Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
With your Federo SEF decision This afternoon, we can cross the DC with Mi mckath.
The fancies higher growth, stronger inflation, and slightly lower unemployment for twenty twenty four, but officials still barely see a median of three rate cuts for twenty twenty four. Nine of the nineteen members, however, said they thought two or fewer rate cuts would be appropriate, ten saw three or more. They did not change rates today. The dots move up
a little bit next year. The median sees two cuts to three point nine percent in twenty twenty five instead of three cuts three more to three point one percent in twenty twenty six, a slightly shallower path the committee's media long run. The natural rate also moves up to two point zero six percent. GDP is projected to increase two point one percent this year, significant upgrade from the
one point four percent in the December forecast. Growth is also higher in twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six. Unemployment will end this year at four percent, FED officials now say instead of four point one percent, and core PCEE inflation will fall, but only to two point six percent instead of the two point four percent seen in December.
Headline inflation unchanged at two point four percent. The only change to the statement is job growth is no longer characterized as moderating language about considering any adjustment to the target rate. Commitment to the two percent inflation target is the same. The decision was unanimous, and finally, there was no mention of the balance sheet in the statement, beyond keeping the ninety five billion dollars in treasury and mortgage rate caps each month.
Mi McKay, I'm going to turn to the price sanction the moment, but I've got one question I need to ask you right now. Let's go through what you just said again. So faster growth, lower unemployment, higher core inflation. Then something jumps off the page. It's exactly the same median dot with some changes around the surface. I know, in and around it's more nuanced than that, but ultimately the exact same median dot than December as December.
Mike.
Can you make sense of that? How have we just revised growth higher, revised unemployment lower, and core inflation up for twenty four and left the median dot unchanged.
Well, you have to look at it as the median dot, because others did change their views around that dot, but nobody moved significantly higher to push rates up. One person did. They needed two to move it up to move the median rate up. But as I noted, nine of the ten now say two cuts or less. So it is certainly possible if we see similar inflation and jobs numbers going forward, that this could change again. And at the next meeting in June, when they put out a new forecast, they could go to two.
I guess I wonder people at barn stocks right now might will come back to you in just a moment. On the S and P five hundred positive by a third of one percent. Here's the price action four your stocks higher on the NASDA cup by zero point four percent. In the bond market rally at the front end, we're down about four basis points to four sixty four on a US two year yield, and the dollar a little bit weaker here the euro at one away eighty five.
Bro.
My first reaction to this just to see faster growth for twenty twenty four, lower unemployment and higher core inflation and a median dot, and we can get into the changes beneath the service. I know, but a median dot that's unchanged in the face of all of that. If your inequities at the moment, that sounds pretty bullish to me, doesn't it.
This is a federal reserve that suddenly, under the hood seems to be accepting higher than expected inflation for a longer period of time, taking longer to get down to that neutral rate, because there is no other way to
interpret all the numbers that you just laid out. Harder inflation than expected for the next couple of years, faster growth, and the fact that they're still planning for similar types of cuts highlights where the bias is right now for a federal reserve that still does want to cut rates.
If you're just change again, joining us around the table, Muhammad el Are, and it is alongside us together with Prayer Misra, fixed income portfolio manager at JP Morgan Asset Management. Prayer, I want to cross cyber to you just your first thoughts on the projections in the statement that we got just moments ago.
I think this is a feed that really wants that soft landing to continue. They saw a path or that for that soft landing. Now we have had better, better inflation data, higher inflation data than the Fed would have liked, I think the last two months, but it's two months, you know, you just go back four months. We had really weak inflation data November. In December, jan infeb came in a little higher. I mean, it was never going
to be a straight line down to two percent. I think the Fed is saying we're going to be patient. There's a long time between now and December those projections
and December projections that growth getting higher. I wonder if they're telling you the supply side's working, whether it's population growth, whether it's supply chains coming back, that's allowing growth to be strong, that's allowing the label market to be okay, and the fighter saying be patient, we're going to get close to that two percent might take a little bit longer.
We can start normalizing.
Well, it's feeling a rally, and gold God is up by zero point six percent of the back of some of this, Mohammed your thoughts on what we've just heard from this Federal Reserve.
So I would have agreed with everything that she said, with one exception, which is a revision up in the PCEE core to two point six So that puts me more in Lisa's camp. I think this is a signal and the market is taking it as that that there will tolerate slightly higher inflation for longer.
