December 10, 2025 • 30 mins
Bloomberg's Tom Keene and Lisa Abramowicz break down the Federal Reserve's latest policy decision on a special edition of Bloomberg Surveillance.
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 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
This is a breaking news update from Bloomberg instant reaction
and analysis from our three thousand journalists and analysts around
the world.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
The most divided FED since before the pandemic voted to
lower the benchmark rate by twenty five basis points, as
investors expected, but there were three descents for the first
time since twenty nineteen, and on the dot plot, a
total of six members of the committee suggested they were
not in favor of lowering rates. There's also a hawkish
line in the statement in considering the extent and timing
(00:42):
of additional adjustments to the target range, bringing back language
from a year ago when they paused their first round
of rate cuts. No surprise, Stephen Myron wanted a half
point reduction, but in something of a surprise, Austin Gouldsby
joined Jeffrey Schmid in dissenting for no cut at all.
Dot plot suggests just one cut coming. Seven members want
(01:04):
no move, however, including three who think the rate might
go up. The committee statement says economic activity has been
expanding at a moderate pace and the latest forecasts show
a consensus GDP figure of one point seven percent for
this year, but in a big move up. They have
revised growth forecasts for twenty twenty six to two point
(01:26):
three percent. Unemployment forecasts to finish this year at four
and a half percent will fall back to four point
four percent next year. Using identical language from October, the
statement says job gains have slowed this year and the
unemployment rate has edged up through September. Nodding to the
government's shutdown caused absence of data, the statement repeats that
(01:47):
more recent indicators are consistent with these developments. There's no
change in the inflation assessment. It has moved up since
earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated. However, it
is seen slowing market next year. PCE headline from two
point nine percent this year to two point four percent
in twenty twenty six, and as always, they won't reach
(02:08):
their two percent target for two more years. In twenty
twenty eight, core PCE will finish the year at three percent,
falling to two and a half percent next year. As
for the balance sheet, the statement now says reserve balances
have declined to ample levels. The Fed will buy shorter
term treasuries, mostly bills, but up to three year notes
(02:29):
as needed to maintain that ample supply. The first operation
will be announced tomorrow, with the first purchases on a
Friday of approximately forty billion dollars in treasury bills.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Guys, Michael McKee, stay close as we parse through this.
Right now, what you see in markets is a collective cheer.
Perhaps this was supposed to be a hawkish cut. The
market is taking it slightly differently, as MPPI had been lower.
Now it is positive by almost two tounts of percent.
Euro dollar euro climbing dollar falling on the heels of
what does seem to be like more FED cuts, and
(03:01):
across the board tuesd tens, and thirties, you are seeing
a bid into bonds with this feeling that this is
a FED that not only is going to support rates
with further rate cuts, but also with additional bond purchases time.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
To me, the most interesting nuance here is the descent
of the gentleman from Chicago. This is brilliant academics out
of Milton Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Austin
Goulesby is basically our technology president. He's wired into the Internet,
wired into the computers and I'd love to know if
his descent has to do with the vibrancy of AI
(03:35):
which leads to a better productivity, a better GDP. Let's
be careful what we do.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Yeah, right now we're looking at nine votes, four and
three descents. Bob Michael of JP Morgan with us here,
what's your first reaction of this decision?
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Not as bad as it could have been. There could
have been a lot more descents in favor of rate cuts.
When we look at things like PCE. We expected they
would lower core PCE by a tenth. They did that.
They left the unemployment rate for next year roughly where
it was last year. They did raise their expectation of
(04:11):
GDP a couple of tenths from where it was. So
to me, that seems to be, if you want to
call it, a hawkish tilt, the one hawkish tilt, and
of course, adding the extent and timing of additional adjustments
to rate policy going forward, that was pretty much in
the market. So I think, mostly as the market expect
(04:32):
and nowhere near as bad as the market feared.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
So not maybe as hawkish of a cut as people
thought it might have been. Joining us now, as Jim
Bianco of Bianco Research. Jim, what's your first reaction to
this decision, which, as Bob was saying, isn't as bad
as it could have been. It could have been four
decents or five descents, only three decents. Is this a
victory for Jerome Powell.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
It's a victory for Jerome. But I'll take the other side, Bob.
I'll say that it's not as good as it could
have been. I was hoping for a seven to five vote.
I was hoping for FED that was more divided, that
was more independent, that was going to send a message
to the administration. You could put a guy in that
wants to go to one percent, but he's not going
to bully us to cut rates next year just because
(05:13):
he's the FED chairman. They kind of left the door open.
I think that the FED can be bullied by the
next FED chairman to do the bidding of President Trump.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Bobby, you were saying that you wanted to respond, not
as good as it could have been with more descents.
Speaker 6 (05:28):
I think if you're the administration and you're invested in
this market, this is pretty much as good as it
could have been. Other than no descents, I'm not sure
how additional descents make this better?
Speaker 5 (05:40):
Well, McKey descent at the press conference.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Well, let's find out, Mike, you were parsing through this,
you've got something to add? What do you see?
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Yeah, Well, the point I'd like to make is that
the SEP shows that growth is going to pick up
significantly next year, unemployment is going to go down, and
inflation is going to go down significantly next year. So
what was the rush to cut rates today if they
think that's the track that we're on. I think that's
going to be a key question for JPOW in the
news conference. Does this raise the possibility that they could
(06:09):
be going the wrong direction with rates? There were some
people who made that case before we went into today's meeting,
and they're going to be still raising questions about it
going forward.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Michael McKee, thank you so much. We will be catching
up with you and of course listening to your questions. Jim,
this is something that is near and dear to your heart,
as you call yourself a self dove inflationista, do you
think that this really adds to that inflationary pressure if
the FED essentially is accepting that they're not going to
get down to their inflation target for six seven potentially
even eight years.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I agree. I think that the FED has to be
very worried about that. We're worried about affordability right now.
The CPI is up twenty seven percent since the end
of COVID, and that's what people are upset about. How
do we fix that. We need the inflation rate to
run below two percent for a while so that wages
can catch up. If the inflation rate is going to
at three and moderate to two and a half, that
(07:02):
is going to keep the affordability anger white hot over
the next year to year and a half or so.
And so I don't think that accommodating that by cutting
interest rates is going to help. And that's the question
I hope the chairman gets is, how are you helping
affordability with one hundred and seventy five bases points of
cuts in the last fourteen months.
Speaker 5 (07:21):
Jim, We've got to review the past. Here you were
a leader on saying that inflation would be sticky. It
was a lonely call years and years ago, and Bianco
of Chicago said, you know what, folks were not falling
down to two percent. So here we are, Jim Bianco,
I just want to know the efficacy Jim Bianco where
he says in the press conference, basically, one and done.
