Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is a breaking news update from Bloomberg instant reaction and analysis from our three thousand journalists and analysts around the world.
A new fed chair in a new era.
As we do parse through some of the commentary, the Kevin Warresh Fedder Reserve is a very different federal reserve than the Drome Powell of Federal Reserve. Not only are we looking at a statement that was only one hundred and thirty two words versus one hundred and seventy five words at the April FMC meeting, we're talking about a new framework, a new regime, and not giving enemy forward guidance because guess what, there's a task force for that
right now. If you take a look of the reaction in Marcus, they are taking this hawkish tilt and they are running with it. You can see across the board declines on the S and P and the Russell two thousand NAZAC now a little changed as they parse through all of the reactions. When you take a look at the yield space, that's where some of the fireworks are happening. It is yield curve compression time in a massive, massive way. Thirteen basis point rise on the two year to four
point one point eight percent. Suddenly the idea of one rate hike or even more is on the table. As this FED share talks about how this Federal Reserve has a commitment to the American people to get price stability and that is their goal. He s poo pooed some of the dual mandate the thirty year yields. They like that down two basis points and it is dollar strength across the board. A big question, Scarlett foo was would the President have any commentary on this, And it turns out that he does.
He does.
He's spoken to reporters several times today he's at the G seven in France, and he had said that it's all right that they held rates whatever.
He also said that the Fed raising.
Rates is a possibility, It's possible it could happen, So no sign of anger from him. We do know that Scott Besson, the Treasury Secretary, had kind of eased the path there. He had been talking about the prospect of the FED not being able to cut rates as the President would want, and that inflation oil prices remains top
of mind. So we did just listen to Fed Shair Kevin Warre, speaking moments ago, is you any kind of forward guidance, Where did you put your potential dot if you were to have a dot?
Well, he has an answer for that.
I'm appointing a task force in each of five areas that are central to the broad conduct of monetary policy. First, FED communications, second the fed's balance sheet, Third, our use and reliance on existing data sources, Fourth, productivity and jobs in an era of transformation, and last the fed's inflation frameworks. My expectation, I'm still in the business of recruiting and
finalizing them. My expectation is the task forces will begin work in the next couple of weeks and we'll start to get some more information from them, some more framing of how they see things, starting in the fall end, hopefully most if not all of them, concluding by year end.
Joining us now to discuss is Kate Moore of City and Jim Bianco of Bianco Research, or either of you being recruited for the task force.
We'll start with that.
I just texted my text messages and nothing came through yet, so but it's still early at the profressor. All right, what's your first reaction to what we just heard, Kate, Well, a couple things. Number One, there was broad acknowledgement that the economy is in good shape. There's also broad acknowledgement that the rates as they currently stand are not actually restricting any major sector outside of course housing, which worsh mentioned.
And there was like a lot.
Of collegial talk about, you know, how well the FED is working together, how well they're communicating, how welcoming Warshfeldt, you know, in his new chair position. So there was actually kind of a positive tone about both the economy and the functioning of the institution and in.
Terms of changes that he's made.
Lisa, you already highlighted the fact that the statement was much shorter.
The news conference was sugar.
As well, and we definitely heard a different side to these Fed news conferences, Jim. One thing that Kevin Morshman clear was that for longer term changes, including communications, including.
The dot plot, there's going to be a task force for that.
How do you anticipate that kind of information to come out? Is that going to be a surprise when it just comes out, or is he the FED going to give markets time to digest all of them.
Well, he also said that the task force might include people outside the FED, so I would assume that you're going to have leaks, so you might as well be doing it almost in real time, telling us what's happening, because there's going to be some people outside the FED. But in general, I think that this is a welcome thing. The FED needed to change. This communication style that they have now is about twenty years old, and the world has changed. Communication has changed, the role of the FED
has changed, and so it is a positive thing. I'll also mentioned that one of the things that Walsh talked about before you was chairman was all of these prognostications the Fed's going to cut rates carding to the dot plot. He pointed out it very rarely happens the way that they say it's going to be. So it was always an institution that was giving an inaccurate forecast, and we were over relying on that inaccurate forecast, and maybe it is time that they try a different approach.
Kate is chair Kevin Worsh kind of consistent with what former governor Fed Governor Kevin Worsh sounded.
Like, I mean, I'm going to go back to this world. I just mentioned a moment ago collegial. I mean, it really felt like that was the sort of the overall tone. And I think something is very important here, which is that we are having more consistency of policy here between last meeting with Chair Powell and Chare Wosh, which I think is going to be comforting to the markets, even if risk assets, you know, dip.
A little bit on this news.
It's just kind of reiterating what we already know though, right that inflation has been warmer, spicier than many people had expected, certainly even pre the Iran conflict, and we know that there's been a broadening out of some of these price pressures while the labor market had been solid. I just felt like, you know, Chair Worsh made those points, conceded that, and so was consistent with the person that he has always been, which is someone who's really grounded in data.
There's also been a comment and I thought that his answer to one of the questions was really interesting about why he thinks that this shouldn't be an overly communicative fed, how the data and how the market responds to the data should be done more purely.
Take a listen to exactly what he had to say.
I think financial markets perform best when they react to incoming data. I think the financial markets work less efficiently when they ask a question, how will the Federal Reserve react to that incoming information. The more that markets are paying attention to what's happening in the real economy, deciding what's good data and what's less good data, the more financial markets can price what they believe is the most likely and what are the tail risks.
This actually, to me, I highlighted a real question that's.
Been asked Jim. Is this sort of codifying the fact that the Fed's going to follow the market.