This is a reason why maybe if you look incrementally under the hood, you're seeing some inflation expectations of the longer term start to pick up just a little bit. Priya, from that point of view, does this kind of call, all things being equal, make you less enthusiastic about longer term treasuries if it seems like this is a FED that wants to stick the soft landing, regardless of what the data might be suggesting and even their own projections.
I would say the leave of the curve is still the most attractive because you know whether they start, whether they cut two times or three times. Let's look at the total amount of cuts that's priced in. The neutral rate that the market is expecting on the end point is three seventy five. I mean, the FEDS neutral late is two and a half. The market is well north of that. So the part of the curve that's the most i'd say sensitive to the totality of rate cuts is that five to ten year part.
You're right going.
Out into the thirty year, there's still premium that's supply demand. But I will say if the soft landing continues, that six trillions sitting in money market funds starts to go into bond funds equity funds, that's a positive for duration as well.
Mohammed, I have to say this idea of potentially inflation being higher for longer one, is it kind of a sort of tacit acceptance of two points something something you've talked a lot about, rather than looking for two percent is even a goal if it takes ten years, are we talking about two percent as the target anymore?
No, if it takes ten years, then we're not talking about two percent anymore. I think you're cutting that ascid agreement that in order to achieve the soft landing, we have to redefine what we think is the inflation rate that goes with that soft landing. It is not two. I think it is nearer to three than it is to two, And I think that this is a first step in this process.
I wish that these forecasts came out before the semi annual testimony, because I do wonder how different the questions would have been. There would be serious questions now about how serious they are about getting inflation back down to target. Lisa, I think we have to go through these numbers. If you're just joining us here, they are. So I give you the number now, the forecast for twenty four, and
you can compare it to December. As Mike McKee explained quite clearly, these are the median projections two point one percent for GDP for twenty four. In December it was one point four. The unemployment rate for twenty four four percent in December it was four point one PCE two point four December two point four, core PCE two point six December two point four. The medium DOT for this
year unchanged at four point six, implying three recuts. Now, Bramo, if you put that in front of any committee, any press conference, the obvious question for any journalist today this afternoon is how serious you are taking it to get it back to two percent? Because based on that, I mean, what are you taking seriously? And I think you absolutely nailed it. Are they beginning to tolerate something a bit above.
Target because ultimately they want to prioritize the labor market over inflation data that is noisy, and they've talked about that and higher than expected. It will just say if it came up for semi annual testimony, I wonder if they'll ask about bitcoin, because they probably wouldn't read it and then ask that question. But I'm glad that we have a good journalist who are going to be asking that question in the press.
Comp I think Senator Warren also sent another lesson recently saying you should cut rates, like right.
Now, maybe they're listening.
Yeah, I'm sure that won't come up in the news conference a little bit later. Joining us to discuss this one is Dan Swart, the chief economist the KPMG, alongside Bank of America's Michael Gape. And Dan, i'd love your reaction just to these projections and what you've heard so far from this Federal Reserve.
Well, I think a couple of things are really important. First of all, the throw to cut rates is a little higher than many people thought. But also they're not talking about raising rates even though they've had this higher inflation. And I do think remember they're going through their process of reevaluating rates. What is the optimal inflation rate and
what is the optimal policy path? And I think on hedging what they're doing right now as they're saying, we're willing to hold it higher for longer to get there. And Jay Paul really made this point that market sort of ran off on in December, is that we don't think we need a recession anymore to get back to our inflation target. They're willing to be patient to get down there. I do think over time there is going to be a debate of what is the optimal inflation rate?
Is it two and a half percent? I don't think it's closer to three. But I do think that there is something to the fact that they're willing to tolerate a little higher inflation for a little bit longer rather than higher unemployment. But they also are not willing to raise rates again, and I think that's important too. But the threshold to cut is a little higher than it was prior to this meeting. Dan.
Before I get Mike Apen's thoughts, I just want to come back to on something you said, we don't need a recession is very different so we don't want one. Do you think that is the difference this afternoon, is this we don't need a recession to get inflation back to target, or we don't want one.