(07:42):
We made a rate cut. Maybe we will have a
sequence of future rate cuts, but we really really now
have to wait and see what the data says. Isn't
that where we are Jim Bianco, Well, that's if that's
what he says.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
And again, what I was trying to say before is
if the chairman imitates that it's one and done, he's
a chairman's running the show. And in May we're going
to have a handpicked successor from Donald Trump running the show.
And we know what Trump thinks about it illustrates and
that person's going to want to have lower rates. But
if he does say that, then maybe the market will
take it a little bit differently. And we'll see if
(08:19):
he does. But most of the times he'll just say
he's going to be data dependent, and it depends on
what the data is.
Speaker 5 (08:24):
This is an important ving at folks that I think
just so valuable. I'm in a room with Axel Weber,
Sharkawa of Japan, the wonderful John Lipski with all of
his work on New York Wall Street, many other worries.
Tomahonig was there from Kansas City and the room fell silent,
Bob Michael when they talked about the next regime of
(08:45):
the FED and the risk here that it would be
cut cut, cut cut. Is that a legitimate fear that
the next chairman and the apparatus will allow us to
go towards some regime of new lo low rates.
Speaker 6 (08:58):
Well, I think you have to look at which FED
presidents are coming onto the FOMC next year, and they're
mostly in the hawkish cap. So whoever you put in
as the FED chair has to be very persuasive. And
I guarantee you the President isn't looking to appoint the
next Paul Vulker. They're looking to appoint someone who believes
(09:22):
in supply side economic.
Speaker 5 (09:23):
And Lisa, this is critical, This is absolutely critical. That
we have an analog here with the Bank of England
that over time has told the Governor of the Bank
of Inland and their chairman equivalent, no, we're not in agreement,
We're not going to do it. Is that what our
twenty twenty seven looks like.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Part of the problem is people get overwhelmed by the
state of events, and this is something that you talk
about a lot, and Jim, I'd love your thoughts on
that this idea, that this is a FED that is
now buying bonds once more, buying notes once more, and
they're doing so because of reserves issues and really technical
considerations for the market. They don't want another repo freak
out at this point, though, it does indicate a structural
(10:00):
issue with how much debt is out there, the government
deficit that's not going down, and a question of the
Fed's role. Are they being forced to monetize the debt
in a way that will keep them artificially easy if
you're just going off the economic outlook, I.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Think they are at least being force to acknowledge fiscal dominance,
that the fiscal situation is important. Basically, the funding market,
the repo market, which funds the thirty eight trillion dollar
treasury market, is too small. It's too small because the
Fed has been doing QTE and reducing reserves. Those interest
rates report rates have been going up. Now. One answer
(10:35):
could be to tell Congress you can't spend as much money,
you can't run as big a deficit because the funding
markets can't handle that size of a market. But if
the FED wants to elect to, let's expand the funding
markets to meet the size of the bond market. You're
telling Congress, go ahead, spend more money, run bigger deficits.
We've got your back. We'll continue to expand that funding
(10:56):
market to meet those goals. And the biggest driver of
inflation will over the last couple of years, other than
the supply shock that we had in twenty one, has
been government spending. And they seem to be encouraging more
government spending.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
Bob, do you agree with that, absolutely, one hundred percent.
But it doesn't change the fact that that's what's occurring
and the markets responding to that. I look at everything
that just happened in the last few minutes, and you know,
everyone got what they wanted. Those hawks on the Fed
that didn't want to see a rate cut, they got that.
(11:31):
When you look at the Fed futures market, we had
two rate cuts priced for next year, midyear, and the
end of the year. Now there's only one price for
next year and it's in the fourth quarter. So you
got what you wanted. You got the market moving away
from being in a rate cutting regime going forward. But
if you look at the doves on the Fed, if
(11:54):
you think about the administration, they got what they wanted.
They got another twenty five basis point take and off
of base rates, and the markets responding positively to that.
It's rare that everyone gets what they wanted out of
an FOMC meeting.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Jim, I love your comments on that, this idea that
everyone wins. If you do have monetization of the debt, yes,
you do have ongoing fiscal spending, yes, but that helps
support the markets. And we're not seeing runaway inflation, so
what's the problem.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
We're going to get a new FED chairman, that's the
big issue. And the new FED chairman is going to
be perceived to be having a political agenda, and you
were hoping that the current members of the FOMC were
going to act as an independent break on a political
agenda that was coming in. And that's why I wanted
to see more dissents to be signal that they were ready,
(12:43):
willing and able to be that political break. Now maybe
they will once we get that new FED chairman, but
then that looks political that they didn't take the chance
to do it before the new guy came.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Jim Bianco, thank you so much, as always for your insights.
This really is going to be the debate. How does
fedhair J. Powell position himself and position the FMC is
being politically independent at a time that's highly politically charged.
We hear every single day about the FED share from
this president.
Speaker 5 (13:08):
The redo of independence is the core issue, particularly of
the heritage of the fedback to nineteen fifty one, and
it's under threat, no question about that. It'd be interesting
to see if the President gives way. Is Bob Michael
mentioned the FT article today talking about well maybe it
isn't one hundred percent or ninety percent, doctor Hassett, and
you get to a point where there's a renewed debate.
(13:28):
We'll have to see on that. To me, it's a
Chicago FED meeting. We had Goulesby dissenting, which is a
shock in itself, and have Jim Bianco with this is wonderful.
Diane Swank owns the high ground of Middle America with
kp MG. She's not out of three zip codes in
Manhattan and joins us this afternoon. I look Diane at
this moment, and when I see Goulesby's descent, and it's
(13:52):
sents me a Chicago descent. It's a descent of productivity.
Do we have any idea with this new AI that
we have a new productivity that will allow for a
better real GDP, a more effective and efficient America.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
We don't know that yet. What we do know is
that productivity growth has moved up, and that's because firms
are doing more with less. We don't know that it's
all from AI. We haven't seen enough adoption of AI
yet to get there. And also what we don't know
is how AI will be used, whether or not we'll
see a lot of new jobs from this new innovation.
That's usually what we see from innovation. Somealy, that's not
(14:33):
what Silicon Valley is telling us at this point in time.
And also it matters who the gains of the AI
actually accrue to. If those productivity gains continue to accrue
to the owners of capital instead of workers, workers are
going to feel left behind, and they're already feeling left
behind because of the fact that the level of prices,
as Jin pointed out, is just too high. Even if
(14:56):
inflation were to cool from here, the level of prices
are still too hot.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
Lisa, I set up that question because I knew what
doctor Swank would say. Who's going to be the winner
of productivity? Who are going to be the winners out there,
and that's the ultimate political tension.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
Which is the reason why the fed's role in this
is getting increasingly politicized. And i'd love your tech take
on how this FED is taking into account productivity gains
of AI and talking about goldilocks, because essentially that is
the scenario that they laid out in their statement of
economic projections.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Well, the Goldilock scenario really requires with productivity growth it
to be broad based. And actually people always forget this
part of it. If productivity growth, they raise their growth
rates for next year. If productivity growth is driving gains
in overall economic growth, it means we can actually have
higher break evens on the FED funds rate because the
(15:52):
economy can grow more rapidly without having to lower rates.
