:26.520
<v Speaker 1>in unemployment.

0:10:26.760 --> 0:10:28.400
<v Speaker 3>Well, let me just say how I think about it,

0:10:28.440 --> 0:10:31.199
<v Speaker 3>because here I will speak for myself. I'm not comfortable

0:10:31.200 --> 0:10:34.240
<v Speaker 3>with the rate of inflation being two point five, but

0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:36.760
<v Speaker 3>we're continuing to work on it, and so we might

0:10:36.840 --> 0:10:40.520
<v Speaker 3>end up cutting rates cutting rates less if inflation is

0:10:40.720 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 3>as sticky as that. But what I'm also balancing is

0:10:44.040 --> 0:10:46.880
<v Speaker 3>I don't want to see an unnecessary rise in the

0:10:46.960 --> 0:10:49.960
<v Speaker 3>unemployment rate just to get a quarter ahead on the

0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:53.160
<v Speaker 3>two percent goal. So that is a balancing act. And

0:10:53.200 --> 0:10:55.640
<v Speaker 3>I think ultimately we were just looking at the information

0:10:55.720 --> 0:10:57.319
<v Speaker 3>coming in and saying, you know, there's a lot of

0:10:57.440 --> 0:11:01.400
<v Speaker 3>risks out there. Inflation could rise, but you'll see the

0:11:01.400 --> 0:11:03.880
<v Speaker 3>inflation rising was a partly why you saw the rate

0:11:03.920 --> 0:11:07.400
<v Speaker 3>cuts pulling back is absent the if we had four

0:11:07.520 --> 0:11:09.640
<v Speaker 3>you'd see inflation go up more. And so this is

0:11:09.679 --> 0:11:11.839
<v Speaker 3>a balancing act. But I think it also points you

0:11:11.920 --> 0:11:14.920
<v Speaker 3>to the dispersion that you saw in the SEPA, which

0:11:15.000 --> 0:11:17.319
<v Speaker 3>I see as a feature, not a bug. You should

0:11:17.320 --> 0:11:20.040
<v Speaker 3>have some dispersion when the world's uncertain, Otherwise you would

0:11:20.080 --> 0:11:22.480
<v Speaker 3>wonder if we're all in an echo chamber. But we're not.

0:11:22.640 --> 0:11:25.040
<v Speaker 3>You can see that clearly and you see the dispersion,

0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:28.000
<v Speaker 3>and I think that dispersion really represents what we're facing.

0:11:28.040 --> 0:11:30.840
<v Speaker 3>We might end up with fewer cuts than two. We

0:11:30.920 --> 0:11:32.880
<v Speaker 3>might have to respond and end up with more if

0:11:32.880 --> 0:11:36.160
<v Speaker 3>inflation falls faster or you see a significant weakening in

0:11:36.160 --> 0:11:39.040
<v Speaker 3>the labor market. And I'm comfortable sitting in that center

0:11:39.080 --> 0:11:42.360
<v Speaker 3>court position and waiting for the data to come in

0:11:42.440 --> 0:11:44.160
<v Speaker 3>and we'll actually respond as they do.

0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:46.319
<v Speaker 4>Well, do you think there's any chance that you might

0:11:46.400 --> 0:11:48.199
<v Speaker 4>have to raise rates next year?

0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:50.400
<v Speaker 3>You know, I don't see that on the horizon right now,

0:11:50.440 --> 0:11:53.040
<v Speaker 3>but if we will always remain prepared to do what

0:11:53.120 --> 0:11:55.960
<v Speaker 3>it's needed to achieve our goals. But I don't see

0:11:55.960 --> 0:11:59.640
<v Speaker 3>that in the span of the most salient risks right

0:11:59.679 --> 0:12:03.199
<v Speaker 3>now that I faced. But you know, absolutely that's something

0:12:03.240 --> 0:12:04.760
<v Speaker 3>that we never take off the table.

0:12:04.880 --> 0:12:08.000
<v Speaker 2>Who owns the dealt with no cunts? Next year? Come on, reveal,

0:12:08.240 --> 0:12:08.800
<v Speaker 2>Who's is that?

0:12:09.160 --> 0:12:10.520
<v Speaker 3>Twenty twenty five reveal?

0:12:12.000 --> 0:12:12.320
<v Speaker 2>Salas.

0:12:12.520 --> 0:12:15.040
<v Speaker 3>No, I'm not going to tell you. I'm not rookie.

