July 18, 2025 • 41 mins
- Christopher Waller, Member-Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve
- Paul Atkins, Chairman of the SEC
- Peter Oppenheimer, Chief Global Equity Strategist at Goldman Sachs
- Sonal Desai, CIO: Fixed Income at Franklin Templeton
Christopher Waller, Member-Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, joins for a discussion on Fed rate cuts and Fed independence. Paul Atkins, Chairman of the SEC, discusses regulation and the recent Stablecoin bill. Peter Oppenheimer, Chief Global Equity Strategist at Goldman Sachs, talks about the outlook for global and US equities amid an uncertain inflation and policy path. Sonal Desai, CIO: Fixed Income at Franklin Templeton, discusses warnings signals from the bond market.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
with Lisa Bromwitz and am Marie Hordern. Join us each
day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and
geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We
are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify
or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the
(00:33):
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. Peter Roppenheimer of
Goldman Sax, writing, while US fundamentals remain solid, the valuation
premium is increasingly difficult to justify. Peter joins us now
for more. Peter, Welcome to the program sir. Let's talk
about the valuation fredium and the why. The data this
week is good. The errings have been okay, We've got
an FMC slowly leaning towards a rake cut.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
What's not to like?
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Well, John, this is a relative rather than an absolute story.
You're right if interest rates are coming down, and we
think they are, and the economy continues to grow, if
even at a more moderate rate. Generally, that's a good
backdrop for risk assets and for equities, and the US
is no exception, particularly as it's increasingly again dominated by
(01:19):
its biggest tech stocks, which are generating really strong earnings growth.
But it's really the relative premium against other markets which
has reached a record high, which is harder to justify
when other markets are beginning to see their own tailwinds. Europe,
for example, is enjoying stronger growth. You know, we think
(01:40):
about last year, the US economy was growing at only
three percent, Germany was stagnant. By next year they'd likely
be growing at relatively similar rates, and yet the valuation
gaps are extremely wide, and that's an opportunity we think
to diversify.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
It is a question of.
Speaker 5 (01:59):
Where you diversify given the fact that a lot of
people are expressing it through the currency, and the currency
is having a balancing effect in so many ways, Given
the fact that it might actually be a tailwind for
US corporate earnings and a headwind for European ones, how
do you factor that into this equation.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
That's a very good point and absolutely right, and particularly
for the dominant tech stocks, which are very global in
terms of their revenue streams, and they have very strong
balance sheets. A week of dollar will help them.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
So that is.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Good indeed for the dominant companies in the US, and
from an earning translation perspective, it's a headwind in Europe
or indeed Asia. But on the other hand, in terms
of flows, what we're beginning to see is more appetite
for US investors to spread their risks, to diversify, to
benefit from some currency gains that they may get in
(02:53):
cheaper markets like Europe or emerging markets for example. And
indeed it's also an increase incentive for investors in Europe
to keep more of their funds at home. So from
an earning translation perspective, it's a headwind in Europe, it's
a tailwind in the US. But from a diversification perspective
for investors, I think this is likely to encourage a
(03:17):
broader spread of assets than we've generally seen over the
last decade.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
How interest rate sensitive is a story at a time
where some people are talking about possibly an ECB cutting
rates more quickly than a FED, and then a question
of whether maybe the FED will cut rates just as
quickly in perhaps a different composition at the FED.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Well we're more mature through the interest rate cycle in Europe,
at least in the euro Zone, we're expecting one more
rate cut getting policy rates down to one on three quarters.
We think we have a series of rate cuts to
look forward to in the US to get policy rates
down to three to three in a quarter. What I
(04:00):
think is worth also emphasizing, though, is that while there
are prospects for bigger rate cuts from a higher level
in the US than perhaps in Europe, long term interest
rates are not really coming down, and that's a reflection,
of course, of concerns about debt sustainability and debt financing,
not just in the US but in other countries as well.
(04:20):
Bear in mind, in Germany, while we're getting these policy
rate cuts, long term interest rates are actually edging up
as it also finally increases its borrowing and fiscal spending,
which is good for growth, good for the ecty market,
but of course puts upward pressure on long term interest rates.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Peter, speaking of Germany, the Bundesbank president, today came out
and said that challenges to FED independence, which he calls
in the DNA the autonomy of good central banking, would
resonate beyond the shores of the United States. What kind
of impact could we see if we were to see
the President of United States get rid of Jpowe and
fire him in Europe or inside Asia and emerging markets.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Well, look, we shouldn't forget that independent central banks have
not always been the norm throughout history, and this was
something that really gained prominence in the nineteen nineties and beyond,
and of course that has helped both to bring down inflation,
to bring down inflation risk premia as investors have become
(05:27):
more confident instability, and we've brought down risk premia and
the cost of capital in general. I think anything that
challenges the independence of the central bank will be reflected
in high risk premia. But I think we're a long
way away from that. And as you've been saying in
your report, the conditions in the US are favoring interest
(05:48):
rate cuts. Anyway, we're getting into a more benign phase
of the cycle. After the big inflation rises that we
saw following the pandemic, unemployments edging up a little bit,
and there is room to cut rates. That's true in
the US, it's true across Europe, the UK and other
areas as well. And by the way, some weakness in
the dollar and interest rates coming down in the US
(06:10):
will resonate and be positive. I think beyond US shores
very beneficial, for example, for emerging markets also, which have
tended to lag behind over a long period of time.
So I think there's a long way. We're a long
way away yet from people really worrying about central bank independence.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Let's hope you're right, sir, it's going to catch out.
With Peter Roppenheimer, I've gone as SANX making the case
for a raid cup Fed Governor Chris Waller tannag an
audience here in New York. Looking across the soft and
hard data, I get a picture of a labor market
(06:52):
on the edge joining us now here in New York City,
the Federal Reserve Governor Chris Waller, Governor Walla.
Speaker 6 (06:57):
Good Monica, say, Henry, nice to be here.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's good to see you, sir. Let's talk about why
we're losing the luxury of white sink. Have we lost
that already?
Speaker 6 (07:06):
No? I think we have.
Speaker 7 (07:07):
Like I said last night, the headline numbers for the
lay remark what we're seeing are okay, But it's like
when you get underneath and start looking at the data,
the private sector is not doing as well as everybody thinks.
It is, like most of the half of the employment
growth we saw last month was in the public sector,
and that means the private sector is not doing particularly well.
(07:28):
So I was just joking that, you know, if you're
walking on a lake and the ice is frozen and
sound safe, but when you start hearing cracks, and that's
what I feel like, it's too late once you go
through the ice. So you've got to start prepping in
advance before you have that happen.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
How do you squan that with what we've had from
Corporate America so far, what Coporate America has told Lisa
sitting down with Skull Kebby, if you United headlines talking
about a rebound in the second half, what we've had
from the big banks so far this week, how do
you scamb what you'll see in the data, what we're
hearing from CEOs.
Speaker 7 (08:02):
Yeah, I mean when I talked to CEOs, I get
the same thing. We're in just hold pattern in terms
of certainly the labor market. They're not hiring, they're not firing,
they're just watching. And that's kind of what you see
in this underlying private sector data. There's not much happening,
so it wouldn't take much sort of tippet.
Speaker 6 (08:18):
Now, could I be wrong? Absolutely?
Speaker 7 (08:20):
I mean last year we got a couple of week
labor market reports allowed us to cut in September, and
then everything kind of reversed and went back up.
Speaker 6 (08:28):
So I'm not saying that couldn't happen again.
Speaker 7 (08:32):
But it's just we've constantly seen little bits of day
continually coming down the page book. Yesterday came out some
other stuff that we get out of the Joelts quits.
Speaker 6 (08:41):
Rates, hiring rates.
Speaker 7 (08:42):
So these things are not indicating a super healthy private
sector labor market.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
As you know, you're facing potentially and I stress, potentially
negative supply shels on both sides of the mandate. I
want to say, on the labor market, just for one
further night, immigration, how are you thinking about that when
you look at a labor market at the moment when
we have people coming on the program on Blindbecks event
and some bloomback TV every single morning six till nine
coming on here and saying look at the data, unemployment
(09:06):
could stand these levels even with jump gains of fifty
to one hundred thousand because of tightst immigration. How does
that factor into your thinking as you look at the
US slip amoun kit.
Speaker 7 (09:15):
Well, yeah, the labor market doesn't necessarily have to be
affected by it because if workers flow in and they
get jobs at roughly the same rate as the existing workers,
the unemployment rate doesn't change even though the labor force
is higher. And when they go back out, the same
thing happens. If they leave the employment and leave the
labor force, you don't see a big change. The inflationing
now can potentially affect the break even rate that.
Speaker 6 (09:38):
You would need to have the market going well.
Speaker 7 (09:41):
And that's why we're still trying to kind of get
a sense of because you basically brought five years of
immigration forward and you know, of that eight or nine million,
most of them haven't disappeared. So they're still here somewhere,
whether they're going to work, they're not going to work,
but they're still here. I don't where I think the
immigration stuff. If immigration it was a big factory, you'd
be seeing shortages and you might see some in you know,
(10:04):
some industries. But like I pointed out that if you
look at the new college graduate unemployment rate, it's seven percent, it's.