And I think that's important as well. And so we've
really not seen all this yet and I think it's
still ahead of us. I am worried about the fact
that we're getting fiscal stimulus in the form of the
largest tax refunds surge on record in the first and
second quarter we'll hit between March and May, and we
(16:14):
know that those tax refunds are treated like windfall gains
due to the expansions of tax cuts passed in July
of last year. They're retroactive to beginning of twenty twenty five,
and that's going to be a big bump in fiscal
stimulus at a time when we're still feeling the inflation
from both tariffs and changes in immigration policy, and I
(16:36):
think that's really important. We're seeing service sector inflation pick
up as well.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
If that's the case, dine, why are not forward break
even rates rising substantially. I was looking just now at
the five year five year forward break even rates, and
they actually went down after this FED decision, not up,
even though exactly what you're saying, if you do believe
that there will be something additional fiscal stimulus that would
be inflationary, you would think that this rate decision would
only encourage those inflation fears.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
I don't think. I think we've seen some of it
in financial markets already. The fact that it's not happening
today doesn't mean it won't happen. And we've already seen
some nervousness in the bond market, skidtishness about the size
of debt that they have to absorb, the mega merger
deals that are coming out that are also financed by debt.
All of that together along with the fact that we're
(17:25):
now going to see in twenty twenty six, the government
debt is going to eclipse the size of the economy.
It has not done that since World War Two, and
so we're moving into new territory, and I think a
lot of things people are sort of looking at the
way the world was rather than what's changing, and things
are changing very rapidly.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
If you are just joining us. We did get that
FEDER rate decision. They did lower by twenty five basis
points as widely as expected, nine to three vote three descents.
The news really is that Austin Goolsby joined FED the
Fed Schmidt in dissenting saying that they should not lower rates,
who of course had Stephen Myron, a FED governor, talking
about a fifty basis point cut dissenting on the other side.
(18:07):
Not as many descents as people had expected. The Fed
did revert back to what we saw in the October statement,
using language used just before pausing rate cuts, so potentially
the last FED rate cut for a long time by
this chair. J.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Powell.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
I'm just wondering, Bob, if you think that right now
this market is saying they are okay to do this,
that the data that is available really doesn't signal that
this cut and then maybe one more next year really
is going to be inflationary.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
Well, I think that's what the market's hoping for. I
think there are a lot of businesses that we invest
in where we do see the productivity gains from AI already.
We also know within our own bank there are significant
productivity gains, so some of that is already out there.
The unfortunate price reset from pre COVID levels to today
(18:59):
is also a problem. I get that, but that's damp
and aggregate final demand. What do we want going forward?
Do we want the disinflation we seem to be in
and what the FED is projecting, or do we want
deflation where prices come down. I would argue we still
want disinflation, and hopefully there will be a point in
(19:19):
time in the not too distant future where wage growth
and the trend in disinflation will normalize prices again. But
all of that still is a headwind to consumption, so
businesses are very careful how much cost increases they push through.
Speaker 5 (19:34):
Now, can I do a counterfactual, please, Diane Swank if
we got a fifty beep Myron cut, what would happen
to the American economy now? With the financialization of the
American system, If you gave us a fifty beep cut now,
it'd be a veritable banking explosion, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
It would certainly add a lot more stimulus to what
we're already seeing. And stimulus is heat. Heat is inflation
unless you can really get all those offsets from AI
in the right places. And I think that's the hard
part is the old economy is where the tariffs are
hitting the hardest in manufacturing activity, and we are seeing
(20:16):
it come through in prices. And we're also seeing labor
shortages even as the labor market weekends in pockets where
immigrants have dominated. That's showing up in prices as well.
In Howmelda Care childcare costs all soaring. That was just
in September, and those shortages have only gotten worse since then.
Speaker 5 (20:35):
Lisa, two twenty twenty. I looked at the clock right
when Diane Swank said tariffs one. First time we got
the tariffs was twenty minutes into the show. For most
of our audience, tariffs are a big deal they're affecting
their groceries, their healthcare, everything in the service sector as well.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
Yeah, plastic Christmas trees fifteen to twenty percent higher because
of tariffs. There you go. So this also is.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
A real Christmas tree of fake okay Christmas tree.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
It's so increasing the real ones because of other people.
Diane Swank, Well, let you stay out of this conversation.
Thank you so much for being with us. Joining us
now for this conversation, not this conversation. Matt Lazetti of
Deutsche Bank with us as you typically do before the
FED press conference. Matt, just first, what's your impression nine
to three? Is this what you thought would happen.
Speaker 7 (21:20):
Yeah, to be honest, I think in terms of the statement,
the SEP, the descent, so I think it was very
much in line with expectations. You know, certainly there was
scope to get greater descents from a hawker's direction than
what we got. I think for regional FED presidents potentially
Governor Barr was also leaning against this cut, but we
always thought that it was the job of chair pal
through the statement the language change that we got there.
(21:42):
But then I think coming up through the press conference
signals that he sends to try to rein in some
of those descents to have a hawkers message that allows,
you know, those officials to speak through that. And so
I think we probably got that as well. You know,
you're seeing markets respond by taking rates down. I don't
think that's really anything that we saw in the statement
or the SEP or the descent. I think it really
was the FED ramping up reserve management purchases, these T
(22:04):
bill purchases a little bit earlier than was expected.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
Matt Lazetti Binki Chada is high on the street looking
at the equity markets. He says, the stock market's going
to go up, up, up. How do you attach Lizzetti
economics to bankram Chada's huge equity outlook?
Speaker 7 (22:22):
Yeah, I think you know the good thing about how
we do it here, it's internally consistent. So I think
Binkie takes our economic growth forecasts are global economic growth forecasts,
and builds that into his earning projections. We have two
point four percent growth for the Yose economy over the
next year. That was sounding I think, quite bullish relative
to consensus expectations. But I would note the FED median
(22:43):
forecast came up to two point three percent today, I
think was revised higher than what many anticipated and is
now much closer to our own expectations. So I think
these two things are mutually reinforcing. We see a stronger
growth backdrop, we see financial conditions easing through Binkie's equity channel,
and those two things reinforcing each other over the next year.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Matt, your other colleague Jim Reid, put out a provocative
question earlier this morning, saying, what if the next FED
move was up? At what point do you think that
the move that the Fed is laying out really sets
up that counter factual in a more real way.
