Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.
The FMC widely expected to hold read steady, but it does plan on updating its economic forecast. Krishna guhov evercore Isi joins us. Now, Krishna, are we expecting to hear absolutely anything other than we are in a dark room with a blindfold, bumping into chairs, just like the rest of you.
So I'm afraid you probably are going to get a lot more wait and see, lot more to learn.
You know.
That sort of guidance from fed chair how consistent with the idea that unless something radical changes, not only is nothing happening at this month's meeting, but nothing's going to happen in July either and then really in September we have that decision point for the FED as it's seen enough to want to cut right to that point or not.
I think what the market will be focused on at this meeting it's really the extent of the updates in the Fed's forecast, and in particular whether policy makers are already shifting towards just a one cut baseline rather than two cuts for this year.
Christina, how much does it really matter? Because right now the FED seems highly uncertain, very much on the fence. Their a sort of strategic analysis is shape shifting depending on the day, and we're seeing data that hints at something of a labor market softening that's caused a lot of people to be a little bit concerned. I'm talking about continuing claims to get retail sales in just about
just under two hours time. How much is that almost more important than the rhetoric that we hear out of the FED right now?
So I think you're certainly right.
The first of all, you know, the real action here is on the Trump economic agenda above all trade, but also immigration, fiscal you mentioned, you know, regulatory other policies, and the FED to a large extent is responding to those shocks and learning from the economic data how they are impacting economic activity. So yes, you know the FED is going to take its queue from the first the path of policies like trade policy. Secondly, how this is
builting through the macro data, the market data. But it does matter what reaction function the FED is sketching out that it will apply in these different economic circumstances. You know, there's a relatively easy case where the labor market doesn't weave it at all. Why are you cutting in a
period when inflation is going to move up under these tariffs. Conversely, if the wheels come off the bus in the labor market, for sure, we know they're going to be cutting even though there's going to be elevated inflation, provided the expectations remain be well behaved. To say, all right, now, the question is in this middle zone, in this ray zone, how are they thinking about, you know, what would constitute a materially enough weakening of the labor market to want
to cut to lean against that getting any worse. And also what do they think they're learning from the most recent data, which certainly is imperfect in the way you describe. But I'd say for May overall, top tier employment report and inflation both a little more benign than might have been expected.
Hey, Chris nuts, Chris, can you talk of just for a moment about kind of this divergence between the market rate and the policy rate. We've always joked in our work that who needs feed speakers when you have the two year yields? Is there a level on the two year yield down where you'd say, Okay, the Fed is now behind the curve and kind of needs to get back in the easing cycle, maybe faster than you thought.
Yeah, So that's a very good important distinction to draw, right the Fed obviously it sets the overnight funds rate, but it's the two year, five, ten, and so on rates that are much more important for the economy as a whole. And of course those will also embed information as to how market protestants are thinking about the outblook. What I would say is that the Fed doesn't try to micromanage, you.
Know, the two year yield.
It couldn't even if it wanted to. And so I don't think that it's so wildly out of whack right now with what Fed officials might be thinking on a probability weighted basis, because remember, the market isn't just pricing the baseline case, but they're pricing a range of risks, including the risk that we do after all, end up falling into a recession of bed has to come a lot.
So right now I think the fairly comfortable. So to let the market operates a little bit of an automatic stabilizer going down in the market when the news is weak at rates moving up when the news is stronger or there's a signs of some more inflation pressure. Are they're not yet at a point where they would feel the need to make a call on rates themselves in terms of the FED fund set.
Christin, do you think kind of in the spirit of the Fed might not make the same mistake, they might make new mistakes. That two is coloring they're thinking too much on this idea of kind of the inflation risk. Maybe in a lot of respects, the appropriate word to use today, and we talked about this earlier, is actually transitory, given that Tarifa a one time price hike or oil. Yet they're so reluctant to do that because of the recent experience.
So look, at some level, I think you're right right, everyone fights the last war, and the FED can be guilty of that too. There's no question that the fact that the FED, you know, went out with a transitory story and lived a regret at last time is I think coloring, and they're thinking some this time too. But there are two important objective considerations there that do weigh a bit in this direction. The first is that these tariffs are not simply on end products. They're also on
intermediate goods inputs into US production. And it's those tariffs on intermediate goods that the economic research tells US can have more persistent effects on inflation, not just that a one and done, certainly if you like tax increase effects.