Oh, I think it's that they don't need a recession. They don't believe they need a recession, and they don't want one if they don't need it. So I think that's really the important two pieces to this equation is that if they had to take a recession, you know, August twenty twenty two, bucket of cold ice on us at Jackson Hole, we'll take a recession if we need it to get inflation down. They're wrong. We didn't need it.
They got pretty far. We've made enough progress now that to take a recession to make it the last of the last mile on this road on inflation, it's not worth it. And I think that's the hedge that you're seeing played.
Out right now.
Also has a bit of a shifting in the goalposts, given the fact that we're looking at inflation that's coming down but not coming down to two percent and then that's okay, that is considered success. How much is this statement and these projections really signaling an acceptance of higher inflation for longer to you?
So to me, it's not. I mean, I think they're looking at changing policy today or setting policy today and trying to get to their macro objectives over the three or forecast horizon. They're still saying we'll get there in twenty twenty six, which is the same story that they've given in the past. So, yes, they have to tolerate a little higher inflation in the near term this year and next year, but I don't think they're giving up
on that two percent goal. I think the flavor to the revisions to me, says the media and member is fully embracing this supply side story and the economy can run faster at least temporarily without generating significant overheating pressures. So to me, that's the main message from the statement.
Although I acknowledge with revising up the inflation path two tenths this year one tenth next year does say we may have to have a little higher inflation in the meantime, But I don't think they're giving up on that two percent target.
Prier I see vigorously nodding you agree.
I completely agree. I think it's the supply side that's the key.
I think the entire soft landing was predicated on the FED starting to ease. What they're telling us is that the starting point. I think the starting point matters. We're at five and a half on FED funds. Daniel real rates at two percent, this is restrictive policy. Can they start to normalize, Start to cut a little bit, not the entire cycle. They don't have to cut consecutively all the way down to two and a half percent. Start
that process of normalization. If that means inflation's a little higher than their target this year, so be it.
We'll get there in the next couple of years.
If the supply side is working, it allows growth to be strong without creating inflation. Maybe the target is two to three percent. I don't think they can politically say it or have much credit. It's like me saying I can't run a marathon and I can't run one hundred miles meters.
But essentially, you.
Know, when you can't reach your target, you should not change the target. But can they act as if you'll get there, we just push out that two percent a year out or two years out. I think that's what they're telling us. They're telling us, let's start. We're not committing. This is a data dependent FED. We can decide twenty five and twenty six cuts. We have a lot of time to do that. Let's just start the process now, because we're in restrictive territory prayer?
Is that a reason to buy the tenure treasury or salad.
Ah the ten years harder? It's a reason why the five year.
For now, I would say buy it because I think this keeps demand coming into fixed income. I think the raids market was actually slightly hawkishly positioned into this meeting because of this debate between two and three cuts. The EU risk assets have been on a tear. I mean, there's been nothing stopping that. I don't think now anything stops it because unless the growth data weakens, the Fed's
telling you they're willing to let this run. They're willing to ease, to allow that soft landing to continue.
Dan, I'd love your thoughts on how to navigate this news conference when there is such a clear and obvious contradiction in the medium projections for twenty twenty four. How do you think Chairman Power will explore this one in sixteen minutes time.
He's going to be straight in and full on and we're still committed to getting to two percent. He will not back off that kind of rhetoric, and I think that's important. He's saying, we're just willing to We've not changed the time frame, it's just going to come down a little slower than we thought. But also there's a tradeoff. You know, are we willing to create unnecessary pain which is the Fed's word for euphanism, euphanism for unemployment for no reason? Do we really need that at this point
in time? And I think what they're saying is no. We see even in the labor market, we've seen a surgeon immigration, We've seen rebalancing in the labor market that's continuing. If the labor market were to get significantly softer, they cut more rapidly. I think that's the other side of this that is interesting, is that we were seeing that we saw are starting to see sort of a division within the FED on what are the balance of risks.
But at the end of the day, the FED is looking at this saying, we've had a pretty resilient economy and there's no reason to derail a resilient economy. As long as we're moving in the right direction. How fast we get there doesn't matter given the progress we've made. And I think, you know, it does matter if it's ten years, like Mohammad said, yes, then it's not. But I think in the context of where we've been and
what we're doing. This is sort of the more the way to think about it as a way to not cause undue pain in the economy for no reason.