Speaker 7 (23:18):
Yeah, certainly a provocative question, and I think over the
next year we are getting more questions about that, and
I think it's more coming from the global sphere. At
this point. You're seeing places like the RBA turn a
little bit more hawkish. There's questions about the ECB Bank
of Canada seeing stronger economic data as of late. For
the FED specifically, though, I think you need two things
(23:39):
to happen. One, you have to have a clear elimination
of downside risks to the labor market. We are not
there yet. There's still some fragility in this labor market
over the next several months, perhaps by the end of
next year, we could get there. And two, you need
the labor market to return as a source of inflationary pressure,
so you need the unemployment rate to decline, quits rate
to move higher, and wage growth to accelerate. It's possible.
(24:00):
I think you are seeing a substantial reduction and labor
supply in the US economy. I think if you were
to add on even more physical stimulus, So if we
were to get these two thousand dollars stimulus checks from
the Trump administration, I think that's the type of dynamic
where that could really shift the debate. People would begin
to think a little bit more actively about rate cuts
in the US. But to be clear, I don't think
(24:21):
we are there. Our baseline expectation is the next move
is a cut.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Bob, What do you think. What do you think it
would take for the Fed's next move or a move
next year to be a rate hike and not a cut.
Speaker 6 (24:32):
Well, I think you'd have to see the fiscal stimulus
from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act hit and accelerate
business investment and consumer spending. You'd have to see a
labor shortage resulting from that then you'd have to see
a wage price spiral. Maybe you'll see that in the
second quarter, But right now, the FED thread at the needle.
(24:54):
Can't we just enjoy this into the holiday sees I
you know us.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
That's the smartest thing i've today. That's the smartest thing
I've heard in Powell's opiniata. I get that. But the
bottom line is we have a prosperous economy for the halves.
Let's not upset that apple cart while everyone well meaning
tries to help people that are struggling so much. I mean,
that's threading the needle right now, is what we're doing.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
Well, Yes, but let's not forget that. The One Big
Beautiful Bill Act also has no taxes on tips, over
time social Security payments. A lot of those are concentrated
in the bottom couple quintiles of earners, so there should
be some relief coming there.
Speaker 5 (25:40):
Where's your lack of conviction? That was Eddie on an
outlooking off of this FED meeting today. Where's the question
of your conviction in the next year? What are you
most worried about?
Speaker 7 (25:52):
Yeah, I think in the very near term is that
the labor market dynamic, which is this fragile equilibrium with
low hiring and low firing breaks to the downside, they
begin to see layoffs pick up. I really don't think
we see that evidence as of yet, but it's a
real risk over the next several months. I think over
the course of twenty twenty six, I think there's some
risks to the upside here. You know, as Bob mentioned,
(26:13):
on the fiscal side, the stimulus checks that have been
floated not part of our baseline, but would be a
very real upside risk. And then I think we just
can't put the side these risks around FED independence. And
you know we heard Treasure Secretary best In talking about
regional FED president and we have to go through those votes.
And you have a Supreme Court case for Lisa Cook
coming up early next year. So there, I think that
(26:35):
there are a lot of risks associated with it from
a FED independence perspective. Inflation risk potentially to come along
end of the bond market also at risk potentially from that.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
Matt, we have about three and a half minutes before
the press conference begins. From your perspective, what's the one
question you have for FED Shair J.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Powell.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
Potentially at the last FED cut that he oversees.
Speaker 7 (26:56):
Yeah, I think it's a little bit around the language
that they introduced into the late market, into the statement
how are we to think about that? Is that clearly
sending a signal that there's a much higher bar in
the near term. I also would ask him, are you
internalizing what could be a very weak jobs report next
week in today's decision. I think that's a really important
thing for the market. I think the Fed would probably
(27:18):
want to take out some of the sensitivity to next
week's data. I think one of the reasons that chairpal
wanted to push this great cut through was an expectation
you could see some weakness there. My expectation is next
week's data is going to be volatile. They are really
putting more weight on the December jobs report in early
January and the data we're going to get early next
year in that assessment. But I'd like to get confirmation
of that from the chair today.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
Matt Zetti, thank you as always for your time, and
I look forward to hearing what you think after the
FED conference. This is an important point. How much is
this in some ways forecasting that December sixteenth jobs report
that we should have already had. It should have been
sort of one two punch for last Friday. We got
the November jobs report, they took that data into hand,
and then this meeting they respond to it.
Speaker 6 (28:00):
Bob, Yeah, I think you can go back to September
and say, this is another risk management adjustment to policy,
that there are some signs of a soft labor market.
You're far away from what you're forecasting as your neutral rate.
Why not take another twenty five basis points off of that.
(28:21):
It will help corporate America. I'll get a lot of
questions in the next few days. Does twenty five basis
points actually do anything. Let's remember most of corporate America
are small and middle market businesses. Think of a fifty
million dollar EBAA company, they generally have seven times levers.
They've got three hundred and fifty million dollars worth of
debt on top of fifty million in IBADA. It helps
(28:43):
them a lot. It helps stabilize middle market corporate America significantly.
Speaker 5 (28:48):
If we say it's an original meeting, we've got to
stagger to the next meeting. It will be wiser, we'll
have data and all that. But as Lisa mentioned at
the top of the show, the political overlay here is extraordinary.
What did JP Morgan's Washington experts say about the politics
of January?
Speaker 6 (29:08):
Well, the question I would want to ask pal is
were there only three descents or was there a considerable
amount of bargaining to go from five descents to three descents?
And was that in the statement? And then you ratcheted
it up GDP half a percent from where you were
at the last summary of economic projections. His answers to
(29:31):
questions like that will tell you how politically influenced the
current Federal Reserve Board is.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
That was a fantastic question, and I hope that he
guts asked that we really look to understand just what
kind of clutch the Fed share holds over this committee.
Bob Michael as always, thank you so much for being
with us for all this time. Truly always one of
the absolute best. Right now in markets a collective sigh
of relief. It could have been a lot worse. That
is sort of the message coming from it. The S
(29:57):
and P up a tenth of a percent, NASDAK still
suffering a little bit down to tens of a percent, suffering,
I say, still near our all time highs. And the
Russell two thousand, seeing that pop up six tens of
a percent, which you are seeing in the bond space twos,
tens and thirties. Is this lift to a bond price
down and yield as people expect to see some sort
of bond purchases as well as a rate cut coming
(30:18):
in next year, it really seems to me that Jay
Powell really has the chance to split the difference.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
I'll have to see. I'm going to watch some bond vigilantes.
