Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amerie Hordert. 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. Let's talk about the future of this Federal Reserve, the White House casting a wide net to replace fed share, Japower, the US Treasury Secretary Scille Best and praising a quote very good meeting with the former Saint Lewis FED President Jim Bullard during his search. Jim joined us in a studio for more. Jim,
good morning, Good morning, thanks for being here. Not many people get to experience what you've just experienced, sitting down for a conversation to potentially become the fed Share.
Can you walk history what that was like, what's the process like?
Well, as you say, they have a lot of a lot of people on the list, and they're following through. It's a transparent process. I think that's good. I think all the I know virtually all the people on the list, I think they're all good. So I think this was a meeting just to talk in broad terms, but I can't really report out, you know, details of what was said.
The Treasury Secretary incredibly downed into the economy on financial markets. I'm sure you experienced that in your conversation with him. I think you can share with us the kind of questions I am matched that he's asking you when I ask them to you, which essentially is how do you view things right now? How do you think about the labor market?
I thought the FEDS decision was a good one. Looks like a sequence of three moves in a row through the end of the year. Of course, you want to be data dependent, and the chair stress that in the press conference. But I think the committee was worried about the non farm payrolls report that you know, revised the previous months down considerably. You know, non farm payrolls is kind of the key number for the Fed, so I think that made them a little bit nervous. There are
stories that you can tell about why that's happening. But on the other hand, you know, it could be weakness and labor markets. So I think that tilted things toward a little bit more dubbish policy. So they brought October into the picture, and now you've got markets pricing probably seventy five by the end of the year. That would be a significant move by the end of the year. And they have a little bit of optionality if the
data goes the other way. So it's a pretty good decision from the point of view of how this works.
You said, they have optionality if the data goes the other way. How high is the bar for strengthen the economy to really prevent the FED at this point, given everything from going three times this year.
Yeah, I think the committee is also spooked a little bit by last year because last year the data looked weak but then turned around abruptly, and so they'll be nervous about that. It's hard to say exactly how high the bars acid judgment call will have to be made by members of the committee.
There's this other disagreement on the FED. Clearly there are a lot of them, and understandably because in Wall Street there are a lot of disagreements as well as to what.
The economic backdrop is.
But you could see a spread in terms of where the neutral rate was from say three percent in terms of the long term job for some of the Fed numbers, or four percent for some of the others.
Where do you sit.
I think it's still fairly low, So you know, you could argue maybe three in a quarter or something like that. So if you're still above four percent with the policy rate, you're still one hundred basis points above if that's your If that's your number. So that's why I've been saying they have room to maneuver. They have room to come down some on the policy rate and still put downward
pressure on inflation. Inflation is still above target, and you know it has been debated at length over the last six months or so, but I think they're in pretty good position right now.
How credible do you think it pursue two percent actually is?
I think the Committee is very dedicated to the two percent target. I think it would be foolish to abandon that target. It has set an international standard across all the countries of the world. And if the lead economy says, oh, you know, we're going to back off that then all the other countries would back off, you'd be back into the seventies and you'd have a lot of cash. So that is not a good idea, and the committee will
try to get back to two percent. However, I think you want to get back in a nice, smooth, asymptotic path to two percent, and the forecasts always show that, and that's all is the way the Fed thinks about it.
The two year rolling view.
Now, some people might say that's aspirational, magical forecasting. It's just we're always forecasting this two years out but never actually hits it based on history, which raises the credibility question. The federal reserves cunning interest rates with inflation closer to three than it is to two, with unemployment closer to four than it is to five, and but that could
ease it all time highs. Is this the right time to back away from that restrictive monetary policy that's going to lead to that glidepath back towards two percent.
It's restrictive, but even when they come down, it'll still be somewhat restrictive. I think one of the pieces of risk management you have to think about here is suppose the economy is tipping into a March slowdown, then the Committee would want to be accommodative in that circumstance, and you'd want to be below your neutral rate, so you'd have a long way to go. You'd have to really
scramble if that happened. I'm not saying that's the base case, but that's a possibility, and so you probably want to be a little bit closer to neutral, so you didn't have to work so hard if you got into that scenario.
One of the tests for a lot of people is if inflation does go up, maybe say at the end of this year early next year, which a lot of people are expecting that it will, what's the Fed's response. Do they keep cutting or do they look past it is simply a one time price adjustment.
I think they made pretty clear that they're going to look through temporary tariff effects and then they expect inflation to resume its downward trend and the effects have been muted.