Speaker 6 (10:13):
Much higher than it has These are not.
Speaker 7 (10:15):
Jobs are being opened up because immigrants are not coming in.
That it should be just the opposite, if immigrants are
leaving and these jobs are open, and then the ounemployment
right should go the other way. So that unemployment rate,
to me, is telling me the immigration is not the
source of the problem.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Firms are just.
Speaker 7 (10:32):
Holding off on hiring decisions even if their earnings are
doing well.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
That's That's just what I'm saying they're doing on the
labor side.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
I wanted to sign as a mutual friend of Oance.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
That feels like he's missing out this morning, so I
wanted to catch show with you as well.
Speaker 7 (10:42):
Now he's out Victor Idom always having a good time,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
My McKay joined us now, Good one to Mike.
Speaker 8 (10:50):
Good morning John, and good morning Governor Waller. I would say,
I'm sorry I'm not there with you, But I bet
you're sorry you're not here with me. I know you
got it.
Speaker 6 (10:57):
I've been there before. It's a nice place.
Speaker 8 (11:01):
You've made the case now a couple of times for
a July rate cut, But how committed are you? Are
you willing to dissent at this meeting if the majority
votes the other way.
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Well, I never want to commit to an action before
the meeting. Otherwise, if everybody committed before, you don't even
need to have the meeting have a discussion. So the
goal is to always go to the meeting, sit down,
listen to all sides.
Speaker 6 (11:24):
People will try to convince me of their view.
Speaker 7 (11:26):
I'll try to convince some of my views, and in
the end of the day, you make the decisions on
what you think is the right outcome and the right data,
how the data is coming in and right now I
laid out my case last I don't think I could
be any more clear, I hope, as to what my
position is and why I think we need to do this.
It's just how I read the data and how I
(11:47):
think about going forward. How you respond to anything that
involves tariffs.
Speaker 8 (11:53):
There's a lot of politics in this decision coming up,
more than usual, and I'm wondering. Governor Bowman has also
suggested she would prefer a rate cut in July. If
two of you vote for a rate cut, if two
of you were to descend, would you worry about the
market reaction to that?
Speaker 6 (12:13):
You know.
Speaker 7 (12:13):
One of the things that has always bothered me since
I took this job is the criticism that we are
nothing but group think. All the meanings are the same,
nobody does sense, nobody does anything, And I think this
is healthy. I think this is a turning point in
the way we want to think about policy. Some people
don't want to cut, some do want to cut, but
coming out and making the case either side, that's good
(12:36):
healthy debate. Otherwise, if we're always going to do the same,
the joke is, why don't you just have one person
set policy and some of the other eighteen FMC members home.
So this is healthy. I think this is what you
want to see in a democracy. You want to see
policy makers have serious, open discussion about where policies should go.
It doesn't mean anything about politics or anything else. Is
make the economic argument and then see if you can
(12:57):
convince others to go along with you.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
And that's all I'm trying to do.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
We totally agree with you for the re code. We
was sick of the grief think and it's good to
have descent, you know. Mike essentially is asking if you
will descent at the end of this month. Is there
value and dissentic on the f web site.
Speaker 7 (13:11):
Well, I mean it's it's often the case that you dissent,
if you make it very clear you think, at this
moment in time, this is an important thing to do.
If you were to go in and do kind of
a jihadist I'm gonna dissent at every single meeting no
matter what happens.
Speaker 6 (13:26):
Then you don't even have to show up. Everybody knows
what you're gonna do.
Speaker 7 (13:29):
So it is important to make sure that if you dissent,
you do it carefully and you have the right reasons,
and it's not gonna turn into a serial dissenting potential case.
I mean, that's how I take my job seriously and responsibly,
so I only would think about doing this. I dissented
on the balance sheet slowed down earlier this year because
(13:50):
I felt like that was not needed. And that's kind
of the situation we're in now.
Speaker 8 (13:59):
Uh, if you do cut, the markets will go one way.
If you don't, they'll go another. Perhaps, are how critical
is it to get to a rate cut fairly quickly?
You've mentioned the danger to the labor market, But if
you do wait till September, is that going to be
too late?
Speaker 7 (14:18):
Well that's kind of the debate. What does it mean
to wait six weeks. Is it that critical? And the
answer is probably not. It could be, but it's also
the reverse. Why wait till September? If it's just six weeks,
that's exactly the thing. It doesn't kind of matter. Just
start thinking about do I want to wait and risk
something happening. This is what we saw last summer. By
(14:40):
the way we left July, we left rates and then boom,
we got a very weak bad labor market. Reports and
unemployment rate jumped two tenths. Payrolls were way down from
where they were, and people were screaming at us last August.
You guys should have cut in July. So one month?
Can it always is one month? Just remember that it's
(15:01):
just one month. But we live in a world in
which we have to respond to real time data to
kind of sense of where the economy is going. And
I've always said, if you worry about long and variable lags,
which everybody always talks about, the whole point of that is.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
To get ahead of it, not wait for it to happen.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
And then hike a policy action that takes quarters or
months down the road to actually.
Speaker 6 (15:21):
Have any impact.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
The new worries tariffs, We've just had a six minute
conversation with you at that month. As your policy if
built a case for lot of interest rights and no
one's talked about trade or inflation. Two assumptions in your
speech yesterday, and I think they are important assumptions. A
large share of tariff increases won't be past threates consumers.
Any increase would fink over the next yeeroside. What data
underpinds that conclusion.
Speaker 7 (15:42):
Well, one, it's just first, it's just economic theory. So
you put on a care as long as it's a
one time tariff, and that's it. That's a one time
price effect. I mean, this is economic theory. You could
not get in any serious economic model persistent inflation from that.
You would have to look up some other amplification mechanisms,
(16:02):
and that's what people talk about. Wages will start going
up and everything will get out of control.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
You're not seeing that at all.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
This is just not those kind of amplification mechanism there.
Wage price spirals aren't happening. Tariffs are attacks, and in
public finance you learn that you may levy attacks on
a firm, but who bears the incidents?
Speaker 6 (16:22):
The burden of that tax.
Speaker 7 (16:24):
Can be a group of people or one person, not
shore of the firm. So this is what I've heard
from a lot of firms. If there's a ten percent tax,
they'll force their suppliers to eat some of that cost
workers meet some of that costs in terms of less
hiring and things like that. The firm will take it
out of their profit margins, and then lastly, some of
it will get passed on. And as I mentioned last night,
(16:47):
I've heard this for months now. Like the rule is
ten percent, it's sorefully rule. If i'mb is a third
to third a third suppliers of late to third firms
lead to third consumer is going to eat a third
of that tariff. So if you eat a third of it,
and that's ten percent, like I've been arguing, this is
like three tenths of a in three basic three tenths
on the inflation rate for a few months, and that's it,
(17:10):
and it'll persist. If you do twelve month over twelve month,
that base effect will not go away for a while
and then it'll just drop off a cliff. So that's
why I've been arguing, you want to look at like
three months and six months to see if these tariff effects.
Speaker 6 (17:22):
Pop up, and then go away, and so that's more
than critical. We're looking at twelve month.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
Yes, but the way the president is putting these tariffs
on might not match up with theory. Chris, the smooth
hol attacks was passed and came into effect on a
certain date. The president is not yet put on most
of these tarffs they're in. Theory is still coming and
we still haven't seen the Section two thirty two tariffs
for the most part, the National defense tariffs that he
(17:50):
wants to put on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, et cetera. So
if the process is stretched out, consumers could be hit
by a series an ongoing series of tariff increases. And
given what they've just been through, isn't there danger that
inflation psychology starts to seep in?
Speaker 6 (18:06):
Well, that's exactly the point.
Speaker 7 (18:08):
All my example has been is if you put the
ten percent uniform tariff on and keep it roughly in
that range, than what I've described as will happen. If
there's constantly a sequence of higher and higher and higher tariffs,
then you are going to get this rolling potential impact
on prices.
Speaker 6 (18:24):
That's true.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
If it's still just a question of delaying it, that
doesn't change my argument. Whether you see the spike in
July or it happens in June or Army, August or September.
When it happens is irrelevant for the economics.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
That's a non start of an argument.
Speaker 7 (18:43):
Firms could also just spread it out in smaller increments
over several months. The total effects still ends of being
the same. They just get there in a later fashion
and it'll be smaller amounts. So the bigger thing is
if we just continually get another wave of tariffs, another
wave of tariffs and other waves of tariffs, that's when
things has become more problematic thinking about what's going to
happen with the inflation.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
You don't think the feder was a should wait, I
just want to talk about the experience of last year.
I think LESA has done a fantastic job of covering
this over the last six seven eight months. The move
we saw last year one hundred basis point reduction in
interest rates on Fed funds, and then we saw a
corresponding move one hundred basis points higher at the long
end of the yield curve. Yields down did not happen.
(19:23):
It was yields up and mortgage costs up as well.
How do you think one informed the other and how
might that shape your approach to kind of interest rates
this time around?