I think they're in the press conference as well.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
This is a breaking news update from Bloomberg instant reaction
and analysis from our three thousand journalists and analysts around
the world.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
The most divided FED since before the pandemic voted to
lower the benchmark rate by twenty five basis points, as
investors expected, but there were three descents for the first
time since twenty nineteen, and on the dot plot, a
total of six members of the committee suggested they were
not in favor of lowering rates. There's also a hawkish
line in the statement in considering the extent and timing
(00:42):
of additional adjustments to the target range, bringing back language
from a year ago when they paused their first round
of rate cuts. No surprise, Stephen Myron wanted a half
point reduction, but in something of a surprise, Austin Gouldsby
joined Jeffrey Schmid in dissenting for no cut at all.
Dot plot suggests just one cut coming. Seven members want
(01:04):
no move, however, including three who think the rate might
go up. The committee statement says economic activity has been
expanding at a moderate pace and the latest forecasts show
a consensus GDP figure of one point seven percent for
this year, but in a big move up. They have
revised growth forecasts for twenty twenty six to two point
(01:26):
three percent. Unemployment forecasts to finish this year at four
and a half percent will fall back to four point
four percent next year. Using identical language from October, the
statement says job gains have slowed this year and the
unemployment rate has edged up through September. Nodding to the
government's shutdown caused absence of data, the statement repeats that
(01:47):
more recent indicators are consistent with these developments. There's no
change in the inflation assessment. It has moved up since
earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated. However, it
is seen slowing market next year. PCE headline from two
point nine percent this year to two point four percent
in twenty twenty six, and as always, they won't reach
(02:08):
their two percent target for two more years. In twenty
twenty eight, core PCE will finish the year at three percent,
falling to two and a half percent next year. As
for the balance sheet, the statement now says reserve balances
have declined to ample levels. The Fed will buy shorter
term treasuries, mostly bills, but up to three year notes
(02:29):
as needed to maintain that ample supply. The first operation
will be announced tomorrow, with the first purchases on a
Friday of approximately forty billion dollars in treasury bills.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
Guys, Michael McKee, stay close as we parse through this.
Right now, what you see in markets is a collective cheer.
Perhaps this was supposed to be a hawkish cut. The
market is taking it slightly differently, as MPPI had been lower.
Now it is positive by almost two tounts of percent.
Euro dollar euro climbing dollar falling on the heels of
what does seem to be like more FED cuts, and
(03:01):
across the board tuesd tens, and thirties, you are seeing
a bid into bonds with this feeling that this is
a FED that not only is going to support rates
with further rate cuts, but also with additional bond purchases time.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
To me, the most interesting nuance here is the descent
of the gentleman from Chicago. This is brilliant academics out
of Milton Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Austin
Goulesby is basically our technology president. He's wired into the Internet,
wired into the computers and I'd love to know if
his descent has to do with the vibrancy of AI
(03:35):
which leads to a better productivity, a better GDP. Let's
be careful what we do.
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Yeah, right now we're looking at nine votes, four and
three descents. Bob Michael of JP Morgan with us here,
what's your first reaction of this decision?
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Not as bad as it could have been. There could
have been a lot more descents in favor of rate cuts.
When we look at things like PCE. We expected they
would lower core PCE by a tenth. They did that.
They left the unemployment rate for next year roughly where
it was last year. They did raise their expectation of
(04:11):
GDP a couple of tenths from where it was. So
to me, that seems to be, if you want to
call it, a hawkish tilt, the one hawkish tilt, and
of course, adding the extent and timing of additional adjustments
to rate policy going forward, that was pretty much in
the market. So I think, mostly as the market expect
(04:32):
and nowhere near as bad as the market feared.
Speaker 4 (04:34):
So not maybe as hawkish of a cut as people
thought it might have been. Joining us now, as Jim
Bianco of Bianco Research. Jim, what's your first reaction to
this decision, which, as Bob was saying, isn't as bad
as it could have been. It could have been four
decents or five descents, only three decents. Is this a
victory for Jerome Powell.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
It's a victory for Jerome. But I'll take the other side, Bob.
I'll say that it's not as good as it could
have been. I was hoping for a seven to five vote.
I was hoping for FED that was more divided, that
was more independent, that was going to send a message
to the administration. You could put a guy in that
wants to go to one percent, but he's not going
to bully us to cut rates next year just because
(05:13):
he's the FED chairman. They kind of left the door open.
I think that the FED can be bullied by the
next FED chairman to do the bidding of President Trump.
Speaker 4 (05:22):
Bobby, you were saying that you wanted to respond, not
as good as it could have been with more descents.
Speaker 6 (05:28):
I think if you're the administration and you're invested in
this market, this is pretty much as good as it
could have been. Other than no descents, I'm not sure
how additional descents make this better?
Speaker 5 (05:40):
Well, McKey descent at the press conference.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Well, let's find out, Mike, you were parsing through this,
you've got something to add? What do you see?
Speaker 3 (05:46):
Yeah, Well, the point I'd like to make is that
the SEP shows that growth is going to pick up
significantly next year, unemployment is going to go down, and
inflation is going to go down significantly next year. So
what was the rush to cut rates today if they
think that's the track that we're on. I think that's
going to be a key question for JPOW in the
news conference. Does this raise the possibility that they could
(06:09):
be going the wrong direction with rates? There were some
people who made that case before we went into today's meeting,
and they're going to be still raising questions about it
going forward.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Michael McKee, thank you so much. We will be catching
up with you and of course listening to your questions. Jim,
this is something that is near and dear to your heart,
as you call yourself a self dove inflationista, do you
think that this really adds to that inflationary pressure if
the FED essentially is accepting that they're not going to
get down to their inflation target for six seven potentially
even eight years.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I agree. I think that the FED has to be
very worried about that. We're worried about affordability right now.
The CPI is up twenty seven percent since the end
of COVID, and that's what people are upset about. How
do we fix that. We need the inflation rate to
run below two percent for a while so that wages
can catch up. If the inflation rate is going to
at three and moderate to two and a half, that
(07:02):
is going to keep the affordability anger white hot over
the next year to year and a half or so.
And so I don't think that accommodating that by cutting
interest rates is going to help. And that's the question
I hope the chairman gets is, how are you helping
affordability with one hundred and seventy five bases points of
cuts in the last fourteen months.
Speaker 5 (07:21):
Jim, We've got to review the past. Here you were
a leader on saying that inflation would be sticky. It
was a lonely call years and years ago, and Bianco
of Chicago said, you know what, folks were not falling
down to two percent. So here we are, Jim Bianco,
I just want to know the efficacy Jim Bianco where
he says in the press conference, basically, one and done.