US Trade Representative does not have an inflation target, so I think that you know, it's up to the FED to determine what the inflation rate is going to be, not trade policy, but so lots of things affect inflation, and then you know, you have to get on your sort of medium term path, and I think that's what they're doing.
You mentioned earlier that there is a degree of fear of repeating what we saw last year where they FED cut by a undred basis points and we saw the long end of the yield curve rise by one hundred basis points and economic data pickback up. And I just wonder how much you think the FED is open or you would be open if you are on the FED now, to adjust some of the balance sheet composition in response to any move in the long end of the yield curve.
I think the balance sheet policy has been in the background. I think that's appropriate. The Committee has been shrinking the size of the balance sheet a little bit slower pace recently, but I think they're pretty happy with that policy for now. They want to get to this ample reserves level. There's a good speech by my former colleague Chris Waller and Dallas, so if you want some bedtime reading, you can read that.
But that was actually a very good back of the envelope calculation about the balance sheet and all the pieces of the balance sheet. So I think that's a good place to start for those that want to understand current balance sheet policy. The mortgage backed securities are going to take a long time to go off. I do think the Fed made a mistake in March April of twenty twenty.
We went all in on mortgage back securities, thinking that the pandemic was going to harm the housing market, and we got ninety two, one hundred and twenty days in and boy it went the other way. Demand for housing was way up. So unfortunately we added a lot of mortgage backed securities over that two year period, but we're going to have to let that gradually go off.
Would you AFFCD it for fifty this week?
No?
I don't think so. So I thought it was a good decision because the Hawks could say that, Okay, we only went twenty five, and we got optionality on the future moves. But the Doves got the twenty five and probably twenty five at October, and that's almost as good as getting fifty today. And you do get the optionality in their says.
When people talk about the institution, you know, so wow, just based on what you've just said, do you think people underestimate just how persuasi if you need to be on the committee, the degree of negotiations that do take place about the kind of things you just described.
It's a it's a you know, it's a big formal meeting, and people are, you know, very good at making their arguments, and they have the presidents have their own staffs. So I mean, I love it. I think it's a great it's it's a great place to make decisions. I think also people have to understand that you're not talking so much about what you're going to do on the day.
You're talking about what should our future path be over the next six months and over the next two years, but especially over the next six months, because you know, you have to it's a big committee and you have to be basically on board with you know, what you to do. On that particular day.
You were very vocal about how you felt about the dot plot back in the day.
Didn't like it.
Bring this up.
So significant to see your dot always just there at zero?
Are you going to get rid of it? Would you get rid of it? I mean, what use?
I think we can do better than we have on the dot plot. And at one point I talked about, you know, dropping out completely. I did drop out of the long long run dot part. But I think we could do something like former chair Ben BERNANKEI outlined in the recent conference that the FED had about the framework review, and he mocked up a quarterly report that that could be put out, and that would put out a forecast. That's what other central banks do, and then members can
talk relative to that forecast. They could say, well, no, I'm more optimistic about the economy, or i more pessimistic about inflaier whatever. I think that would be closer to an international standard. And that's probably the direction this should go because the dot plot has its problems.
Stay with us more Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this. Marissa Adams, the Europe and America's regional head of Global Trade Solutions at HSBC, IT joins us now for more.
Marissa, welcome back.
We've got lots to talk about with you, including the latest developments in the UK. I just want to start with mitigation strategies. It's something you give us an update on every time we talk. What are the mitigation strategies now and how sustainable are they are? We reaching a point where corporations have got to make a decision either custom costs or pass this on.
Thanks Jonathan, and good morning to you and Lisa. We are getting to a bit of an impasse now where there is only so long that companies can delay their investments, delay their decisions in terms of rejigging their supply chains, are looking for new demand markets and we've obviously seen a lot of first movers actually act quite quickly. But we are getting to a point now where the uncertainty, rather than the level of tariffs, is going to be a challenge.
Well you say that, and that a lot of people come on this show say peak uncertainty is behind us, and actually there is enough stability in the trade picture.
I've lost you.
I can actually hear you.
Let's try to reestablish that, can you hear me? Now, let's try to reestablish that? Which on that line, that's the question to me, though, is you know she was saying that the uncertainty will still remain an issue while so many people have come on the show and talked about how there is a greater degree of certainty now which gives companies the ability to make the decisions you were talking.