Speaker 7 (19:32):
Well, I think last September there was a lot of
Remember the long term rates were going down through August
in early September. This was not any contradiction of what
we were doing. It's just after the September meeting that
data just came back and the opposite way growth was
productivity was employment suddenly took back off, and then you
have real growth expectations being much higher. We were seeing
(19:55):
productivity growth and GDP growth are close to three percent.
So in that case, long rates go up anyway, So
it's not necessarily there was some counter reaction to what
we were doing. I never saw inflation expectations adjust. It
caused all that.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
You don't think it was a market questioning you'll commitment
to the inflation mandate.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
If it would have been, you're just seeing in inflation
expectations in the market, not the Michigan thing.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
But we didn't see it.
Speaker 7 (20:18):
I mean, inflation expectations stayed praily anchored all through this rise.
So I think the increase the longer it was just
all the data was coming in for a better, stronger economy.
Then we thought it was going to be in September.
That's fine with me, you know. I sometimes you're going
to do these things taking a shot that I want
to make sure we don't have.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
A hard landing.
Speaker 7 (20:37):
And as I said, with any kind of an insurance cut,
sometimes you don't need the insurance.
Speaker 6 (20:42):
It didn't work.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Out, But that doesn't mean you go back and say, oh,
that was a stupid decision.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
To make market bysed expectations of inflation. Let's say on
this there are clear and obvious threats to the central
banks independence right now, every single down this program, we're
quoting the President, quoting the chairman too late and govern
off the lower interest rights. Kaway that you and I
can have this conversation without addressing those those coasts directly
is to think about what's happening with inflection expectations. Did
(21:07):
these threats threats into deanca market based inflection expectations? And
it's not something even the Committee might become increasingly sensitive
too in the months to come.
Speaker 7 (21:18):
Well, like I said, I look at the after the
tariffs coming on, everybody was worried about de anchoring the expectations,
particularly after some of these Michigan surveys came out. When
I always look at the market based expectation because money
people have money in the game, firms are making decisions
or what they're cheap economists are saying, and if those
things are wrong, they're gonna lose a lot of money.
Speaker 6 (21:38):
So I've always paid more attention.
Speaker 7 (21:39):
I haven't seen much in the way of market expectations
being unanchored in any ways you want to measure them
any forwarder.
Speaker 6 (21:46):
Now.
Speaker 7 (21:46):
In the near term, of course, they might go up
because you would see inflation in the short term, but
in the longer term ones I'm not seeing it. So
either the market is just dismissing all of this as
chattering noise, or at some point is something happens such
that it becomes much more serious than you might see
a discreete jump, and then that's gonna be a problem
(22:07):
for everybody.
Speaker 8 (22:12):
One of the questions that we get all the time, Chris,
from people on Wall Street is or one of the
posits they make is that all this criticism of the
FED is hurting FED credibility, and that the next chairman
is going to have a tough job because there are
going to be expectations for the next chairman set by
the White House rather than by the economy. Do you
(22:35):
feel that inside the building now?
Speaker 6 (22:38):
To be absolutely honest, we just do our job.
Speaker 7 (22:40):
Every day I go in, I just focus on my
work on monetary policy, payments.
Speaker 6 (22:47):
And oversight of the reserve banks. That's what I do.
Speaker 7 (22:50):
I let this stuff go and then just try to
focus on my job. And I think that's how all
of us are proceeding with this. I mean, at the
end of the day, the president winning whoever they you're
going to have to have somebody has credibility with the
markets or you will see as Jonathan was just talking about,
and you're going to see inflation expectations bike. You will
not get lower interest rates, you will get higher interest rates.
Speaker 6 (23:10):
This is well known.
Speaker 7 (23:11):
We've seen this everywhere around the world when this happens,
and I know Scott Doson knows this, So this is
not something that is lost on anybody.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
You've been nominated by this president for the seat on
the board. Yes, you were a previously director of research
for Jim Bill out White back then. Is it a
position you would like is it something you would like
to do in the future.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
Look in twenty nineteen, the President contact me and say
would you serve?
Speaker 6 (23:36):
And I said yes. If the President contacted me and
so I want you to serve, I would do it.
But he's not contacting me.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
What say he does.
Speaker 7 (23:46):
If he says, Chris, I want you to do the job,
I'll say yes.
Speaker 6 (23:50):
But he's not talking to me. So that's it.
Speaker 7 (23:52):
That much hypothetical that.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
That might change. It's going to see it.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
We appreciate your time, all right, I've been very generous
with Thank you very much. The Federal Reserve governor there,
Christopher Waller, Mike McKee, thanks as well to you, sir.
As always, Congress passing the first federal legislation to regulate
(24:19):
stable coins in a major win for the crypto market.
Joining us now, I'm really pleased to say, for a
first time here on Bloomberg TV, on Bloomberg surveyment's the
SEC Chairman, Paul Adkins.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
Chair Atkins. Welcome to the program, sir. It's good to
see it.
Speaker 6 (24:31):
Well, good to see you. Thank you very much for
having me.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Well, thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Before we get into it, I wanted to offer you
the opportunity, sir, to talk about your philosophy in this
seed versus what came before you and the difference maybe
between deregulation and just innovation.
Speaker 6 (24:46):
Well, well, thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (24:48):
We are out to, you know, obviously, change direction at
the SEC, and I think we've already done that here
in my first two and a half or so.
Speaker 6 (24:57):
Months of the agency. But we're moving away from.
Speaker 9 (25:02):
Regulation through enforcement and uncertainty in the markets, especially with
respect to cryptocurrencies and digital assets in general, and we're
looking to set firm clear rules of the road for
people who are operating in that environment so that innovators
can innovate. They can rely on their advisors to tell them,
(25:23):
you know, which is the right direction and how they
can build.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
On solid ground.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Regulators, though, can step in without explicit action from Congress.
So when it comes to cryptocurrencies in the SEC, what
actually comes next?
Speaker 6 (25:36):
What are your plans?
Speaker 9 (25:39):
Well, so even before I got to the SEC, Hester Purse,
who's one of the commissioners and she used to be
my counsel when I was a commissioner back in.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
To one thousand and two to two thousand and eight,
was in.
Speaker 9 (25:54):
Charge of a crypto task force that we're calling it,
and they are focusing on.
Speaker 6 (26:01):
Making clear rules for the industry.
Speaker 9 (26:03):
So for example, things like mean coins and stable coins
that was just the subject of the bill that was
passed yesterday are not securities, and before that was not
necessarily clear. And so that's an example of how we're
trying to put people at ease in the marketplace so
(26:24):
that they can innovate and they can move forward with
their plans and not have to look over their shoulder.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
When you were talking to reporters yesterday after the passing
of this legislation, I believe you'll be at the White
House today with the President when he signs it. You said,
the SEC is considering a quote innovative exemption from regulations
to incentifize tokenization. What does that exactly mean innovated exemption
and how long does this process take?
Speaker 9 (26:52):
Well, it'll be an iterative process.
Speaker 6 (26:54):
And right now we are working on setting forth.
Speaker 9 (27:01):
Different things that can again make it clear for people
in the marketplace, you know, which way is the true
north for them. Let's just say so that they don't
have to worry about falling off the ditch and you know,
falling into the ditch and getting in trouble with the regulators.
(27:21):
And so part of that will be working with our
colleagues of the other regulators and especially the Commodity Futures
Training Commission. But let's just say that as we go
forth and as we interact with the marketplace, we've had
five roundtables now looking at various aspects of the digital
asset space. So we are working hard at coming up
(27:44):
with guidance and rules and we'll use every tool in
our toolbox to help people understand what is you know,
how to stay out of trouble.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
Basically, Jack's one of the big concern is that a
number of the stable coin issue are are not going
to have the sufficient number of hard currency reserves on
hand to really back those notes in a way that
is as advertised. How are you prepared to really counter that?
Is that something that's in your list of concerns? If
the sec is going to be monitoring.
Speaker 9 (28:17):
Well, one thing that I think the new to be
signed a bill into law makes clear is that these
are not securities and the whole it's the banking regulators
who are going to be looking after them. And I
think that's appropriate because of the role that stable coins
play and I think will play in the future. Because
(28:38):
part of the role promise I think digital of a
distributed ledger technology is immediate payment as part of the
process of transactions, so settlement coming down to in effect
almost heapless zero and to do it on the trade date,
(29:00):
and that will make things much more efficient in the marketplace,
save money, reduced to risk in our financial system.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
So this stable coins.
Speaker 9 (29:09):
Are in the realm of the bank regulators and they
will look after to make sure that there is adequate
and as advertise, adequate backing.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
To the stable coins.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
Suakins just sort of switching gears a little bit. There's
been a lot of discussion around Congress and the President
passing legislation that would open the door for people to
take their money from the four to one case and
put it into private assets, in particular private equity. How
do you plan to oversee and make sure that that's
done in a way that isn't potentially punitive for people
(29:44):
who are retiring at ages where they need a lot
more money for.
Speaker 6 (29:47):
A lot longer.
Speaker 9 (29:50):
Well, on that issue, we've heard a lot of input
from both the investors who want access to private the
private markets and to those sorts of products, and obviously
from the people who are producing the products who are
about to meet that demand. So but we have to
(30:11):
do it carefully, I think, because of course the private
markets are a lot different than the public markets.