(07:42):
We made a rate cut. Maybe we will have a
sequence of future rate cuts, but we really really now
have to wait and see what the data says. Isn't
that where we are Jim Bianco, Well, that's if that's
what he says.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
And again, what I was trying to say before is
if the chairman imitates that it's one and done, he's
a chairman's running the show. And in May we're going
to have a handpicked successor from Donald Trump running the show.
And we know what Trump thinks about it illustrates and
that person's going to want to have lower rates. But
if he does say that, then maybe the market will
take it a little bit differently. And we'll see if
(08:19):
he does. But most of the times he'll just say
he's going to be data dependent, and it depends on
what the data is.
Speaker 5 (08:24):
This is an important ving at folks that I think
just so valuable. I'm in a room with Axel Weber,
Sharkawa of Japan, the wonderful John Lipski with all of
his work on New York Wall Street, many other worries.
Tomahonig was there from Kansas City and the room fell silent,
Bob Michael when they talked about the next regime of
(08:45):
the FED and the risk here that it would be
cut cut, cut cut. Is that a legitimate fear that
the next chairman and the apparatus will allow us to
go towards some regime of new lo low rates.
Speaker 6 (08:58):
Well, I think you have to look at which FED
presidents are coming onto the FOMC next year, and they're
mostly in the hawkish cap. So whoever you put in
as the FED chair has to be very persuasive. And
I guarantee you the President isn't looking to appoint the
next Paul Vulker. They're looking to appoint someone who believes
(09:22):
in supply side economic.
Speaker 5 (09:23):
And Lisa, this is critical, This is absolutely critical. That
we have an analog here with the Bank of England
that over time has told the Governor of the Bank
of Inland and their chairman equivalent, no, we're not in agreement,
We're not going to do it. Is that what our
twenty twenty seven looks like.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Part of the problem is people get overwhelmed by the
state of events, and this is something that you talk
about a lot, and Jim, I'd love your thoughts on
that this idea, that this is a FED that is
now buying bonds once more, buying notes once more, and
they're doing so because of reserves issues and really technical
considerations for the market. They don't want another repo freak
out at this point, though, it does indicate a structural
(10:00):
issue with how much debt is out there, the government
deficit that's not going down, and a question of the
Fed's role. Are they being forced to monetize the debt
in a way that will keep them artificially easy if
you're just going off the economic outlook, I.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Think they are at least being force to acknowledge fiscal dominance,
that the fiscal situation is important. Basically, the funding market,
the repo market, which funds the thirty eight trillion dollar
treasury market, is too small. It's too small because the
Fed has been doing QTE and reducing reserves. Those interest
rates report rates have been going up. Now. One answer
(10:35):
could be to tell Congress you can't spend as much money,
you can't run as big a deficit because the funding
markets can't handle that size of a market. But if
the FED wants to elect to, let's expand the funding
markets to meet the size of the bond market. You're
telling Congress, go ahead, spend more money, run bigger deficits.
We've got your back. We'll continue to expand that funding
(10:56):
market to meet those goals. And the biggest driver of
inflation will over the last couple of years, other than
the supply shock that we had in twenty one, has
been government spending. And they seem to be encouraging more
government spending.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
Bob, do you agree with that, absolutely, one hundred percent.
But it doesn't change the fact that that's what's occurring
and the markets responding to that. I look at everything
that just happened in the last few minutes, and you know,
everyone got what they wanted. Those hawks on the Fed
that didn't want to see a rate cut, they got that.
(11:31):
When you look at the Fed futures market, we had
two rate cuts priced for next year, midyear, and the
end of the year. Now there's only one price for
next year and it's in the fourth quarter. So you
got what you wanted. You got the market moving away
from being in a rate cutting regime going forward. But
if you look at the doves on the Fed, if
(11:54):
you think about the administration, they got what they wanted.
They got another twenty five basis point take and off
of base rates, and the markets responding positively to that.
It's rare that everyone gets what they wanted out of
an FOMC meeting.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Jim, I love your comments on that, this idea that
everyone wins. If you do have monetization of the debt, yes,
you do have ongoing fiscal spending, yes, but that helps
support the markets. And we're not seeing runaway inflation, so
what's the problem.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
We're going to get a new FED chairman, that's the
big issue. And the new FED chairman is going to
be perceived to be having a political agenda, and you
were hoping that the current members of the FOMC were
going to act as an independent break on a political
agenda that was coming in. And that's why I wanted
to see more dissents to be signal that they were ready,
(12:43):
willing and able to be that political break. Now maybe
they will once we get that new FED chairman, but
then that looks political that they didn't take the chance
to do it before the new guy came.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Jim Bianco, thank you so much, as always for your insights.
This really is going to be the debate. How does
fedhair J. Powell position himself and position the FMC is
being politically independent at a time that's highly politically charged.
We hear every single day about the FED share from
this president.
Speaker 5 (13:08):
The redo of independence is the core issue, particularly of
the heritage of the fedback to nineteen fifty one, and
it's under threat, no question about that. It'd be interesting
to see if the President gives way. Is Bob Michael
mentioned the FT article today talking about well maybe it
isn't one hundred percent or ninety percent, doctor Hassett, and
you get to a point where there's a renewed debate.
(13:28):
We'll have to see on that. To me, it's a
Chicago FED meeting. We had Goulesby dissenting, which is a
shock in itself, and have Jim Bianco with this is wonderful.
Diane Swank owns the high ground of Middle America with
kp MG. She's not out of three zip codes in
Manhattan and joins us this afternoon. I look Diane at
this moment, and when I see Goulesby's descent, and it's
(13:52):
sents me a Chicago descent. It's a descent of productivity.
Do we have any idea with this new AI that
we have a new productivity that will allow for a
better real GDP, a more effective and efficient America.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
We don't know that yet. What we do know is
that productivity growth has moved up, and that's because firms
are doing more with less. We don't know that it's
all from AI. We haven't seen enough adoption of AI
yet to get there. And also what we don't know
is how AI will be used, whether or not we'll
see a lot of new jobs from this new innovation.
That's usually what we see from innovation. Somealy, that's not
(14:33):
what Silicon Valley is telling us at this point in time.
And also it matters who the gains of the AI
actually accrue to. If those productivity gains continue to accrue
to the owners of capital instead of workers, workers are
going to feel left behind, and they're already feeling left
behind because of the fact that the level of prices,
as Jin pointed out, is just too high. Even if
(14:56):
inflation were to cool from here, the level of prices
are still too hot.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
Lisa, I set up that question because I knew what
doctor Swank would say. Who's going to be the winner
of productivity? Who are going to be the winners out there,
and that's the ultimate political tension.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
Which is the reason why the fed's role in this
is getting increasingly politicized. And i'd love your tech take
on how this FED is taking into account productivity gains
of AI and talking about goldilocks, because essentially that is
the scenario that they laid out in their statement of
economic projections.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Well, the Goldilock scenario really requires with productivity growth it
to be broad based. And actually people always forget this
part of it. If productivity growth, they raise their growth
rates for next year. If productivity growth is driving gains
in overall economic growth, it means we can actually have
higher break evens on the FED funds rate because the
(15:52):
economy can grow more rapidly without having to lower rates.