The other thing is that the FED does have reason to wonder where the inflation expectations, wage bargaining, price setting behaviors are quite as well locked down now after several years of elevated inflation as they work previously, And these starting conditions economists will use the term initial conditions do matter in terms of your risk management judgment.
Christian, just real quickly here. If I were cynical, I would think the FED would just err on the side of being more hawkish in order to keep some of the INFLA and expectations restrained. Why isn't that the case that we can basically expect them to say something that is going to be hawkish, whether they think it or not.
So I think they are mildly hawkish. I mean, after all, they're telling us that they judge that the current setting of policy is moderately restrictive, modestly restrictive. The individual officials
use different terms, but restrictive And why is it restrictive? Well, it's restrictive precisely because, as you say, they want to try to lock down inflation expectations into the initial sticker shock from the tariff price increases when that comes, and as I said, it hasn't really shown up in May, we do expect it to shop more over the next
few months near term. That's certainly hawkish, But I think it's also important to understand that the FED recognizes that a precondition for being able to cut rates in response to labor market weakness at a time when spot inflation will be high because of the task is that you have to make sure that you've locked down the inflation expectations first.
So yes, it's moving in order of priorities.
Lock down the expectations first, then look at business cycle management. If they get the first right, they will have the flexibility to do the second if it's needed.
Christy, who have ever CORESI thank you so much. Another leg that could potentially offset some of the deficit concerns are the tariffs and the revenue that could be possibly brought into the United States. Former senior Trump trade advisor Kelly and Shaw joining us now, Kelly an, I'm curious what we've learned, in particular from the trade discussions over as part of the G seven meetings in Canada, particularly when it comes to the UK and the US. How much of a template is that?
Yeah, good morning, and thanks so much for having me so. The big announcement regarding trade at this year's G seven was of course that UK deal on autoparts, on imports and then aerospace, and then the executive order that the White House issued last night to accompany the deal also teased out that there would be relief on steal and aluminum for the UK at some point in the future, but the details still forthcoming.
So what this shows is.
The UK is still very much front of the queue, ahead of any other government. The next closest we got was an announcement by a prime minister of Canada that the US and Canada would be negotiating a deal within the next thirty days, which is a bit longer than we were originally expecting, but at least it's an agreement.
To agree, Kelly.
And we also saw no deals from the likes of Japan, for example, and I'm sure the prime minister there would have liked to have seen something. And also the ability to reach a deal was cut short with the President leaving back to Washington, DC with a new hot war for President Trump to deal with and to think about. Does it show the limitations of deals being led by the president? Will this ultimately slowed down the timeline?
Yeah?
And I thought what was interesting about the early departure, and obviously there are things flaring up in the Middle East that required his attention, was that the two deals that I thought could come together this weekend that were left on the cutting room floor, in addition to Japan, would have been India and Mexico a deal on steel and perhaps fentanyl. He was set to meet with both
Mody and shine Bomb today. Those meetings, of course won't happen, but I do think what it shows is some competing priorities. But look, he's got an entire team who is dedicated to these trade negotiations USTR, Ambassador Greer, Secretary Bessett, Howard Lutnik. They're not going to be as involved as some of the defense and National security advisors will be on this Iran is real conflict, So they are going to be focused exclusively.
On these trade talks.
Now, of course, that doesn't mean that one doesn't influence the other, but there are separate lanes in his administration who can handle both.
Is it your assumption then that we do get those deals that you mentioned that we're close to by July eighth.
Yeah, that is my expectation, and we really don't know what's going to happen in July. We had Secretary Bessett during a hearing last week teas that for countries negotiating and good faith, they could see an extension of that period, But the President hasn't said one way or the other. And I think negotiators are going to seek to put pressure on a number of governments where things are close
in order to try to get the deal. And we've heard directly from the administration that India is close, and my expectation is that Canada and Mexico are also very much top of the queue. If for no other reason, then there are two of the US's most important trading partners, and we still do have sizable tariffs on both for goods that don't currently qualify for those USMCA deals. So that's going to be a big ticket item, not just for the US, but also for Canada and Mexico.
Kelly and Shaw, a former senior Trump trade advisor, thank you so much for being with us and the insights on what's going on with trade.
US now.
Is Reza Palavi, the son of the last Shaw of Iran, Raza, thank you so much for being with us. I want to start with a question, are you in active discussions in any way to return to Iran in a leadership role if there is some sort of regime change in Iran?