Speaker 6 (30:17):
Their liquidity is not the same.
Speaker 9 (30:19):
There are all sorts of things for people who are
not aware of the rules of the road where they
could get hurt. And so we will work very closely
with our counterparts of the Department of Labor who have
oversighted Ovarissa accounts to make sure that you know that
we have appropriate guidelines around these various products. And they're
(30:43):
really for of course long term investment, especially private equity
and things like that.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
So we have to do this in a smart way so.
Speaker 9 (30:51):
That individual investors are not inadvertently into something that they
didn't realize what they were getting into.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Speaking of, for one, okay, retirement plans, would you allow
crypto into retirement plans?
Speaker 6 (31:05):
Because the Financial Times is reporting that.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
We could see an executive order from the administration as
soon as today allowing alternative investments into retirement plans.
Speaker 9 (31:15):
Well, again, you know, I think that you know, disclosure
is key and that people need to know what they're
getting into. So things like that are not for everybody,
and and so especially in retirement plans.
Speaker 6 (31:29):
So we are I look forward.
Speaker 9 (31:32):
To whatever may come out from the President as far
as direction goes, but we are we need to address
it because there is a demand out there for these
sorts of products, and the government should not stand as
a blocking agent for those sorts of things. But we
(31:52):
need to enable it in the proper way, with proper
guidelines and in proper disclosures.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Sir Atkins, you run an independent agency.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
So to J.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Powell, I would love to know, are you under any
pressure from this White House? And what would be your
advice to J. Powell because it seems like you have
a better relationship with President Trump.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
Well, I think so.
Speaker 9 (32:12):
I've been at the SEC now this is a third time.
I was there in the early nineties and the Richard
Breeden and Arthur Levitt, and then again from two to
eight and now here in twenty and twenty five. So, frankly,
I don't see really any difference in operation from back
then to now.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
I know there's been a lot.
Speaker 9 (32:32):
Of coverage of that, but you know, we are working
hand in glove with our counterparts in the administration and
at the Office of Management and Budget and OIRA as
far as talking to them about rules and other things
that we are going to be publishing, so you know,
keeping them up to date, taking.
Speaker 6 (32:52):
Their comments, which are all very good.
Speaker 9 (32:54):
So I don't see any real difference, frankly in the
ambit of maneuver that we have at the agency. So
I'll look forward to achieving a lot in the time
that we have. And because there is so much to do,
this is what I like to call deferred maintenance.
Speaker 6 (33:13):
That we have to address.
Speaker 9 (33:14):
And so we are moving I think a very quick pace,
and so the rest of this year I think will
be churning things out in moving in a different direction.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Hopefully this is a start of an ongoing conversation. I
appreciate your time, Chair Ratkins. Thank you, sir, the SEC
Chair Paul Adkins there down in Washington, d C. So
I'm desire Franklin Templeton writing. The FMC is already envisioning
(33:46):
several fifty basis points of rate cuts this year, followed
by more next. I happen to disagree with the policy,
but I also think this confirms that the FED already
has a Dubvish bias. So I'll joined us now for more.
So now I just want to get into your thoughts
and why you stand on this rightcout debate at the moment,
Why don't you think a rate cut currently at least
is warranted?
Speaker 10 (34:07):
Okay, before I get to that, that statement misstated what
I was saying. And the FY and c OR sees
fifty basis points of rate cuts this year and several
rate cuts next still, and I think that is probably
not warranted. And really because the economy is kind of
doing fine. We've talked about this several clients in the past.
I happen to think that the neutral FED funds rate
(34:29):
is between four and four twenty five. We've talked about
this before, to and a quarter of inflation one point
seventy five or so of for productivity gains. Unless it
looks like recession is imminent, it's not clear to me
why the Fed should be cutting rates all the way
down to close to three percent in this environment. We
have become used to extremely low rates, and prior to
(34:52):
the global financial crisis, we had decades of rates being
more normalized, and that's why I don't think it's needed.
Speaker 5 (35:00):
So that said, a lot of people do expect the
FED to cut to that level that you're talking about,
and you're not seeing an unmoored level of inflation expectations
baked into the market, As Governor Chris Waller was just saying, so,
do you think that the market right now is underpricing
the potential for future inflation.
Speaker 10 (35:17):
I think it is, probably, And the point is the
future inflation that I see is probably not associated. Let
me be clear with tariffs for a number of reasons.
It's not just that they're one off. Frankly, tariffs don't
impact enough with the CPI basket to have a meaningful
impact on overall inflation. The real reason is fiscal policy
(35:37):
remains very loose, Monetary policy is not particularly tight, and
we aren't seeing unemployment do terrible things. Wages aren't doing
terrible things. This is an economy which remains in relatively
rude good health right now. And that's why I think
we aren't seeing the pressures what brings inflation down. Let
me turn it on its head and say, from its
(35:59):
current lets, which by the way, are fifty percent higher
than where the Fed needs needs inflation to be, what
brings inflation down? Well, I don't see very many factors.
Speaker 5 (36:09):
One thing that people argue is you are seeing I
don't know if it's cracks in a libor market, but
a sign that private employment really is coming down, and
you saw that really in the last lownfarm payrolls report,
which is.
Speaker 6 (36:20):
What Governor Roller was talking about.
Speaker 5 (36:22):
But you're hearing companies say this as well, that they
don't have the same kind of pricing power that they
did in the direct aftermath of the pandemic. So at
what point will that pushback that you're seeing from the
consumer act as a check and something that really is
consistent with what we're hearing from corporate executives.
Speaker 10 (36:41):
Once we see some more once we can hang a
bit more meat to that particular story, I'd say I
would agree. So far, it's a data point. It's a
few data points, and actually we've seen some very decent
corporate turnings as well. We've got yesterday's retail sales reads on.
So I really don't know that we're at the cusp
(37:05):
of something dramatic happening to this economy and getting clarity
on the fiscal front. Whether you like the bill or
hate the bill, we do have clarity from the bill
that actually is a corporate tail wind, not a headwind.
So I'm not yet prepared to say that we're getting
to a point of significant weakening of this economy.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
So does that mean to know that you're all in
on a high yield and you're shorting the thirty year.
Speaker 10 (37:32):
No, I'm aggresivebly neutral on rates in general, and I
am looking at if I think about all the different
factors which come into play, I think fair value for
you as ten years is actually probably around four seventy
five to five. Do we get there? It's not completely clear.
Weirdly enough, actually, after being concerned about fiscal for so long,
(37:53):
I think something that people might be underpricing is that
if tariffs go through anywhere close to the level we've
seen so far this year, we actually have an additional
source of revenue which has not been factored into anybody's calculations,
and it's quite substantial. Actually, you know, the clack of
revenue is just coming in, so there are lots of
fun and loans here. I think that the spreads we're
(38:14):
seeing on high yield are extremely tight. That's very clear.
I think you need to be very careful. So it's
not that I'm all in and just looking at this
and waiting for some volatility to continue to pick up interesting,
interesting credits in interesting places. I don't think you can
buy any indices, which you would do if you were
all in and spreads were enormously attracted.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
So you also think the markets are just overhyped. When
it comes to the controversy between Trump and Power, are
you willing.
Speaker 6 (38:41):
To close that door?
Speaker 10 (38:42):
Then?
Speaker 1 (38:43):
About the White House and Trump potentially firing him, you
just don't think it's going to happen at all.
Speaker 10 (38:48):
It's not a question of happening or not happening. I
don't think it matters, is my point. You would get
volatility if you fired fired Power for cause if some
of the controversy current controversy results in something meaningful, which
I'm doubtful about, but supposing it does, and supposing Powell
is fired, I would just note, what exactly is it
(39:12):
that we're all terrified about an enormously dubbish FED chair?
Can I ask everyone on the program today who was
our last hawkish FED chair? Let me tell you it
was Paul Volker. You have to go back fifty years. Yeah,
so let's not act as of getting a dukish Fed
chair is something none of us have ever encountered. I
(39:33):
give you Janet Yellen, I give you j Powell, who
actually did preside together with a supremely dubbish FED over
one of the biggest policy errors that we've seen in
a very long time. That policy error was not to
be overly hawkish, it was to be overly dubbish. So
I think when I say it's being overhyped, it is
(39:55):
this notion that somehow we're going to get someone truly
beyond the peale who is going to come and not
monetary policy completely. Of course, it's twelve members who get
to dissent or not to descent. I think that the
institution has a certain amount of credibility, and no incoming
(40:17):
FED chair, who, by the way, survives this administration and
whose term will run into the subsequent administration, would like
to have his legacy all under that footnote that Arthur
Burns has in the annals.
Speaker 3 (40:33):
Of the FED.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
You ever seen that scene of a bunch of football
fans watching the game and they score, and then all
the bears get thrown into the air. And now people
have put a different video in that screen and then
they throw the bears into the air.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
That was son old design. The big screen.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Start's going on that run about a fat reserve. All
the bears get thrown into the avone's going crazy.
Speaker 3 (40:50):
Yeah, that's very much.
Speaker 5 (40:51):
There was a fantastic, fantastic explanation and frankly history lesson.