About, Francis Donald, what does she tell us RBC? She said, we're getting to the point Rissa Adams was alluding to it. We're getting to the point where corporation's got to think about what to do here. Cut costs, lay off labor, pass it on price hikes. It's exactly what my Gabe and Morcanstani's thinking about too. A lot of people might be surprised by this and say, you just market to market, you're pushing this off. Many people said at the very beginning,
you're not going to see this overnight. It will take time. This is a process. First, you had to get through the pre tariff inventry. There have been other mitigation strategies that were implemented. Now we're going to get further and further through the year into the start of twenty six. You get close to decision time. It's a decision they're going to have to make.
This is the reason why the Christmas shopping season and we keep talking about it and I realize it's still September. It's a reason why it's going to be so important. How much are consumers willing to accept some of the higher prices and how much will some of these companies have to continue with the cost mitigation plans. And that I think is what a lot of people were thinking about MRIs. I think we've re established you Sorry about
the technical glitch. I'm wondering, can you get a sense of how much is hinging on the Christmas shopping season and the idea of how much consumers are really willing to adjust to higher pricing.
You know, we've seen two sides of this too. I think firstly, we also saw the supply come forward for that shopping season, which is obviously critical, and we saw a lot of front loading coming through earlier in the year. But whether those costs of actually been passed on at this stage, I think is yet to be determined. I was in a large big box store yesterday and obviously all of the Christmas attire is in and all of those goods are there already, so I think that might
be a little bit earlier than before. But whether they've actually passed on costs at this stage is yet to be seen. I think what's kind of interesting, and you know we've been talking about you alluded to at the beginning of the US and UK trade discussions. Obviously the trade state visit here from the President really interesting that whilst we obviously have this huge focus on goods trade and I've spoken about it before with both of you.
Services trades really remains something credibly critical and actually very much an area where if you look at the economies of the future where we're trying to grow something that
they're putting an extra emphasis on. The economic trade agreement that was reached in the particular the tech agreement that was announced about two hundred million in investment here into the UK really critical and we're seeing that clearly there are delays in some of the tariffs they're coming through on goods, but that isn't stopping business where services are a key component to actually growing and moving forward.
So it means that the services businesses can have that greater degree of certainty to make decisions.
I just wonder you talk.
About a greater degree of coalescing around some sort of agreement between the US and UK. I want to talk about China and this phone call between Jijinping and President Trump later this morning, and I just wonder how much companies that you work with that you advise have completely written off China trade or have tried to completely immunize themselves from that supply chain just because there doesn't seem to be a definitive end to the uncertainty that you say is so paralyzing.
So I think one of the key challenges with China and the US is that China supply chain is very very well built up. There's a huge amount of alliance between the China and the US on that. So the idea of shifting completely away just isn't really possible for a lot of companies, whether that's in consumer retail, automotive, some of the advanced manufacturing, even in the pharmaceutical sector.
So there are obviously elements that they can rejig and look at other areas, but this is a critical goods supply chain for the United States, and any sort of certainty as that comes through on where those teriffs land will be welcomed by the corporates that we work with, stay with us.
More Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
Joining us Now to extend the conversation, Jeanette lo A Shatigas Janette, welcome to the show.
You just heard from Tanna.
They're talking about Chinese and the lack of buying of soy beans here in America, important to core Republican districts and states in this country. Janette do you think we're any closer to nailing down those purchase agreements that really dominated the conversations back in the president's first term.
Yeah, it's a great point, and thanks for having me on. So there's a lot of talk about whether or not there's going to be this grand deal between Shrump and she, and I think I'm a little skeptical about that happening. What we've seen is what Tayler kind of mentioned, it's this de escalationion. It's kind of meaning the status quo while there is this decoupling of the two countries.
And you're seeing that with the fights over.
Navidia ships and critical minerals coming to the US and then US sending ships over to China, and then also this piece about the agricultural the soybean purchases. So I think what they're trying to do is they're showing their
pressure points on various sides to get a particular deal. This, I mean, may all be about TikTok, but then also trying to get some of these other pieces in place, trying to get companies in China to actually buy Navidiot ships after Trump said that he would allow that, getting them to actually buy these soybean purchases, which obviously, as you said, would be really important for critical constituencies in the US for political reasons. And so then that's kind
of I think where we're going. So it's going to probably be a smaller deal, and trying to figure out how do we maintain some sort of status quote, how do we maintain some sort of good trade relations while at the same time we know both sides are kind of decoupling from one another.