Good morning to you and to my fellow competters following this program and all of your audience. There is a campaign for liberation that we've been committed to all these years. The moment is approaching very fast. The regime is on the verge of collapse. We see elements within the regime already talking defections, they get in touch with us. We see a leader who is now hiding in a bunker like a rat, while many high elements are taking flight
from Iran. I think all of this is conducive to something that may bay soon happen, and finally my fellow competits will be able to overcome. And of course there's a plan not only for this phase of our struggle, which is liberation from this regime, but what happens right next the transition to what we hope will culminate in a democratic outcome. I have stepped in to leave this
campaign at the behalse of my compatriots. I have a plan of action not only to manage this phase of transition, but also to plan for Evan's future recovery and prosperity, which has to go hand.
In love with our democratic GUIDEA just just.
A question here, who are the compatriots who've approached you to try to harmless leadership push.
Well, I think that you have people who have vested interest in preserving this regime, because the whole survival depends on this regime all this time, whereas the millions of my compatriots who were the first victim of this regime, have paid all these four decades a very heavy price. We have seen many campaigns that people protested. The latest one was two years ago the Woman Live Freedom movement.
And finally, I think today.
With this clear weakening of regime, and as I said, I'm being on the version of collapse, finally, all these people who have reached their lives and honorably put their lives on the line and did die for the cause, we'll be able to remember that as heroes of this conflict, because we'll be liberated sooner than everybody thinks. And my entire commitment has been from day one to support my
competit in the struggle for liberation. And we believe that the end is very near for the regime and our dreams of liberty will finally be realized very soon.
Rather on the ground, what we've seen in Iran is those in Tehran, for example, trying to evacuate Israel, saying more recently that they would look at targeting places there. You've seen fear, you've seen strikes, and you've seen death. How complicated and how difficult is it to ask a populace to rise up and rally behind you when they're the very same ones that are under threat right now.
Look, I think many of my competitors are smart enough to understand that if right now, if until now, and in fact, many of your colleagues in the media have always asked me, how do you find the regime that is so repressive, that it's so ruthless, that executes that threatened dissidents or activit is at home, to which I said, well, obviously the playing.
Field has to be more equalized. This is a case where for the first time in four years, we see this d cloud literally d cloud. But it is also.
Important to have the support of the world community because until now, many times my compatriots have been thrown under the bus when they had an opportunity to be backed because of a policy of appeasement or containment. I think now the situation for the first time exists for the world to realize that it is not availed to expect this regime to change its attitude and behavior. Ali Hamena is at work with the world, not the Iranian people.
He's the main culprit for being here and having Iranians also have innocent victims and civilians to whom my heart goes up, of course, but I think right now we need to be focused on the goal and the aim. We have a tremendous opportunity to overcome this regime. I think the world would be the sigh of relief with this regime no longer be there. We are carrying on our.
Finances because the goal and the aim is a regime change. What we have heard from Israel is that their goal is to dismantle the nuclear forces from Iran. Is it you're understanding that a regime change is also a goal from the Israelis, and have you been in contact with them.
I'm not asking any foreign governments to state the policy of regime change, although I think many of them do believe that ultimately that would be the best formula to get rid of so many problems at the same time, and not just the nuclear threat.
As a result of this regime track record.
Of behavior in the region and beyond formatting terrorism, supporting, you know, their their proxies like Eyler Hamas in the region and so on, so the disappears.
Of this regime.
We're eliminating too many problems that this regime has caused in one shot. The first beneficiary of regime change are the running people themselves.
But we believe that.
Our immediate neighborhood and the region, whether it is the Israelis or Arab neighbors, and beyond that the rest of the free world will understand that the running people, who unlike this regime want to be part of the civilized world with the same values and principles of liberty and freedom and human rights. Unlike this regime, would be certainly the element of change, and if you will, the alternatives to this regime.
I think this is where the world needs to be focused.
Now, beyond the immediate campaign that is a result of the stubbornness of how many must dragged our country into it. But let's look at the positive aspect of once we get rid of this regime, how we can envisage your future. We're or back to an element of stability and regional peace, which is in everybody's interest.
Just to build them. What Danny was asking, have you been in contact with the Israeli leadership.
We are reaching out to everyone and everyone, including the Israeli side, to understand what it is that we stand. What is the expectation of the Iranian people in terms of world support. I think it's pretty much the same thing that many struggling nations under totally tenor regime.