Speaker 2 (40:55):
So now thank you someone designed there, Franklin, Sampertsent. This
is the bloomberg S Events Cast, bringing you the best
in markets, economics, and geopolitics. You can watch the show
live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify
or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
with Lisa Bromwitz and am Marie Hordern. Join us each
day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and
geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We
are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify
or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the
(00:33):
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. Peter Roppenheimer of
Goldman Sax, writing, while US fundamentals remain solid, the valuation
premium is increasingly difficult to justify. Peter joins us now
for more. Peter, Welcome to the program sir. Let's talk
about the valuation fredium and the why. The data this
week is good. The errings have been okay, We've got
an FMC slowly leaning towards a rake cut.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
What's not to like?
Speaker 4 (00:59):
Well, John, this is a relative rather than an absolute story.
You're right if interest rates are coming down, and we
think they are, and the economy continues to grow, if
even at a more moderate rate. Generally, that's a good
backdrop for risk assets and for equities, and the US
is no exception, particularly as it's increasingly again dominated by
(01:19):
its biggest tech stocks, which are generating really strong earnings growth.
But it's really the relative premium against other markets which
has reached a record high, which is harder to justify
when other markets are beginning to see their own tailwinds. Europe,
for example, is enjoying stronger growth. You know, we think
(01:40):
about last year, the US economy was growing at only
three percent, Germany was stagnant. By next year they'd likely
be growing at relatively similar rates, and yet the valuation
gaps are extremely wide, and that's an opportunity we think
to diversify.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
It is a question of.
Speaker 5 (01:59):
Where you diversify given the fact that a lot of
people are expressing it through the currency, and the currency
is having a balancing effect in so many ways, Given
the fact that it might actually be a tailwind for
US corporate earnings and a headwind for European ones, how
do you factor that into this equation.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
That's a very good point and absolutely right, and particularly
for the dominant tech stocks, which are very global in
terms of their revenue streams, and they have very strong
balance sheets. A week of dollar will help them.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
So that is.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
Good indeed for the dominant companies in the US, and
from an earning translation perspective, it's a headwind in Europe
or indeed Asia. But on the other hand, in terms
of flows, what we're beginning to see is more appetite
for US investors to spread their risks, to diversify, to
benefit from some currency gains that they may get in
(02:53):
cheaper markets like Europe or emerging markets for example. And
indeed it's also an increase incentive for investors in Europe
to keep more of their funds at home. So from
an earning translation perspective, it's a headwind in Europe, it's
a tailwind in the US. But from a diversification perspective
for investors, I think this is likely to encourage a
(03:17):
broader spread of assets than we've generally seen over the
last decade.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
How interest rate sensitive is a story at a time
where some people are talking about possibly an ECB cutting
rates more quickly than a FED, and then a question
of whether maybe the FED will cut rates just as
quickly in perhaps a different composition at the FED.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Well we're more mature through the interest rate cycle in Europe,
at least in the euro Zone, we're expecting one more
rate cut getting policy rates down to one on three quarters.
We think we have a series of rate cuts to
look forward to in the US to get policy rates
down to three to three in a quarter. What I
(04:00):
think is worth also emphasizing, though, is that while there
are prospects for bigger rate cuts from a higher level
in the US than perhaps in Europe, long term interest
rates are not really coming down, and that's a reflection,
of course, of concerns about debt sustainability and debt financing,
not just in the US but in other countries as well.
(04:20):
Bear in mind, in Germany, while we're getting these policy
rate cuts, long term interest rates are actually edging up
as it also finally increases its borrowing and fiscal spending,
which is good for growth, good for the ecty market,
but of course puts upward pressure on long term interest rates.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Peter, speaking of Germany, the Bundesbank president, today came out
and said that challenges to FED independence, which he calls
in the DNA the autonomy of good central banking, would
resonate beyond the shores of the United States. What kind
of impact could we see if we were to see
the President of United States get rid of Jpowe and
fire him in Europe or inside Asia and emerging markets.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Well, look, we shouldn't forget that independent central banks have
not always been the norm throughout history, and this was
something that really gained prominence in the nineteen nineties and beyond,
and of course that has helped both to bring down inflation,
to bring down inflation risk premia as investors have become
(05:27):
more confident instability, and we've brought down risk premia and
the cost of capital in general. I think anything that
challenges the independence of the central bank will be reflected
in high risk premia. But I think we're a long
way away from that. And as you've been saying in
your report, the conditions in the US are favoring interest
(05:48):
rate cuts. Anyway, we're getting into a more benign phase
of the cycle. After the big inflation rises that we
saw following the pandemic, unemployments edging up a little bit,
and there is room to cut rates. That's true in
the US, it's true across Europe, the UK and other
areas as well. And by the way, some weakness in
the dollar and interest rates coming down in the US
(06:10):
will resonate and be positive. I think beyond US shores
very beneficial, for example, for emerging markets also, which have
tended to lag behind over a long period of time.
So I think there's a long way. We're a long
way away yet from people really worrying about central bank independence.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Let's hope you're right, sir, it's going to catch out.
With Peter Roppenheimer, I've gone as SANX making the case
for a raid cup Fed Governor Chris Waller tannag an
audience here in New York. Looking across the soft and
hard data, I get a picture of a labor market
(06:52):
on the edge joining us now here in New York City,
the Federal Reserve Governor Chris Waller, Governor Walla.
Speaker 6 (06:57):
Good Monica, say, Henry, nice to be here.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
It's good to see you, sir. Let's talk about why
we're losing the luxury of white sink. Have we lost
that already?
Speaker 6 (07:06):
No? I think we have.
Speaker 7 (07:07):
Like I said last night, the headline numbers for the
lay remark what we're seeing are okay, But it's like
when you get underneath and start looking at the data,
the private sector is not doing as well as everybody thinks.
It is, like most of the half of the employment
growth we saw last month was in the public sector,
and that means the private sector is not doing particularly well.
(07:28):
So I was just joking that, you know, if you're
walking on a lake and the ice is frozen and
sound safe, but when you start hearing cracks, and that's
what I feel like, it's too late once you go
through the ice. So you've got to start prepping in
advance before you have that happen.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
How do you squan that with what we've had from
Corporate America so far, what Coporate America has told Lisa
sitting down with Skull Kebby, if you United headlines talking
about a rebound in the second half, what we've had
from the big banks so far this week, how do
you scamb what you'll see in the data, what we're
hearing from CEOs.
Speaker 7 (08:02):
Yeah, I mean when I talked to CEOs, I get
the same thing. We're in just hold pattern in terms
of certainly the labor market. They're not hiring, they're not firing,
they're just watching. And that's kind of what you see
in this underlying private sector data. There's not much happening,
so it wouldn't take much sort of tippet.
Speaker 6 (08:18):
Now, could I be wrong? Absolutely?
Speaker 7 (08:20):
I mean last year we got a couple of week
labor market reports allowed us to cut in September, and
then everything kind of reversed and went back up.
Speaker 6 (08:28):
So I'm not saying that couldn't happen again.
Speaker 7 (08:32):
But it's just we've constantly seen little bits of day
continually coming down the page book. Yesterday came out some
other stuff that we get out of the Joelts quits.
Speaker 6 (08:41):
Rates, hiring rates.
Speaker 7 (08:42):
So these things are not indicating a super healthy private
sector labor market.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
As you know, you're facing potentially and I stress, potentially
negative supply shels on both sides of the mandate. I
want to say, on the labor market, just for one
further night, immigration, how are you thinking about that when
you look at a labor market at the moment when
we have people coming on the program on Blindbecks event
and some bloomback TV every single morning six till nine
coming on here and saying look at the data, unemployment
(09:06):
could stand these levels even with jump gains of fifty
to one hundred thousand because of tightst immigration. How does
that factor into your thinking as you look at the
US slip amoun kit.
Speaker 7 (09:15):
Well, yeah, the labor market doesn't necessarily have to be
affected by it because if workers flow in and they
get jobs at roughly the same rate as the existing workers,
the unemployment rate doesn't change even though the labor force
is higher. And when they go back out, the same
thing happens. If they leave the employment and leave the
labor force, you don't see a big change. The inflationing
now can potentially affect the break even rate that.
Speaker 6 (09:38):
You would need to have the market going well.
Speaker 7 (09:41):
And that's why we're still trying to kind of get
a sense of because you basically brought five years of
immigration forward and you know, of that eight or nine million,
most of them haven't disappeared. So they're still here somewhere,
whether they're going to work, they're not going to work,
but they're still here. I don't where I think the
immigration stuff. If immigration it was a big factory, you'd
be seeing shortages and you might see some in you know,
(10:04):
some industries. But like I pointed out that if you
look at the new college graduate unemployment rate, it's seven percent, it's.
Speaker 6 (10:13):
Much higher than it has These are not.
Speaker 7 (10:15):
Jobs are being opened up because immigrants are not coming in.
That it should be just the opposite, if immigrants are
leaving and these jobs are open, and then the ounemployment
right should go the other way. So that unemployment rate,
to me, is telling me the immigration is not the
source of the problem.
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Firms are just.
Speaker 7 (10:32):
Holding off on hiring decisions even if their earnings are
doing well.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
That's That's just what I'm saying they're doing on the
labor side.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
I wanted to sign as a mutual friend of Oance.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
That feels like he's missing out this morning, so I
wanted to catch show with you as well.