So then I agree with you, and I think it's important that we're redefining patients going into this meeting. Patients meant there's no rush to cut rates now. Patients means we may have to wait a little bit longer to get to two percent or to paff will be slightly different. But whenever I say that out, the reaction, the pushback I get is but that's going to destabilize inflation expectations.
I don't think it will.
Do you agree? Do you agree that you will?
Yeah, I'm with you, Muhammad on this. I don't think it will because we've seen remarkably anchored inflation expectations throughout all this. Now, if it did begin to the fact, we'd be changing its tune pretty quickly, right, So this is something they're looking at. They're looking at that inflation expectations have been fail well anchored, and that's a good dying for them that this is an okay path to take.
But you're absolutely right, if we were to see inflation expectations shift on the basis of this, they'd have to change their tune and their strategy.
My cape and I want to give you the final work against this news conference. What would you look for?
Well, I think that the balance so what's been discussed here is essentially you know, do you really have a higher bar to start? Are you less confident about starting? We all seem to think that they still have a lot of confidence about disinflation remaining in place. So I would kind of address those those two confidences, and honestly, I would try and tease out any information on the
balance sheet discussion. The market I think needs to know that does taper start when overnight reverse repo balances are just low? Or do we have to get to zero? On that? I do think some information there would be helpful.
I think we'll beginning some questions on that, no doubt about it. Might GAPE and a Bank for America, the brilliant Dan Swamk of KPMG to the two of you. Thank you if you are just joining us thirteen minutes away from a news conference with Chairjpal of the Federal Reserve.
No change to interest rates, plenty of changes to the outlook for twenty twenty four, faster growth, lower unemployment, higher core inflation, and then I guess the news is where there is no change, the medium dot still implying three cuts for twenty twenty four. Now you're all making me feel a little bit uncomfortable because you all agree with each other. So I've got to be that guy, and
I think least's on the same page just me. There's going to be a lot of people watching this that just think, well, hang on a minute, there's a huge contradiction in this. In all of this that you've revised higher inflation, revised lower unemployment, you're looking for a faster economy, and your projection for rates stays unchanged. That sounds super davish, and I would say displays a real tolerance for above target inflation with equities at all time highs and credit
spreads very very tight. Why are we wrong when people come on this program and say we are sufficiently restrictive. In fact, some people come on this program and say significantly, So where is the evidence of that based on what we're seeing this afternoon? Where is the evidence? Muhammad?
So the evidence was given to you earlier by Kathy, which is if you just look at one price, which is where the policy ad is relative to where core PCEE is. That's where you get the restrictive. But I agree with you if you look at the financial conditions as a whole, these are very loose financial conditions that I'm.
Looking at in the statement is that the FED took out language saying job gains had moderated. It really was the only change to the statement prea fewer perspective. Everyone's been saying, it's all about the labor market. If we don't see moderation in the labor market, and if it's actually reigniting, how are we going to get down to two percent from here? If maybe people are saying it's restrictive, the equity markets and the credit markets didn't get the message.
So I think the labor market is coming in better balance. It is moderating. It may not be moderating in terms of NFP numbers every month. It's moderating in terms of the quit strate. It's moderating in terms of job vacancies or or average our earnings ECI. You look at measures
of wage inflation, it is moderating. I think that's what gives the FED comfort that those inflation expectations will be anchored that even if core PC is a little bit higher, that's that's largely due to shelter or medical insurance.
There's lots of little components.
Of PC that might be keeping it a little bit higher for longer. But as long as the labor markets suggest that weages on moderating, I think it gives the FED that confidence, and I would say for them to start to cut, I think cuts in twenty twenty four are about inflation. A PCE is born from five and a half percent to three percent. That's the reason for them to cut seventy five basis points. Cuts next year are about growth and the label market.
To me, Muhammad, this all goes back to your point, which is is this a federal reserve. This is operating without an overarching kind of thesis. They're basically just trying to cobble together people's different opinions and putting something out there, and then it sends us all on a tailspin trying
to explain some sort of cohesive theory behind it. And where we're going is that what this smells like, we're trying to sort of rationalize and come up with a theory behind this when it's really this person thinks this, this person thinks this, this is a good kind.
Of happy medium.
Go figure out what's what to do with this.
So, if you want to be generous, you'd say, this is such an uncertain economy, there's so many things changing on the structural side that they had no choice but to behave like their behaving. If one would be less generous, you'll say, this is a FED that actually took a view it looks through data one and ended up really undermining its credibility, and therefore it is very hesitant to
do anything more than simply look at past data. So it's up to you whether you want to be generous or less generous.