We're looking at any country that understand.
That they have to stand with the people of a country that is trying to liberate itself. And again, whether it's the Israeli government or the American government or any other government for that matter, the question is whose side are you going to stand with today the i Ruanian people or continue to insist negotiating with the regime that is on the verge of collapse.
There's also a question of what this new leadership looks like or as are you talking about re establishing the monarchy when that was controversial and it might not have full support from all parties, particularly the more religious elements of the Iranian society.
Well, I have never advocated for one for of a regime or another.
What I did and have advocated, and in fact it's part of my trans plan, is a process that it's totally democratic. That means that the running people have to have the ability to ponder upon whatever a constitutional assembly will propose as a constitutional formula, a future constitution, the form that the regime can take, what it will mean and Unlike nineteen seventy nine, when people had no cluer idea what an Islamic republic means and by the time
they figured it out it was too late. This time, in full transparency, that'll have the option to look at what's the best model that fits them and let the ballot box decide the majority what the running people will look for. Will it be a republic, will it be
auctional monarchy, or whatever it is. My objective is not to stand here as the result of that, and my responsibility right now, my only focus is to see this process through so we can ensure that ultimately we replace this dictatorship with a democratic and let me underline, a secular democrat.
See what's the key separation of religion from state as a prerequisite to that point.
Past attempts to engineer regime shifts in the Middle East haven't often ended in liberal, pro Western governments. There are examples many out there Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, all ending in things that look like fragmentation or current armed forces having the most power and being the ones that emerge in the chaos of a regime shift. What do you suggest that it is different this time?
I think Iranian society not just for centuries of proving that they have as a nation state, a concept of a nationhood, national identity, natural pride and objective, a culture, a civilization, but also a polity, and a generation today very shrewd and very clever by knowing what it is that would be in their interest. They see the world and how it has evolved that have since successful campaign
of liberation. They understand the key elements that sustains and preserves democratic order, and I believe today's gen z and Iran is more than ever equipped to understand not only the needs, but how and what it will take to implement that.
No, it's a collective project.
Everybody have to roll up their sleeves and participate. The premise remains the same in the principles of liberty and human rights. But if each member of society is committed to see through it and actively engage in that process, that's where we can guarantee that it's going to be actually a result that would be positive. I have absolute faith and confidence in my computers and their wisdom and their know how and their knowledge. They do need guidance,
of course, they do need support. Of course they do need some level of leadership, of course, but at the end, they are the elements and instruments of change, and we are working together very closely to see that through.
Zavalavi, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate you getting on with us. Who just Rouma Berkeley's joins us now with her own argument, how do you interpret this? Thank you so much for being here, given the fact that there's something for everyone, which is kind of the theme that we've seen in a lot of the economic data recently.
That's true, well so far. I sort of agree with what she said in the sense that right now it just looks like everything seems to be good. So far, so good is how you know, I would put it, But it's hard to say how things are going to pan out sort of going forward. Just a quick take on the retail sales from my end is that we had expected a slightly weaker control group, So the fact that it actually did better than we'd expected is again, maybe,
you know, like she said, maybe a resilient consumer. Income fundamentals, wealth fundamentals for consumers have been looking good. It's something we've said on and off, but I do expect at some point a pullback and a moderation in consumer spending to materialize. Did it happen in this print?
It didn't.
Maybe there's a correlation though, between the decline that we've seen in oil and gas prices and the increase that we saw the strength that we saw in the control group, because there's a theory that if you're not paying as much when you go to fill up the tank in your car, you have more to spend on other things. How much is that these is threatened if oil prices start to spike at a time of conflict in the Middle East.
No, that's a valid point. The one thing that I would add is that you know, the spending on gasoline as a share of consumer spending isn't as high as what most would think. You know, it's about two to three percent for the consumption basket. So you would need a pretty persistent and a pretty big rise and oil prices for consumers to actually start feeling threatened and for them to actually start pulling back. It's what we call like the discretionary income channel, because you know, you have
to spend on oil. We think demand is relatively in the last for oil, and so when you have to spend more on oil you're forced to sort of pull back elsewhere. So that is a risk, but we think it's developing. I wouldn't say that's a baseline right now.