Speaker 7 (10:42):
Now he's out Victor Idom always having a good time,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
My McKay joined us now, Good one to Mike.
Speaker 8 (10:50):
Good morning John, and good morning Governor Waller. I would say,
I'm sorry I'm not there with you, But I bet
you're sorry you're not here with me. I know you
got it.
Speaker 6 (10:57):
I've been there before. It's a nice place.
Speaker 8 (11:01):
You've made the case now a couple of times for
a July rate cut, But how committed are you? Are
you willing to dissent at this meeting if the majority
votes the other way.
Speaker 7 (11:11):
Well, I never want to commit to an action before
the meeting. Otherwise, if everybody committed before, you don't even
need to have the meeting have a discussion. So the
goal is to always go to the meeting, sit down,
listen to all sides.
Speaker 6 (11:24):
People will try to convince me of their view.
Speaker 7 (11:26):
I'll try to convince some of my views, and in
the end of the day, you make the decisions on
what you think is the right outcome and the right data,
how the data is coming in and right now I
laid out my case last I don't think I could
be any more clear, I hope, as to what my
position is and why I think we need to do this.
It's just how I read the data and how I
(11:47):
think about going forward. How you respond to anything that
involves tariffs.
Speaker 8 (11:53):
There's a lot of politics in this decision coming up,
more than usual, and I'm wondering. Governor Bowman has also
suggested she would prefer a rate cut in July. If
two of you vote for a rate cut, if two
of you were to descend, would you worry about the
market reaction to that?
Speaker 6 (12:13):
You know.
Speaker 7 (12:13):
One of the things that has always bothered me since
I took this job is the criticism that we are
nothing but group think. All the meanings are the same,
nobody does sense, nobody does anything, And I think this
is healthy. I think this is a turning point in
the way we want to think about policy. Some people
don't want to cut, some do want to cut, but
coming out and making the case either side, that's good
(12:36):
healthy debate. Otherwise, if we're always going to do the same,
the joke is, why don't you just have one person
set policy and some of the other eighteen FMC members home.
So this is healthy. I think this is what you
want to see in a democracy. You want to see
policy makers have serious, open discussion about where policies should go.
It doesn't mean anything about politics or anything else. Is
make the economic argument and then see if you can
(12:57):
convince others to go along with you.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
And that's all I'm trying to do.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
We totally agree with you for the re code. We
was sick of the grief think and it's good to
have descent, you know. Mike essentially is asking if you
will descent at the end of this month. Is there
value and dissentic on the f web site.
Speaker 7 (13:11):
Well, I mean it's it's often the case that you dissent,
if you make it very clear you think, at this
moment in time, this is an important thing to do.
If you were to go in and do kind of
a jihadist I'm gonna dissent at every single meeting no
matter what happens.
Speaker 6 (13:26):
Then you don't even have to show up. Everybody knows
what you're gonna do.
Speaker 7 (13:29):
So it is important to make sure that if you dissent,
you do it carefully and you have the right reasons,
and it's not gonna turn into a serial dissenting potential case.
I mean, that's how I take my job seriously and responsibly,
so I only would think about doing this. I dissented
on the balance sheet slowed down earlier this year because
(13:50):
I felt like that was not needed. And that's kind
of the situation we're in now.
Speaker 8 (13:59):
Uh, if you do cut, the markets will go one way.
If you don't, they'll go another. Perhaps, are how critical
is it to get to a rate cut fairly quickly?
You've mentioned the danger to the labor market, But if
you do wait till September, is that going to be
too late?
Speaker 7 (14:18):
Well that's kind of the debate. What does it mean
to wait six weeks. Is it that critical? And the
answer is probably not. It could be, but it's also
the reverse. Why wait till September? If it's just six weeks,
that's exactly the thing. It doesn't kind of matter. Just
start thinking about do I want to wait and risk
something happening. This is what we saw last summer. By
(14:40):
the way we left July, we left rates and then boom,
we got a very weak bad labor market. Reports and
unemployment rate jumped two tenths. Payrolls were way down from
where they were, and people were screaming at us last August.
You guys should have cut in July. So one month?
Can it always is one month? Just remember that it's
(15:01):
just one month. But we live in a world in
which we have to respond to real time data to
kind of sense of where the economy is going. And
I've always said, if you worry about long and variable lags,
which everybody always talks about, the whole point of that is.
Speaker 6 (15:14):
To get ahead of it, not wait for it to happen.
Speaker 7 (15:16):
And then hike a policy action that takes quarters or
months down the road to actually.
Speaker 6 (15:21):
Have any impact.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
The new worries tariffs, We've just had a six minute
conversation with you at that month. As your policy if
built a case for lot of interest rights and no
one's talked about trade or inflation. Two assumptions in your
speech yesterday, and I think they are important assumptions. A
large share of tariff increases won't be past threates consumers.
Any increase would fink over the next yeeroside. What data
underpinds that conclusion.
Speaker 7 (15:42):
Well, one, it's just first, it's just economic theory. So
you put on a care as long as it's a
one time tariff, and that's it. That's a one time
price effect. I mean, this is economic theory. You could
not get in any serious economic model persistent inflation from that.
You would have to look up some other amplification mechanisms,
(16:02):
and that's what people talk about. Wages will start going
up and everything will get out of control.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
You're not seeing that at all.
Speaker 7 (16:08):
This is just not those kind of amplification mechanism there.
Wage price spirals aren't happening. Tariffs are attacks, and in
public finance you learn that you may levy attacks on
a firm, but who bears the incidents?
Speaker 6 (16:22):
The burden of that tax.
Speaker 7 (16:24):
Can be a group of people or one person, not
shore of the firm. So this is what I've heard
from a lot of firms. If there's a ten percent tax,
they'll force their suppliers to eat some of that cost
workers meet some of that costs in terms of less
hiring and things like that. The firm will take it
out of their profit margins, and then lastly, some of
it will get passed on. And as I mentioned last night,
(16:47):
I've heard this for months now. Like the rule is
ten percent, it's sorefully rule. If i'mb is a third
to third a third suppliers of late to third firms
lead to third consumer is going to eat a third
of that tariff. So if you eat a third of it,
and that's ten percent, like I've been arguing, this is
like three tenths of a in three basic three tenths
on the inflation rate for a few months, and that's it,
(17:10):
and it'll persist. If you do twelve month over twelve month,
that base effect will not go away for a while
and then it'll just drop off a cliff. So that's
why I've been arguing, you want to look at like
three months and six months to see if these tariff effects.
Speaker 6 (17:22):
Pop up, and then go away, and so that's more
than critical. We're looking at twelve month.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
Yes, but the way the president is putting these tariffs
on might not match up with theory. Chris, the smooth
hol attacks was passed and came into effect on a
certain date. The president is not yet put on most
of these tarffs they're in. Theory is still coming and
we still haven't seen the Section two thirty two tariffs
for the most part, the National defense tariffs that he
(17:50):
wants to put on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, et cetera. So
if the process is stretched out, consumers could be hit
by a series an ongoing series of tariff increases. And
given what they've just been through, isn't there danger that
inflation psychology starts to seep in?
Speaker 6 (18:06):
Well, that's exactly the point.
Speaker 7 (18:08):
All my example has been is if you put the
ten percent uniform tariff on and keep it roughly in
that range, than what I've described as will happen. If
there's constantly a sequence of higher and higher and higher tariffs,
then you are going to get this rolling potential impact
on prices.
Speaker 6 (18:24):
That's true.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
If it's still just a question of delaying it, that
doesn't change my argument. Whether you see the spike in
July or it happens in June or Army, August or September.
When it happens is irrelevant for the economics.
Speaker 6 (18:40):
That's a non start of an argument.
Speaker 7 (18:43):
Firms could also just spread it out in smaller increments
over several months. The total effects still ends of being
the same. They just get there in a later fashion
and it'll be smaller amounts. So the bigger thing is
if we just continually get another wave of tariffs, another
wave of tariffs and other waves of tariffs, that's when
things has become more problematic thinking about what's going to
happen with the inflation.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
You don't think the feder was a should wait, I
just want to talk about the experience of last year.
I think LESA has done a fantastic job of covering
this over the last six seven eight months. The move
we saw last year one hundred basis point reduction in
interest rates on Fed funds, and then we saw a
corresponding move one hundred basis points higher at the long
end of the yield curve. Yields down did not happen.
(19:23):
It was yields up and mortgage costs up as well.
How do you think one informed the other and how
might that shape your approach to kind of interest rates
this time around?
Speaker 7 (19:32):
Well, I think last September there was a lot of
Remember the long term rates were going down through August
in early September. This was not any contradiction of what
we were doing. It's just after the September meeting that
data just came back and the opposite way growth was
productivity was employment suddenly took back off, and then you
have real growth expectations being much higher. We were seeing
(19:55):
productivity growth and GDP growth are close to three percent.
So in that case, long rates go up anyway, So
it's not necessarily there was some counter reaction to what
we were doing. I never saw inflation expectations adjust. It
caused all that.