And I think that's important as well. And so we've
really not seen all this yet and I think it's
still ahead of us. I am worried about the fact
that we're getting fiscal stimulus in the form of the
largest tax refunds surge on record in the first and
second quarter we'll hit between March and May, and we
(16:14):
know that those tax refunds are treated like windfall gains
due to the expansions of tax cuts passed in July
of last year. They're retroactive to beginning of twenty twenty five,
and that's going to be a big bump in fiscal
stimulus at a time when we're still feeling the inflation
from both tariffs and changes in immigration policy, and I
(16:36):
think that's really important. We're seeing service sector inflation pick
up as well.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
If that's the case, dine, why are not forward break
even rates rising substantially. I was looking just now at
the five year five year forward break even rates, and
they actually went down after this FED decision, not up,
even though exactly what you're saying, if you do believe
that there will be something additional fiscal stimulus that would
be inflationary, you would think that this rate decision would
only encourage those inflation fears.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
I don't think. I think we've seen some of it
in financial markets already. The fact that it's not happening
today doesn't mean it won't happen. And we've already seen
some nervousness in the bond market, skidtishness about the size
of debt that they have to absorb, the mega merger
deals that are coming out that are also financed by debt.
All of that together along with the fact that we're
(17:25):
now going to see in twenty twenty six, the government
debt is going to eclipse the size of the economy.
It has not done that since World War Two, and
so we're moving into new territory, and I think a
lot of things people are sort of looking at the
way the world was rather than what's changing, and things
are changing very rapidly.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
If you are just joining us. We did get that
FEDER rate decision. They did lower by twenty five basis
points as widely as expected, nine to three vote three descents.
The news really is that Austin Goolsby joined FED the
Fed Schmidt in dissenting saying that they should not lower rates,
who of course had Stephen Myron, a FED governor, talking
about a fifty basis point cut dissenting on the other side.
(18:07):
Not as many descents as people had expected. The Fed
did revert back to what we saw in the October statement,
using language used just before pausing rate cuts, so potentially
the last FED rate cut for a long time by
this chair. J.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Powell.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
I'm just wondering, Bob, if you think that right now
this market is saying they are okay to do this,
that the data that is available really doesn't signal that
this cut and then maybe one more next year really
is going to be inflationary.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
Well, I think that's what the market's hoping for. I
think there are a lot of businesses that we invest
in where we do see the productivity gains from AI already.
We also know within our own bank there are significant
productivity gains, so some of that is already out there.
The unfortunate price reset from pre COVID levels to today
(18:59):
is also a problem. I get that, but that's damp
and aggregate final demand. What do we want going forward?
Do we want the disinflation we seem to be in
and what the FED is projecting, or do we want
deflation where prices come down. I would argue we still
want disinflation, and hopefully there will be a point in
(19:19):
time in the not too distant future where wage growth
and the trend in disinflation will normalize prices again. But
all of that still is a headwind to consumption, so
businesses are very careful how much cost increases they push through.
Speaker 5 (19:34):
Now, can I do a counterfactual, please, Diane Swank if
we got a fifty beep Myron cut, what would happen
to the American economy now? With the financialization of the
American system, If you gave us a fifty beep cut now,
it'd be a veritable banking explosion, wouldn't it.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
It would certainly add a lot more stimulus to what
we're already seeing. And stimulus is heat. Heat is inflation
unless you can really get all those offsets from AI
in the right places. And I think that's the hard
part is the old economy is where the tariffs are
hitting the hardest in manufacturing activity, and we are seeing
(20:16):
it come through in prices. And we're also seeing labor
shortages even as the labor market weekends in pockets where
immigrants have dominated. That's showing up in prices as well.
In Howmelda Care childcare costs all soaring. That was just
in September, and those shortages have only gotten worse since then.
Speaker 5 (20:35):
Lisa, two twenty twenty. I looked at the clock right
when Diane Swank said tariffs one. First time we got
the tariffs was twenty minutes into the show. For most
of our audience, tariffs are a big deal they're affecting
their groceries, their healthcare, everything in the service sector as well.
Speaker 4 (20:52):
Yeah, plastic Christmas trees fifteen to twenty percent higher because
of tariffs. There you go. So this also is.
Speaker 5 (20:57):
A real Christmas tree of fake okay Christmas tree.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
It's so increasing the real ones because of other people.
Diane Swank, Well, let you stay out of this conversation.
Thank you so much for being with us. Joining us
now for this conversation, not this conversation. Matt Lazetti of
Deutsche Bank with us as you typically do before the
FED press conference. Matt, just first, what's your impression nine
to three? Is this what you thought would happen.
Speaker 7 (21:20):
Yeah, to be honest, I think in terms of the statement,
the SEP, the descent, so I think it was very
much in line with expectations. You know, certainly there was
scope to get greater descents from a hawker's direction than
what we got. I think for regional FED presidents potentially
Governor Barr was also leaning against this cut, but we
always thought that it was the job of chair pal
through the statement the language change that we got there.
(21:42):
But then I think coming up through the press conference
signals that he sends to try to rein in some
of those descents to have a hawkers message that allows,
you know, those officials to speak through that. And so
I think we probably got that as well. You know,
you're seeing markets respond by taking rates down. I don't
think that's really anything that we saw in the statement
or the SEP or the descent. I think it really
was the FED ramping up reserve management purchases, these T
(22:04):
bill purchases a little bit earlier than was expected.
Speaker 5 (22:06):
Matt Lazetti Binki Chada is high on the street looking
at the equity markets. He says, the stock market's going
to go up, up, up. How do you attach Lizzetti
economics to bankram Chada's huge equity outlook?
Speaker 7 (22:22):
Yeah, I think you know the good thing about how
we do it here, it's internally consistent. So I think
Binkie takes our economic growth forecasts are global economic growth forecasts,
and builds that into his earning projections. We have two
point four percent growth for the Yose economy over the
next year. That was sounding I think, quite bullish relative
to consensus expectations. But I would note the FED median
(22:43):
forecast came up to two point three percent today, I
think was revised higher than what many anticipated and is
now much closer to our own expectations. So I think
these two things are mutually reinforcing. We see a stronger
growth backdrop, we see financial conditions easing through Binkie's equity channel,
and those two things reinforcing each other over the next year.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Matt, your other colleague Jim Reid, put out a provocative
question earlier this morning, saying, what if the next FED
move was up? At what point do you think that
the move that the Fed is laying out really sets
up that counter factual in a more real way.