When it comes to a consumer that you expect eventually to weaken, what is the trigger for it? Because we already see some underlying weakness in the labor market a little bit in their things like the unemployment some of the weekly initial job was claims taking higher. Companies are not hiring right now. There seems to be a freeze. What needs to change for that actually to trickle down into some weakness for the consumer.
Well, I think two things. We need to see this consistent discipline gradual slowing in the labor market for the consumer to start feeling a little worried. The other thing, which we've been saying that should happen eventually is as the prices start increasing because of tariffs, there could be some pressure on the consumer purchasing power. When both of these things materialize together is a world in which we
think the consumer would feel cautious about spending. And that's when we should hopefully start seeing the personal saving rate take up because you're trying to save up.
Just be clear, does it actually need to happen, because you have seen the sentiment measures sour quite a bit to start this year, they've been bouncing around since then, and there's a whole host of reasons why maybe you shouldn't pay attention to them. But is the expectation for economic weakness or geopolitical strife do any of those sentiment type issues weigh on the consumer or do they keep spending through it until the actual prices, the actual data changes.
Well, it's hard to say, but I would think there has to be some amount of precaution that that has to set in. The Other thing that we've been saying is the price level is already so high across a whole host of commodities goods, and this is an aftermath as a pandemic that now any additional price increase, we think the consumer is likely to be sensitive to that.
Just to if you're just joining us right now, just to reseat, we did get retail sales that came in on the headline level, Wakers and Express did down nine tens of a percent versus the expected six tens of percent. That sounds negative, That sounds like a weakening. Oh no, And then you take a look at the control group that came in stronger than expected of zero point four percent from the zero point three percent that people had
been expecting. The revisions to the prior month, as Danny was talking about, also were revised to be less bad than they were initially, and it raises this question of
what the response in markets is. The response is interesting, actually, which you're seeing is less of a bid to the two year yield and more of a bid to the thirty year yields, which signifies that maybe people see this and I'm really taking liberties here as an excuse for the FED not to cut rates as quickly because of that strength in the control group that could lead to
longer term weakness. How much are you looking at that type of scenario that people say the longer the FED is on hold, the more longer term we see potential for a decline in inflation expectations and more weakness.
Well, I think in the it makes sense for them to be on hold just because there is you know, there's an obvious tension between what we think is going to happen to inflation and the fact that we're not seeing of very material slowing in the labor market. So I think in the near term it makes sense that they're on hold. I don't quite buy the argument that it would necessarily lead to more weakness going forward. I think it eventually it is going to give them a window to come in and cut rates.
Okay, So this is the argument some people have made, and this is sort of the question that we've been banding around all morning. Why wouldn't the Fed come out and aggressively be hawkish to try to tamp down inflation expectations and then later this year things to weaken. They can say, Okay, just kidding, we actually do want to cut rates.
I mean, why is that not the.
Playwork for the Federal Reserve.
Well, we think they might actually come out and look pretty hawkish in the June meeting. Right our own forecast is for the June SEPs to look relatively hawkish. We think the median dot would show only one cut in twenty twenty five, and that makes sense. I think the signal that they would want to send out at this
point in time is we are watching inflation expectations. We are cognizant that inflation could go higher the labor market side of the mandate for the time being, looks okay, and so you know, I think the message from them is we're in no rush to cut rates, and I think that it's the flip side, right, should things actually materially start to weaken, they could come in and cut rates.
It's interesting because Bloomberg Economics has the same outlook Ana Wong and her team there, but they said Chair Powell isn't as hawkish as the rest of the committee. So if you get one dot on the dot plot of cuts, expect Chair Power to come up and kind of downplay and say, oh, we have a range of outcomes, it doesn't matter, not least which because he'll probably get political pressure coming from the White House should that be the outcome.
Do you expect Chair Powell to also lean more hawkish in his communicated to the press after the decision.
I think I think that's going to be a tough one. I think he's going to stick to the messages that he's always, you know, been saying, you know, we're in no rush to cut rates, gonna wait and watch, we need to see how the data evolve, so all of that. Yeah, I don't know if he's going to particularly be dubbish, but I think he's going to stick to the message.
The other thing I feel is, you know, most people would also look at the SEPs quite closely, at least analysts like ourselves, and we're literally counting the number of dots everywhere, so we get a sense of I guess how the committee is leaning as well.
Counting dots. That's what we have to look forward to for tomorrow. Put us for Rama, Parkley, Thank you so much for being with us.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angiot politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business Out