Speaker 2 (20:08):
You don't think it was a market questioning you'll commitment
to the inflation mandate.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
If it would have been, you're just seeing in inflation
expectations in the market, not the Michigan thing.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
But we didn't see it.
Speaker 7 (20:18):
I mean, inflation expectations stayed praily anchored all through this rise.
So I think the increase the longer it was just
all the data was coming in for a better, stronger economy.
Then we thought it was going to be in September.
That's fine with me, you know. I sometimes you're going
to do these things taking a shot that I want
to make sure we don't have.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
A hard landing.
Speaker 7 (20:37):
And as I said, with any kind of an insurance cut,
sometimes you don't need the insurance.
Speaker 6 (20:42):
It didn't work.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Out, But that doesn't mean you go back and say, oh,
that was a stupid decision.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
To make market bysed expectations of inflation. Let's say on
this there are clear and obvious threats to the central
banks independence right now, every single down this program, we're
quoting the President, quoting the chairman too late and govern
off the lower interest rights. Kaway that you and I
can have this conversation without addressing those those coasts directly
is to think about what's happening with inflection expectations. Did
(21:07):
these threats threats into deanca market based inflection expectations? And
it's not something even the Committee might become increasingly sensitive
too in the months to come.
Speaker 7 (21:18):
Well, like I said, I look at the after the
tariffs coming on, everybody was worried about de anchoring the expectations,
particularly after some of these Michigan surveys came out. When
I always look at the market based expectation because money
people have money in the game, firms are making decisions
or what they're cheap economists are saying, and if those
things are wrong, they're gonna lose a lot of money.
Speaker 6 (21:38):
So I've always paid more attention.
Speaker 7 (21:39):
I haven't seen much in the way of market expectations
being unanchored in any ways you want to measure them
any forwarder.
Speaker 6 (21:46):
Now.
Speaker 7 (21:46):
In the near term, of course, they might go up
because you would see inflation in the short term, but
in the longer term ones I'm not seeing it. So
either the market is just dismissing all of this as
chattering noise, or at some point is something happens such
that it becomes much more serious than you might see
a discreete jump, and then that's gonna be a problem
(22:07):
for everybody.
Speaker 8 (22:12):
One of the questions that we get all the time, Chris,
from people on Wall Street is or one of the
posits they make is that all this criticism of the
FED is hurting FED credibility, and that the next chairman
is going to have a tough job because there are
going to be expectations for the next chairman set by
the White House rather than by the economy. Do you
(22:35):
feel that inside the building now?
Speaker 6 (22:38):
To be absolutely honest, we just do our job.
Speaker 7 (22:40):
Every day I go in, I just focus on my
work on monetary policy, payments.
Speaker 6 (22:47):
And oversight of the reserve banks. That's what I do.
Speaker 7 (22:50):
I let this stuff go and then just try to
focus on my job. And I think that's how all
of us are proceeding with this. I mean, at the
end of the day, the president winning whoever they you're
going to have to have somebody has credibility with the
markets or you will see as Jonathan was just talking about,
and you're going to see inflation expectations bike. You will
not get lower interest rates, you will get higher interest rates.
Speaker 6 (23:10):
This is well known.
Speaker 7 (23:11):
We've seen this everywhere around the world when this happens,
and I know Scott Doson knows this, So this is
not something that is lost on anybody.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
You've been nominated by this president for the seat on
the board. Yes, you were a previously director of research
for Jim Bill out White back then. Is it a
position you would like is it something you would like
to do in the future.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
Look in twenty nineteen, the President contact me and say
would you serve?
Speaker 6 (23:36):
And I said yes. If the President contacted me and
so I want you to serve, I would do it.
But he's not contacting me.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
What say he does.
Speaker 7 (23:46):
If he says, Chris, I want you to do the job,
I'll say yes.
Speaker 6 (23:50):
But he's not talking to me. So that's it.
Speaker 7 (23:52):
That much hypothetical that.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
That might change. It's going to see it.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
We appreciate your time, all right, I've been very generous
with Thank you very much. The Federal Reserve governor there,
Christopher Waller, Mike McKee, thanks as well to you, sir.
As always, Congress passing the first federal legislation to regulate
(24:19):
stable coins in a major win for the crypto market.
Joining us now, I'm really pleased to say, for a
first time here on Bloomberg TV, on Bloomberg surveyment's the
SEC Chairman, Paul Adkins.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
Chair Atkins. Welcome to the program, sir. It's good to
see it.
Speaker 6 (24:31):
Well, good to see you. Thank you very much for
having me.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Well, thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Before we get into it, I wanted to offer you
the opportunity, sir, to talk about your philosophy in this
seed versus what came before you and the difference maybe
between deregulation and just innovation.
Speaker 6 (24:46):
Well, well, thank you very much.
Speaker 9 (24:48):
We are out to, you know, obviously, change direction at
the SEC, and I think we've already done that here
in my first two and a half or so.
Speaker 6 (24:57):
Months of the agency. But we're moving away from.
Speaker 9 (25:02):
Regulation through enforcement and uncertainty in the markets, especially with
respect to cryptocurrencies and digital assets in general, and we're
looking to set firm clear rules of the road for
people who are operating in that environment so that innovators
can innovate. They can rely on their advisors to tell them,
(25:23):
you know, which is the right direction and how they
can build.
Speaker 6 (25:26):
On solid ground.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Regulators, though, can step in without explicit action from Congress.
So when it comes to cryptocurrencies in the SEC, what
actually comes next?
Speaker 6 (25:36):
What are your plans?
Speaker 9 (25:39):
Well, so even before I got to the SEC, Hester Purse,
who's one of the commissioners and she used to be
my counsel when I was a commissioner back in.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
To one thousand and two to two thousand and eight,
was in.
Speaker 9 (25:54):
Charge of a crypto task force that we're calling it,
and they are focusing on.
Speaker 6 (26:01):
Making clear rules for the industry.
Speaker 9 (26:03):
So for example, things like mean coins and stable coins
that was just the subject of the bill that was
passed yesterday are not securities, and before that was not
necessarily clear. And so that's an example of how we're
trying to put people at ease in the marketplace so
(26:24):
that they can innovate and they can move forward with
their plans and not have to look over their shoulder.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
When you were talking to reporters yesterday after the passing
of this legislation, I believe you'll be at the White
House today with the President when he signs it. You said,
the SEC is considering a quote innovative exemption from regulations
to incentifize tokenization. What does that exactly mean innovated exemption
and how long does this process take?
Speaker 9 (26:52):
Well, it'll be an iterative process.
Speaker 6 (26:54):
And right now we are working on setting forth.
Speaker 9 (27:01):
Different things that can again make it clear for people
in the marketplace, you know, which way is the true
north for them. Let's just say so that they don't
have to worry about falling off the ditch and you know,
falling into the ditch and getting in trouble with the regulators.
(27:21):
And so part of that will be working with our
colleagues of the other regulators and especially the Commodity Futures
Training Commission. But let's just say that as we go
forth and as we interact with the marketplace, we've had
five roundtables now looking at various aspects of the digital
asset space. So we are working hard at coming up
(27:44):
with guidance and rules and we'll use every tool in
our toolbox to help people understand what is you know,
how to stay out of trouble.
Speaker 5 (27:55):
Basically, Jack's one of the big concern is that a
number of the stable coin issue are are not going
to have the sufficient number of hard currency reserves on
hand to really back those notes in a way that
is as advertised. How are you prepared to really counter that?
Is that something that's in your list of concerns? If
the sec is going to be monitoring.
Speaker 9 (28:17):
Well, one thing that I think the new to be
signed a bill into law makes clear is that these
are not securities and the whole it's the banking regulators
who are going to be looking after them. And I
think that's appropriate because of the role that stable coins
play and I think will play in the future. Because
(28:38):
part of the role promise I think digital of a
distributed ledger technology is immediate payment as part of the
process of transactions, so settlement coming down to in effect
almost heapless zero and to do it on the trade date,
(29:00):
and that will make things much more efficient in the marketplace,
save money, reduced to risk in our financial system.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
So this stable coins.
Speaker 9 (29:09):
Are in the realm of the bank regulators and they
will look after to make sure that there is adequate
and as advertise, adequate backing.
Speaker 6 (29:21):
To the stable coins.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
Suakins just sort of switching gears a little bit. There's
been a lot of discussion around Congress and the President
passing legislation that would open the door for people to
take their money from the four to one case and
put it into private assets, in particular private equity. How
do you plan to oversee and make sure that that's
done in a way that isn't potentially punitive for people
(29:44):
who are retiring at ages where they need a lot
more money for.
Speaker 6 (29:47):
A lot longer.
Speaker 9 (29:50):
Well, on that issue, we've heard a lot of input
from both the investors who want access to private the
private markets and to those sorts of products, and obviously
from the people who are producing the products who are
about to meet that demand. So but we have to
(30:11):
do it carefully, I think, because of course the private
markets are a lot different than the public markets.
Speaker 6 (30:17):
Their liquidity is not the same.
Speaker 9 (30:19):
There are all sorts of things for people who are
not aware of the rules of the road where they
could get hurt. And so we will work very closely
with our counterparts of the Department of Labor who have
oversighted Ovarissa accounts to make sure that you know that
we have appropriate guidelines around these various products. And they're
(30:43):
really for of course long term investment, especially private equity
and things like that.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
So we have to do this in a smart way so.