Data decision nine minutes away, we'll find out if Robert T. SIPPs fit and generous of pay Jim he joins us. Now, Robert, you've had about twenty minutes that you over this one. Your thoughts on it.
Yeah, I mean I think that in terms of supporting what they've done, the rate of growth of the economy has been firm, the rate of inflation has calm down at a headline basis by you know, five six percent, by nearly three percent on a core basis. The question came up earlier do they want a recession? I think they want a soft landing, and they got conditions restrictive enough to bring down inflation quite a bit. Wage growth is accelerated and they managed to do that keep while
unemployment has remained low, growth has continued. So I think it's it's been a very successful go. Did they start late? They did start late, but I think their pandemic practice, you know, was a little bit late. I don't think we have a lot of active central banker data points in terms of how you're supposed to do it. So I think so far is so good, and I think they're trying to hone the message so far here.
You said very positive on all of this. Does that mean that you're a buyer of bonds of alterations because you think that ultimately they will get to the goal that they're looking for, along with the soft landing that's always been called sort of the unicorn that never arrives.
Well, I think the unicorn arrived in twenty nineteen. After the twenty eighteen cycle. We were on our way to a soft landing that was interrupted by pandemics. So maybe not the late nineties and other soft landing after the ninety four cycles, so I think they are there. I think the problem is a lot of people saw the dot com bubble burst, they saw the GFC burst. We don't have that kind of a backdrop now, and a lot of people are used to seeing funds rate up,
funds rate down, crash, big problems. They're not used to seeing it. It doesn't mean it never happened. So it has happened and looks like we're on our way. There is this a bypoint for fixed income. It is strategically when you get to the end of the FED rate hiking cycle, that's where you're going to be seeing the peak and interest rates. That was probably at the end of September last year. We're getting into that bison at the end of twenty twenty two we remain there. Now
we're seeing a lot of support for the market. I think that's why the risk premiums in the market are so narrow, but they're likely to remain narrow. But I think overall they're managing a very successful course here.
So Robert, clearly a soft landing is your baseline, So speak a little bit to your level of confidence in that and what do details look like if the FED were to end up making a mistake, and we hope the FED doesn't make a mistake, but if it were, what do you think the most likely mistake would be?
Right?
Well, I think the data has not only bifurcated, it's trifurcated. Right, So when you look at the employment I was a little surprised that they went, you know, uni dimensional that it's you know, a supe employment market. I mean, the household survey has been flat for a few months, unemployment rate is inched higher. Job as claims at a state level have gone higher, triggering some people to wonder about whether the Salm rule is kicking and signaling a potential recession.
And of course recessions are very hard to spot. So I think if there was going to be a problem here, you're not going to wake up one day and see data consistent with a three and a half percent growth. But is it possible that we could have downshifted to a half percent or a percent, that job growth has really dropped off here and you've lost a little bit of momentum. I think that's the more likely side that things could break on. Having said that, they're at five
point three percent. They have tightened in real terms, They've made the case they didn't really want to do that. Now they're making the case they want more information. I think if they see slower data, that would you know, trigger them to make some cuts, which would end up, you know, probably preempting a recession. So the most likely restate would be a mistake would be kind of a growth recession. I would think that'd be the next most likely scenario.
There is there a downside to keeping inflation hotter for longer, in the idea that this is actually really problematic for particularly lower income households, as Muhamma and I we were talking about before the show, that this is sort of, you know, very much attacks on particularly people with lower income, specifically for those who are not in the market and can't capitalize on some of the gains that we see in the equity markets, and could have a drag on the economy.
Sure, I think as long as the job market is fine and wages are running above inflation, so you talk about that inflation number being high where a wages, If wages are running four percent and inflations are two and a half, there's still positive real income growth. So I think as long as you have positive real income growth, that danger that you talk about is less of an issue. I do worry about the danger from is the FED easy for too long or does it let the market
run on this narrative of rate cuts. If inflation stay is high enough, at some point the Fed's idea of continuous rate cuts is going to get questioned.
And I think that no market is pricing that in I think.