0:12:15.160 --> 0:12:19.040
<v Speaker 3>You know, I know it's not a holiday gift. I'm

0:12:19.080 --> 0:12:19.920
<v Speaker 3>willing to give gifts.

0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:22.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm just checking reveal.

0:12:22.880 --> 0:12:24.640
<v Speaker 2>President Day is going to stick with it someplace to

0:12:24.720 --> 0:12:27.080
<v Speaker 2>say thank you, Mia Kay, thank you as well, Sir

0:12:27.240 --> 0:12:29.640
<v Speaker 2>President Mary Danny is still with US. President Daidy, you

0:12:29.679 --> 0:12:32.560
<v Speaker 2>were all about the data, not about the administration change.

0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:34.000
<v Speaker 2>We do want to talk to you about how you

0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:36.800
<v Speaker 2>would approach changes in policies from the incoming administration though

0:12:36.800 --> 0:12:41.040
<v Speaker 2>across many dimensions immigration taxes, but the big one I

0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:43.560
<v Speaker 2>think for many tariffs, what's your approach going to be

0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:44.080
<v Speaker 2>next year?

0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:46.880
<v Speaker 3>So we have all the tools and evidence from prass

0:12:46.920 --> 0:12:49.480
<v Speaker 3>historical periods, we can think about how these things will

0:12:49.480 --> 0:12:51.920
<v Speaker 3>affect the economy. You know, one of our biggest tools

0:12:52.000 --> 0:12:54.800
<v Speaker 3>of figuring out how things will affect the economy is

0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:58.960
<v Speaker 3>talking to CEOs of small, medium, and large companies, and

0:12:59.040 --> 0:13:01.760
<v Speaker 3>we've already engaged in doing that. So when we're out

0:13:01.760 --> 0:13:04.760
<v Speaker 3>there in the field talking to people from across the country,

0:13:04.880 --> 0:13:07.840
<v Speaker 3>and I'm spending my time in the twelfth district, we're

0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:12.360
<v Speaker 3>hearing that their sentiment is up. They're really optimistic that

0:13:12.559 --> 0:13:16.679
<v Speaker 3>they've been cautiously optimistic. They see the Fed's interest rate

0:13:16.720 --> 0:13:18.920
<v Speaker 3>path falling and they feel good about that. They see

0:13:18.960 --> 0:13:22.480
<v Speaker 3>the economy as the procession risk is behind us, and

0:13:22.800 --> 0:13:25.960
<v Speaker 3>they feel positive in general about some of the things

0:13:25.960 --> 0:13:28.400
<v Speaker 3>that they think may change going forward. Now, whether that

0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:31.800
<v Speaker 3>materializes or not, we will wait and see. But I

0:13:31.840 --> 0:13:36.760
<v Speaker 3>feel that sentiment alone is causing us to have some enthusiasm,

0:13:36.880 --> 0:13:39.720
<v Speaker 3>some cautious enthusiasm, if you will. One thing that we

0:13:39.760 --> 0:13:42.839
<v Speaker 3>hear is that for firms that are worried about the

0:13:42.840 --> 0:13:47.480
<v Speaker 3>immediate impacts of tariffs on their business, they're just building

0:13:47.559 --> 0:13:50.720
<v Speaker 3>up some inventory so that they can have some insurance.

0:13:51.040 --> 0:13:53.640
<v Speaker 3>And so that's something you'll start to see in the

0:13:53.720 --> 0:13:56.280
<v Speaker 3>data already, but I haven't seen that in such an

0:13:56.320 --> 0:13:58.400
<v Speaker 3>outsized way that I think it's going to change the

0:13:58.400 --> 0:13:59.360
<v Speaker 3>course of the economy.

0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:01.920
<v Speaker 1>One thing that you say President daily is that we

0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:05.439
<v Speaker 1>have experienced from the past of tariffs, of some of

0:14:05.280 --> 0:14:10.160
<v Speaker 1>the immigration bands or limits, but is this time more

0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:12.440
<v Speaker 1>difficult just because of where we're coming from. It is

0:14:12.480 --> 0:14:16.120
<v Speaker 1>a more inflationary time after a pretty big stimulus package

0:14:16.160 --> 0:14:17.479
<v Speaker 1>injected into the economy.