Speaker 9 (30:51):
That individual investors are not inadvertently into something that they
didn't realize what they were getting into.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Speaking of, for one, okay, retirement plans, would you allow
crypto into retirement plans?
Speaker 6 (31:05):
Because the Financial Times is reporting that.
Speaker 1 (31:06):
We could see an executive order from the administration as
soon as today allowing alternative investments into retirement plans.
Speaker 9 (31:15):
Well, again, you know, I think that you know, disclosure
is key and that people need to know what they're
getting into. So things like that are not for everybody,
and and so especially in retirement plans.
Speaker 6 (31:29):
So we are I look forward.
Speaker 9 (31:32):
To whatever may come out from the President as far
as direction goes, but we are we need to address
it because there is a demand out there for these
sorts of products, and the government should not stand as
a blocking agent for those sorts of things. But we
(31:52):
need to enable it in the proper way, with proper
guidelines and in proper disclosures.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Sir Atkins, you run an independent agency.
Speaker 4 (31:59):
So to J.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Powell, I would love to know, are you under any
pressure from this White House? And what would be your
advice to J. Powell because it seems like you have
a better relationship with President Trump.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
Well, I think so.
Speaker 9 (32:12):
I've been at the SEC now this is a third time.
I was there in the early nineties and the Richard
Breeden and Arthur Levitt, and then again from two to
eight and now here in twenty and twenty five. So, frankly,
I don't see really any difference in operation from back
then to now.
Speaker 6 (32:31):
I know there's been a lot.
Speaker 9 (32:32):
Of coverage of that, but you know, we are working
hand in glove with our counterparts in the administration and
at the Office of Management and Budget and OIRA as
far as talking to them about rules and other things
that we are going to be publishing, so you know,
keeping them up to date, taking.
Speaker 6 (32:52):
Their comments, which are all very good.
Speaker 9 (32:54):
So I don't see any real difference, frankly in the
ambit of maneuver that we have at the agency. So
I'll look forward to achieving a lot in the time
that we have. And because there is so much to do,
this is what I like to call deferred maintenance.
Speaker 6 (33:13):
That we have to address.
Speaker 9 (33:14):
And so we are moving I think a very quick pace,
and so the rest of this year I think will
be churning things out in moving in a different direction.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
Hopefully this is a start of an ongoing conversation. I
appreciate your time, Chair Ratkins. Thank you, sir, the SEC
Chair Paul Adkins there down in Washington, d C. So
I'm desire Franklin Templeton writing. The FMC is already envisioning
(33:46):
several fifty basis points of rate cuts this year, followed
by more next. I happen to disagree with the policy,
but I also think this confirms that the FED already
has a Dubvish bias. So I'll joined us now for more.
So now I just want to get into your thoughts
and why you stand on this rightcout debate at the moment,
Why don't you think a rate cut currently at least
is warranted?
Speaker 10 (34:07):
Okay, before I get to that, that statement misstated what
I was saying. And the FY and c OR sees
fifty basis points of rate cuts this year and several
rate cuts next still, and I think that is probably
not warranted. And really because the economy is kind of
doing fine. We've talked about this several clients in the past.
I happen to think that the neutral FED funds rate
(34:29):
is between four and four twenty five. We've talked about
this before, to and a quarter of inflation one point
seventy five or so of for productivity gains. Unless it
looks like recession is imminent, it's not clear to me
why the Fed should be cutting rates all the way
down to close to three percent in this environment. We
have become used to extremely low rates, and prior to
(34:52):
the global financial crisis, we had decades of rates being
more normalized, and that's why I don't think it's needed.
Speaker 5 (35:00):
So that said, a lot of people do expect the
FED to cut to that level that you're talking about,
and you're not seeing an unmoored level of inflation expectations
baked into the market, As Governor Chris Waller was just saying, so,
do you think that the market right now is underpricing
the potential for future inflation.
Speaker 10 (35:17):
I think it is, probably, And the point is the
future inflation that I see is probably not associated. Let
me be clear with tariffs for a number of reasons.
It's not just that they're one off. Frankly, tariffs don't
impact enough with the CPI basket to have a meaningful
impact on overall inflation. The real reason is fiscal policy
(35:37):
remains very loose, Monetary policy is not particularly tight, and
we aren't seeing unemployment do terrible things. Wages aren't doing
terrible things. This is an economy which remains in relatively
rude good health right now. And that's why I think
we aren't seeing the pressures what brings inflation down. Let
me turn it on its head and say, from its
(35:59):
current lets, which by the way, are fifty percent higher
than where the Fed needs needs inflation to be, what
brings inflation down? Well, I don't see very many factors.
Speaker 5 (36:09):
One thing that people argue is you are seeing I
don't know if it's cracks in a libor market, but
a sign that private employment really is coming down, and
you saw that really in the last lownfarm payrolls report,
which is.
Speaker 6 (36:20):
What Governor Roller was talking about.
Speaker 5 (36:22):
But you're hearing companies say this as well, that they
don't have the same kind of pricing power that they
did in the direct aftermath of the pandemic. So at
what point will that pushback that you're seeing from the
consumer act as a check and something that really is
consistent with what we're hearing from corporate executives.
Speaker 10 (36:41):
Once we see some more once we can hang a
bit more meat to that particular story, I'd say I
would agree. So far, it's a data point. It's a
few data points, and actually we've seen some very decent
corporate turnings as well. We've got yesterday's retail sales reads on.
So I really don't know that we're at the cusp
(37:05):
of something dramatic happening to this economy and getting clarity
on the fiscal front. Whether you like the bill or
hate the bill, we do have clarity from the bill
that actually is a corporate tail wind, not a headwind.
So I'm not yet prepared to say that we're getting
to a point of significant weakening of this economy.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
So does that mean to know that you're all in
on a high yield and you're shorting the thirty year.
Speaker 10 (37:32):
No, I'm aggresivebly neutral on rates in general, and I
am looking at if I think about all the different
factors which come into play, I think fair value for
you as ten years is actually probably around four seventy
five to five. Do we get there? It's not completely clear.
Weirdly enough, actually, after being concerned about fiscal for so long,
(37:53):
I think something that people might be underpricing is that
if tariffs go through anywhere close to the level we've
seen so far this year, we actually have an additional
source of revenue which has not been factored into anybody's calculations,
and it's quite substantial. Actually, you know, the clack of
revenue is just coming in, so there are lots of
fun and loans here. I think that the spreads we're
(38:14):
seeing on high yield are extremely tight. That's very clear.
I think you need to be very careful. So it's
not that I'm all in and just looking at this
and waiting for some volatility to continue to pick up interesting,
interesting credits in interesting places. I don't think you can
buy any indices, which you would do if you were
all in and spreads were enormously attracted.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
So you also think the markets are just overhyped. When
it comes to the controversy between Trump and Power, are
you willing.
Speaker 6 (38:41):
To close that door?
Speaker 10 (38:42):
Then?
Speaker 1 (38:43):
About the White House and Trump potentially firing him, you
just don't think it's going to happen at all.
Speaker 10 (38:48):
It's not a question of happening or not happening. I
don't think it matters, is my point. You would get
volatility if you fired fired Power for cause if some
of the controversy current controversy results in something meaningful, which
I'm doubtful about, but supposing it does, and supposing Powell
is fired, I would just note, what exactly is it
(39:12):
that we're all terrified about an enormously dubbish FED chair?
Can I ask everyone on the program today who was
our last hawkish FED chair? Let me tell you it
was Paul Volker. You have to go back fifty years. Yeah,
so let's not act as of getting a dukish Fed
chair is something none of us have ever encountered. I
(39:33):
give you Janet Yellen, I give you j Powell, who
actually did preside together with a supremely dubbish FED over
one of the biggest policy errors that we've seen in
a very long time. That policy error was not to
be overly hawkish, it was to be overly dubbish. So
I think when I say it's being overhyped, it is
(39:55):
this notion that somehow we're going to get someone truly
beyond the peale who is going to come and not
monetary policy completely. Of course, it's twelve members who get
to dissent or not to descent. I think that the
institution has a certain amount of credibility, and no incoming
(40:17):
FED chair, who, by the way, survives this administration and
whose term will run into the subsequent administration, would like
to have his legacy all under that footnote that Arthur
Burns has in the annals.
Speaker 3 (40:33):
Of the FED.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
You ever seen that scene of a bunch of football
fans watching the game and they score, and then all
the bears get thrown into the air. And now people
have put a different video in that screen and then
they throw the bears into the air.
Speaker 3 (40:44):
That was son old design. The big screen.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Start's going on that run about a fat reserve. All
the bears get thrown into the avone's going crazy.
Speaker 3 (40:50):
Yeah, that's very much.
Speaker 5 (40:51):
There was a fantastic, fantastic explanation and frankly history lesson.
Speaker 2 (40:55):
So now thank you someone designed there, Franklin, Sampertsent. This
is the bloomberg S Events Cast, bringing you the best
in markets, economics, and geopolitics. You can watch the show
live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify
or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.