This is the reason why jedet I think a lot of people are trying to understand how transactional this relationship is and how rooted it is in ideology on this idea of national security and trying to immunize the respective economies.
From one another.
Is there any signal in what we might hear about from TikTok?
Yeah, I mean, I think the one thing that would obviously be important is what does happen with the algorithm? I mean, the Trump has been less focused on the national security concerns that members of Congress have been with regard to the TikTok deal, and if that algorithm is still a licensed from byteedance, I think that's kind of a sign that this is a little bit more transactional
and less about national security. But to the other point, Trump is really focused on other key sectors where that's really much more the focus for him for national security. So he's much more focused on doing more domestic manufacturing of semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, defense components, things of that nature in the United States. Tech obviously is a big piece of that. The AI race is a very big piece of that.
I think that's also what his broader picture is. So being able to help in Navidia, I think would be more in stative, almost more than TikTok.
FedEx came out last night and said that it was going to take a billion dollar hit partly because of Chinese deliveries that are going to be taken off the table for them or limited as a result of some of the changes in roles. A lot of companies have just moved on, and so have investors from this story.
Is there anything that can come out of today or the next couple of weeks with the negotiations that you think a lot of companies, corporate executives, investors should be paying attention to that could reintroduce a level of uncertainty that really will make a difference.
Yeah, I mean, I think the bigger story is actually I mean, so the call will be important in figuring out what deliverables there may be and whether there is something broader than when I outlined a few minutes ago.
But I think also obviously what happens with the court case before the Supreme Court as to whether or not not the tears that Trump imposed under the AIPA Trade Authority, whether those can remain in place, that could be quite disruptive, because we do think that the President will has a backup plan that even if they're overturned by the Supreme Court,
they will be reimposed under other means. And I think also we want to kind of watch to see if there is the opportunity for more other tree deals in this environment where we get more uncertain, and then also kind of looking at these exemptions that keep popping up. You know, we have the Japan tree deal on the talk about doing some exemptions for.
Goods that the US doesn't produce.
We don't mind here things that are important for aircraft and generic pharmaceuticals. And is there an increasing ability to get a hold of those exemptions. I think that could be important for the story larger going into the fourth quarter as well.
Jeanette, this exemption story, I think coffee and that conversation that was sparked by the report coming from the Washington Post, I think is really important. A Republican from Nebraska, a Democrat from California reportably introducing your bill to exclude coffee from tariffs, and Jeanette, that bill may not go anywhere.
I've got no idea.
Perhaps it doesn't, but that's the first real sign I've seen of Congress starting to impose itself a little bit here. And I would love to get your perspective on this, whether you believe that might be the first step of many still to come further down the road. Yeah.
I mean there was another story as well this week about how members of the House we're saying that they want a trade task course and they want to put a smaller limit on how long they can avoid trying to repeal the national emergency that Trump imposed for these terroiffts. And I think one of these issues is the consumer piece coffee, you know, bananas, things like that.
Tuna is a one of those exemptions.
So I think there's also a focus on where are costs actually hitting consumers, and then what is the trade piece and the trade authority. So it does seem like, yes, Congress is trying to maybe reassert itself. I don't necessarily know how much it'll authority you'll be able to claw back.
I don't think the movement is that strong yet. But I think if there were to be, you know, a worsening economic situation, that is like kind of the emphasis that you would need to actually see that happen, and we don't see that happening in the near term.
Stay with us. Multilemberg Savanna's coming.
Up after this, Let's say, on this conversation, Claudia Som of New Centry Advisors writing this, it's dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability is intention cutting rates to reduce the downside risks to employment increases the upside risks to inflation. Claudia joins us. Now, Claudia, so great to see you. And this is really the point that we
were trying to wrap our heads around. How much does an emphasis on growth, a prioritization of the employment market increase the risks of inflation in a way that isn't fully appreciated.
Well, I think Powell is telling you is the feed appreciates this. There is a tension. Inflation is elevated, It's been elevated for more than four years, and it's probably going to go a little bit higher before it starts moving lower. Cutting rates is not going to help on the inflation side. So, but I think to your point, it's about which one is the more acute problem. We go into a recession, which is not the Fed's baseline, that is not my baseline, then we have a big problem.
And so that's what the FED is reacting to. If inflation gets stuck, yes, that is a problem, and they will have to come back to that, and it may like cutting now may make that problem be real in the future, but it's not as acute. So it's this balance of risks that they're trying to sort you know, to sort out right now.