Risk assets are expecting rate cuts this year, rate cuts next year. So if that inflation tends to be that last mile problem actually exists and we find we're unable to get close to two percent, I think then we should reprice all those long end rates higher, which is a problem for you keep talking about credit spreads. Is that a problem for spreads or overall risk assets. I think that's the danger I worry about. I don't think
we're there yet. It's still it's noisy data, but I think that is something we should watch as we see the totality. And I hope chef al was asked about that is a three month moving average? Is it core super core shelter? I mean we have so many weariables, we look at revisions, wages, so hopefully he's asked exactly you know, and I'm sure he's going to give a non answer answer, which is everything, but maybe some nuggets in there. It's core and super core that we look at.
I think just a sense of what gives them that confidence that overall we're going.
To get to do this.
Francis down of Manual Life was on the program earlier on this morning. She said exactly the same thing. Just tell us what you're looking at. Seems to change from meeting to meeting, Robert, I know you've got to go. It's going to catch up, sir, Robert tip of pagim going against this news conference? How much? What you want to hear from the chairman in this news conference? What do you want to hear him address?
Well, I'd like him is to come across as steady, to not get the market excited, to not cause undue volatility.
That's what you want? What do you expect?
It's hard.
I would not like to be at I would not like to be at that podium after this outcome. I really would not like to be there.
Why is that? You think the members have put him in a little bit of a sticky spot. Yeah, to explain this.
I mean, you've repeated over and over again that the data revisions and the projection, the revision to the language of productions, the revision to protection are inconsistent with the non change to the great cuts.
How difficult is this going to be? Prayer?
I think he's pretty good at doing that.
I think he might, you know, at least try and get that delicate balance. I mean, he is going to be asked about financial conditions. They've eased a lot. I think explaining that's context dependent. Financial conditions by itself, the Fed should not have a view on.
So relative to the economy, we're in.
A soft landing. Financial conditions should be easier now. All they can do. All he can do is explain the reaction function. We didn't get any data today. Explain the reaction function. They remain data dependent. I'm also looking for anything on QT. You know, because we have tax season coming up, that overnight reversary pro facility might get to zero in the next two months. What are they doing then? Are they getting close to tapering? They're going to debate
this and we get a September nineteen event. That's a big shock to the system. I don't think is Priceton.
You know, John, everyone's been talking about the fact that we haven't heard about the balance seet. It wasn't in the statement, And to me, this is actually a wild card because it's this sort of tascit. They're going to allow it to run off for longer than people previously expected because this is one tool that they can do without getting into the rate cutting dance.
Does that help him today, considering that he doesn't think is passive time and this is just watching paint try, does that help him well?
Based on what Priya was just saying, it sounds like this might be watching paint try as well, because she was basically like, he's not going to give an answer, and what Hammad's like, please don't shake anything up.
So there's a reason that we're waiting for these comments though on the bandited sheet, it's because at the last meeting, he sat there in the news conference and told us that would be a big meeting for a conversation about the banned sheets. So maybe you hear about that upfront when these comments begin.
Maybe that's one way to kill the mood in the room. Just talk about the balance sheet roll off and just go into exact detail. About what this means. There are a lot of questions. I want to hear financial conditions first and foremost exactly how your response to that does. He brush it off in the same kind of way that he did back in December.
It's not a major deal, but it's the beginning of something that could be a big deal. There's just a clear and obvious contradiction in the outlook for twenty twenty four. I think if you see a repeat of that through the year, there's going to be more and more questions about how willing and how they are really focused on whether they are really focused on getting that inflation number back towards two percent exciting.
It goes back to Priya's analogy, which is your target can be to run a marathon, but if you don't really run it all, and you just run a mile a day and you don't plan to do it until twenty forty six, is that really your goal anymore? And I think that that's sort of one key question here as we talk about what is an inflation target that we're looking at that's two percent.
It's a complicated spot for the chairman. We've got equities at all time highs as he's about to open that door and sit in front of that lectern and talk to us about the outlook for rates equities at all time highs, and at the same time they're revising their inflation protections higher and also still forecasting the same amount of cuts for twenty twenty four. I think that's a sticky spot for any FED chair to walk into any room and speak for sixty minutes on this subject.
Which is the reason why he will probably say we're data dependent, which also means nothing to a lot of people who say, what are you looking at? This is a very difficult moment as j. Powell walks to address all of the complexities in your face.
Mhmm.