Speaker 7 (23:18):
Yeah, certainly a provocative question, and I think over the
next year we are getting more questions about that, and
I think it's more coming from the global sphere. At
this point. You're seeing places like the RBA turn a
little bit more hawkish. There's questions about the ECB Bank
of Canada seeing stronger economic data as of late. For
the FED specifically, though, I think you need two things
(23:39):
to happen. One, you have to have a clear elimination
of downside risks to the labor market. We are not
there yet. There's still some fragility in this labor market
over the next several months, perhaps by the end of
next year, we could get there. And two, you need
the labor market to return as a source of inflationary pressure,
so you need the unemployment rate to decline, quits rate
to move higher, and wage growth to accelerate. It's possible.
(24:00):
I think you are seeing a substantial reduction and labor
supply in the US economy. I think if you were
to add on even more physical stimulus, So if we
were to get these two thousand dollars stimulus checks from
the Trump administration, I think that's the type of dynamic
where that could really shift the debate. People would begin
to think a little bit more actively about rate cuts
in the US. But to be clear, I don't think
(24:21):
we are there. Our baseline expectation is the next move
is a cut.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
Bob, What do you think. What do you think it
would take for the Fed's next move or a move
next year to be a rate hike and not a cut.
Speaker 6 (24:32):
Well, I think you'd have to see the fiscal stimulus
from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act hit and accelerate
business investment and consumer spending. You'd have to see a
labor shortage resulting from that then you'd have to see
a wage price spiral. Maybe you'll see that in the
second quarter, But right now, the FED thread at the needle.
(24:54):
Can't we just enjoy this into the holiday sees I
you know us.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
That's the smartest thing i've today. That's the smartest thing
I've heard in Powell's opiniata. I get that. But the
bottom line is we have a prosperous economy for the halves.
Let's not upset that apple cart while everyone well meaning
tries to help people that are struggling so much. I mean,
that's threading the needle right now, is what we're doing.
Speaker 6 (25:21):
Well, Yes, but let's not forget that. The One Big
Beautiful Bill Act also has no taxes on tips, over
time social Security payments. A lot of those are concentrated
in the bottom couple quintiles of earners, so there should
be some relief coming there.
Speaker 5 (25:40):
Where's your lack of conviction? That was Eddie on an
outlooking off of this FED meeting today. Where's the question
of your conviction in the next year? What are you
most worried about?
Speaker 7 (25:52):
Yeah, I think in the very near term is that
the labor market dynamic, which is this fragile equilibrium with
low hiring and low firing breaks to the downside, they
begin to see layoffs pick up. I really don't think
we see that evidence as of yet, but it's a
real risk over the next several months. I think over
the course of twenty twenty six, I think there's some
risks to the upside here. You know, as Bob mentioned,
(26:13):
on the fiscal side, the stimulus checks that have been
floated not part of our baseline, but would be a
very real upside risk. And then I think we just
can't put the side these risks around FED independence. And
you know we heard Treasure Secretary best In talking about
regional FED president and we have to go through those votes.
And you have a Supreme Court case for Lisa Cook
coming up early next year. So there, I think that
(26:35):
there are a lot of risks associated with it from
a FED independence perspective. Inflation risk potentially to come along
end of the bond market also at risk potentially from that.
Speaker 4 (26:44):
Matt, we have about three and a half minutes before
the press conference begins. From your perspective, what's the one
question you have for FED Shair J.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
Powell.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
Potentially at the last FED cut that he oversees.
Speaker 7 (26:56):
Yeah, I think it's a little bit around the language
that they introduced into the late market, into the statement
how are we to think about that? Is that clearly
sending a signal that there's a much higher bar in
the near term. I also would ask him, are you
internalizing what could be a very weak jobs report next
week in today's decision. I think that's a really important
thing for the market. I think the Fed would probably
(27:18):
want to take out some of the sensitivity to next
week's data. I think one of the reasons that chairpal
wanted to push this great cut through was an expectation
you could see some weakness there. My expectation is next
week's data is going to be volatile. They are really
putting more weight on the December jobs report in early
January and the data we're going to get early next
year in that assessment. But I'd like to get confirmation
of that from the chair today.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
Matt Zetti, thank you as always for your time, and
I look forward to hearing what you think after the
FED conference. This is an important point. How much is
this in some ways forecasting that December sixteenth jobs report
that we should have already had. It should have been
sort of one two punch for last Friday. We got
the November jobs report, they took that data into hand,
and then this meeting they respond to it.
Speaker 6 (28:00):
Bob, Yeah, I think you can go back to September
and say, this is another risk management adjustment to policy,
that there are some signs of a soft labor market.
You're far away from what you're forecasting as your neutral rate.
Why not take another twenty five basis points off of that.
(28:21):
It will help corporate America. I'll get a lot of
questions in the next few days. Does twenty five basis
points actually do anything. Let's remember most of corporate America
are small and middle market businesses. Think of a fifty
million dollar EBAA company, they generally have seven times levers.
They've got three hundred and fifty million dollars worth of
debt on top of fifty million in IBADA. It helps
(28:43):
them a lot. It helps stabilize middle market corporate America significantly.
Speaker 5 (28:48):
If we say it's an original meeting, we've got to
stagger to the next meeting. It will be wiser, we'll
have data and all that. But as Lisa mentioned at
the top of the show, the political overlay here is extraordinary.
What did JP Morgan's Washington experts say about the politics
of January?
Speaker 6 (29:08):
Well, the question I would want to ask pal is
were there only three descents or was there a considerable
amount of bargaining to go from five descents to three descents?
And was that in the statement? And then you ratcheted
it up GDP half a percent from where you were
at the last summary of economic projections. His answers to
(29:31):
questions like that will tell you how politically influenced the
current Federal Reserve Board is.
Speaker 4 (29:37):
That was a fantastic question, and I hope that he
guts asked that we really look to understand just what
kind of clutch the Fed share holds over this committee.
Bob Michael as always, thank you so much for being
with us for all this time. Truly always one of
the absolute best. Right now in markets a collective sigh
of relief. It could have been a lot worse. That
is sort of the message coming from it. The S
(29:57):
and P up a tenth of a percent, NASDAK still
suffering a little bit down to tens of a percent, suffering,
I say, still near our all time highs. And the
Russell two thousand, seeing that pop up six tens of
a percent, which you are seeing in the bond space twos,
tens and thirties. Is this lift to a bond price
down and yield as people expect to see some sort
of bond purchases as well as a rate cut coming
(30:18):
in next year, it really seems to me that Jay
Powell really has the chance to split the difference.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
I'll have to see. I'm going to watch some bond vigilantes.
I think they're in the press conference as well.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.