And it's a balance of risks that seems to have allowed inflation to be above their two percent mandate for more than four years and potentially for six years based on their forecast going forward. Is this a FED that might say verbally two percent but might mean three percent.
It's certainly a FED that has shown its willingness to give it time, right so the target is two percent, but the target doesn't say two percent next month, next year, right, They give themselves some runway to get there, and the tradeoff has been, you know, allowing the labor market to be more resilient. I mean, coming out of the surge of inflation in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two.
The FED could have gotten that down to two percent really fast, but we would have had to have a recession, a severe one to do that, and they chose not to. Right, So you know, there's there's no free lunch here, right Like these these the goals are intention and they still continue to navigate this. And I think if you really focus on and they say it in their framework, they look at like how far like employment or inflation is away from the goal and for how long it's going
to be away from the goal? And so I think they made the right decision at this moment thinking about the employment data has been pretty soft and disconcerting, but keeping an eye on inflation at the same time.
You know, Chloie, I think the point you made there about they could have brought inflation back to target more quickly, but chose not to. As investors, I think your performances was directly related to how quickly you realize that that reality that they simply were not willing to do what
was necessary to get inflation back to target. But I do want to ask you just to pivot a little bit off of what you were saying and what we're discussing here with inflation as point blankly as I can or tariff's inflation.
Tariffs are going to increase prices, right, so there is a period inflation is an increase in prisis, so there is a period where it appears likely that they are putting upward pressure and it's not just relative price changes. But I agree with the sentiment that it is a one time price level adjustment, right, so it's not inflationary
in the sense of creating inflation forever. But I do get very concerned, and I frankly think the FED maybe downplaying this risk somewhat at this point that as you've had inflation hired closer to three percent for some time, people are just going to build that in Like not everybody's running a model of tariff effects and this and that, and the FED independent, you know, like they just see inflation and then when they have to plan for the future a business or a family. They just kind of
use what they've seen recently. So I do worry there's this creep of we just start building in the higher inflation and then that that's where we get starck.
I agree with you conceptually. Obviously we view things through the prism of inflation expectations, and you don't want consumers to start adjusting behavior in that way. But what you just articulated there was a worry that consumers would start thinking about it this way. But isn't it fair to say that the worry about future inflation expectations should be treated subordinate to the reality of the slowdown in the private sector job market?
But I think, I mean, you need to think of the price setting process and the way people the way businesses make decisions, the way they forecast their decisions is an important one to make. So I don't want to downplay the expectations. I will say there's another piece thinking about inflation dynamics going forward, which is really the question, like what is this doing to inflation two years from now,
three years from now? Is to think about this. These tariffs are part of a major reshuffling of global trade, and we have benefited. One of the pull down on inflation that we've seen for many years in the United States is through good imported goods. We have trade, we have innovation, like that's actually been something that helps hold inflation down. And even if it's not like a big effect, losing that actually could give some lift to inflation over time.
So it's not just about what's in people's heads, like, we really are reshuffling the deck in terms of the way trade is done and the way the goods come into the country.
And this is one reason why some people are saying it's so hard to get a handle on exactly what the new neutral rate is and how much higher inflation
just naturally will be in the economy. Claudia, You've researched the labor market for a very long time, and I wonder whether it makes sense to run the economy hot, to run the labor market hot at a time of dramatic transition in terms of the AI shifts, how quickly that's changing some of the job roles, the necessity for companies to actually invest in reskilling a lot of people.
Do you think that this is there of a new.
Priority that necessitates a faster pace of growth.
It's a difficult dynamic to make. I mean, running the economy hot when we already have inflation that is elevated. I mean, that's really a risky scenario. And I will say, you know, just seeing like the Michigan Survey household survey is coming out again, people are very clear, like when they talk about what's wrong, like they're pretty pessimistic. Higher prices is still a big issue. So inflation has come down a lot, but it accumulates over time. So there
there's not an easy answer to that question. And a lot of it is gauging as to exactly how hot we're running it. Like I think you can make an argument on the margin for maybe you know, going on the side of let's let employment run, let's let investment run, but you have to be careful because some of the discussions about let's have a federal funds rate of say one percent, that's not an on the margin discussion. That's like a big overturning of like how hot we're willing
to go. And I think there we need to be very careful because inflation is not something that people handle well.
This is the Bloomberg Surveandics podcast bringing you the best in markets, economics, antient 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 app,