0:14:17.880 --> 0:14:19.840
<v Speaker 3>You're feeling like an economist, like when you think of

0:14:19.880 --> 0:14:24.360
<v Speaker 3>state dependence, right, The impacts of policies affect are affected

0:14:24.400 --> 0:14:26.360
<v Speaker 3>by the state of the economy. So one thing that

0:14:26.480 --> 0:14:29.120
<v Speaker 3>is on my mind is that we already have inflation

0:14:29.200 --> 0:14:31.880
<v Speaker 3>above two percent, and so we have to work hard

0:14:31.880 --> 0:14:35.080
<v Speaker 3>to get inflation down to two percent, and that is

0:14:35.320 --> 0:14:38.640
<v Speaker 3>an economy that's just a little more vulnerable than it

0:14:38.640 --> 0:14:41.040
<v Speaker 3>would be if we had inflation, you know, at two percent,

0:14:41.160 --> 0:14:43.760
<v Speaker 3>or when we came in to the tariff discussion or

0:14:43.800 --> 0:14:46.640
<v Speaker 3>trade discussions last time, it was below two percent. So

0:14:46.920 --> 0:14:48.560
<v Speaker 3>I feel, on the other side, the real side of

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:51.600
<v Speaker 3>the economy is very is very strong or solid, and

0:14:51.640 --> 0:14:53.720
<v Speaker 3>so we're in a good position. But it does it

0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:55.600
<v Speaker 3>is on my mind, and inflation is already elevated.

0:14:55.640 --> 0:14:57.680
<v Speaker 1>Well, does that make it that tariffs are more likely

0:14:57.720 --> 0:14:58.920
<v Speaker 1>to be inflationary than they have?

0:14:59.000 --> 0:15:00.640
<v Speaker 3>And it's really hard to sa. I mean, one of

0:15:00.720 --> 0:15:02.800
<v Speaker 3>the things you learned from doing this kind of a

0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:06.760
<v Speaker 3>job at while is that it really depends on the scope, magnitude,

0:15:06.920 --> 0:15:11.560
<v Speaker 3>timing of tariffs and whether our companies in the United

0:15:11.600 --> 0:15:15.440
<v Speaker 3>States are positioned to use substitutes and manage and you

0:15:15.480 --> 0:15:18.720
<v Speaker 3>see this happening. We already went through. Another feature that

0:15:18.800 --> 0:15:22.040
<v Speaker 3>might make it less challenging is that in the pandemic,

0:15:22.240 --> 0:15:26.040
<v Speaker 3>firms reshored, near shored, friendshured, and you saw a lot

0:15:26.040 --> 0:15:29.120
<v Speaker 3>of that behavior already taking place. So we'll see we

0:15:29.240 --> 0:15:30.120
<v Speaker 3>just have about a minute.

0:15:30.480 --> 0:15:34.040
<v Speaker 1>But in being agile, how concerned are you that people

0:15:34.080 --> 0:15:36.640
<v Speaker 1>are going to label decisions as political.

0:15:37.680 --> 0:15:40.320
<v Speaker 3>I don't feel concerned about that. I think what we've

0:15:40.440 --> 0:15:43.760
<v Speaker 3>done well and is talk to the American people. That

0:15:43.920 --> 0:15:46.920
<v Speaker 3>chair does that in meetings. We do that, and we're

0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:51.440
<v Speaker 3>telling them we are only focused on inflation and full employment.

0:15:51.440 --> 0:15:53.560
<v Speaker 3>Those are the goals Congress gave us. We're going to

0:15:53.600 --> 0:15:57.640
<v Speaker 3>do our best to navigate the incoming information, whatever causes it,

0:15:58.000 --> 0:16:01.000
<v Speaker 3>and make the good decisions, make the best posicians, and

0:16:01.040 --> 0:16:04.200
<v Speaker 3>then be humble about having made the wrong one or

0:16:04.200 --> 0:16:06.720
<v Speaker 3>the right one and redo it so and think about

0:16:06.720 --> 0:16:08.360
<v Speaker 3>it again. So that's how we're going to approach it,

0:16:08.360 --> 0:16:11.040
<v Speaker 3>and I think ultimately people will judge us by whether

0:16:11.040 --> 0:16:11.800
<v Speaker 3>we're successful.

0:16:11.920 --> 0:16:14.080
<v Speaker 2>You've been generous with your time this morning. We appreciate it,

0:16:14.160 --> 0:16:16.840
<v Speaker 2>enjoyed the holidays. Happy to thank you. I was Mary

0:16:16.920 --> 0:16:18.800
<v Speaker 2>Daddy there, the San Francisco Fed President,