So the market is going to be sort of the arbitrator of what the FED should do because it is a pure indicator of the collective wisdom of crowds.
I think the market should be the thing that the FED follows.
His statement reminded me.
Of that famous line from the economist Charles Goodheart. When a measure becomes a target, it seeks being a measure. Meaning if the FED has already decided what they're going to do, then we can ignore the pay or report. We could ignore the CPI. Maybe we shouldn't. Maybe we should be reacting to all of this and having the market express its best judgment and then letting the FED bring in that information that I agree with him is
the proper way for things to be done. Then them to just summarily decide what they're going to do, say they care about the data, but they've already made.
Up their mind.
Kate, do you agree?
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense, right, the market being an important signal, an important source of data for the FED instead of this kind of manipulation. It is really hard, though, as market participants not to try and to anticipate what other market participants or other policy makers or other people making decisions are doing or interpreting with the data. And that is part of the game and part of the behavioral side of things that
we all incorporate into our process. But I think, you know, Chairworsh's point was very clear that the market and that mechanism, Jim, as you're pointing out, is a really powerful mechanism and we shouldn't fait it right now.
We want to get back with a part of the task force.
I don't believe he actually has been appointed to a task force. He is officially the Bloomberg Task Force on the federers or of Bloomberg's Michael McKee, You are in the room, and the press conference actually went on a little bit longer than some people had expected. The commitment to a press conference, though not exactly concrete. His answer to you is really interesting. What was your takeaway from this conference?
Well, the answer, of course, like almost all of his answers, ended with there's a task force for that. But basically they're going to look at all communications, and he did express the idea that he doesn't necessarily think you should have a press conference after every meeting if you don't have something to say now, that's going to be the thing that the task force is going to have to
look at, is what qualified is something important to say today? Obviously, but if you're in a situation where you don't know where inflation's going, where you're going to vote the whole rates where they are, does that require a meet a press conference? If not, then how do the markets react? The FED there is kind of leading the markets, and if they come to you and say, hey, come on over, we're gonna have a press conference today, then they're also
leading the markets. So it's a difficult needle to thread at this point.
I think for Walsh to.
Try to get out of this, to put that genie back in the bottle. But we'll see what the task force comes up with. He was very, very complimentary of Fed officials today, and he basically framed this all as we're all working together to make this work better for monetary policy. So it's going to be we're all going to be sitting back and waiting for these task force reports.
To come out.
Michael McKee, thanks so much for all of your work and insight today.
Just real quick here.
It does see him alike the market he's not necessarily paying attention to. In the initial salvos of the reaction, he went on and said, honestly, I'm not that concerned in the first hours that said, the idea that they dropped any kind of commentary on the labor market, and the fact that he said we've missed for five years our inflation target and we.
Are going to fix that.
Is there any other way to interpret this other kate than unabashedly hawkish.
I mean, look, here's what I would say.
The fact that he repeated that we have been overshooting the target for five years, something our team talks.
About all of the time.
I thought was incredibly important and actually was a comfort to me, this acknowledgment that policy is going to be really active in terms of getting us to the goal. I thought that other comedy made around paying attention to the left of the decimal point versus the right, that the target is two, not too in something sort of reaffirms that commitment and the way that he'll work with the Committee frankly to get policy in a place that
we go closer to target over time. So it's hard not to interpret that where we are today as a little bit more hawkish than otherwise people might have expected.
But also that's thinking perhaps more clearly than perhaps what we had heard in the past. Right, there's no two issh, it's just two. And he's happy with that. I'm curious. In terms of the labor market, there was a question posed about what the Committee thinks of the labor market Jim, and he said trends matter more than data points. The job data has been moving in a good direction. It feels like that's all he said about the labor market. He's not concerned with it one way or another.
Yeah, And if you go back to the statement, they didn't put anything in the statement in the one question he said, we're not worried about the labor market.
Okay, that is not a problem.
The problem seems to be the inflation problem, and that's what they addressed. So I almost suspect that this statement is going to be flexible. So today, now it's inflation. I could see a statement in you know, six months a year where there's no mention of inflation and it's all about the labor market, it's all about real growth.
Then at that point, Yeah, and he said that it wasn't necessarily in conflict with each other. Right now, let's bring in Stephanie Rotha Research, who's been listening to all of this. Stephanie, your first take and what we just heard from fed share Kevin.
Worsh Yeah, I mean it was he's setting up to be a very credible fed He seems to be very smart about getting everybody on his side and getting the consensus. It seems well he was not in favor of a hike today. You know, that could very much change with the incoming data. So it was certainly more hawkish than what some people had thought. Some people thought he would just come in and try to push through rake cuts, because that's what the president wants, and that wouldn't necessarily,
quite frankly, be very good for markets anyway. So this was a very deliberate and patient approach, and we'll see, you know, through the path of incoming data how this plays. At our base case is that inflation will cool enough, labor market will show some signs of softening such that in the coming weeks they don't actually have to hike. But certainly the odds have risen after this.
Meeting, Stephanie.
Does this silence the critics who thought that we would not have an independent FED under Kevin worsh Yes.
I think it absolutely does. He is, you know, looking at the incoming data. He doesn't seem to be somebody who was scared to be hiking if we don't actually get closer to the inflation goal than would otherwise be the case. He doesn't seem to be giving way to any sort of pressure. So I mean that's a very good thing for markets. The markets should want an independent FED.
So just pushing through rates for the sake of appeasing the president is not something that will ultimately result in a better economy or markets at the end of the day. And I think we should all feel better about that after what we heard today.
How do you anticipate economists to respond or to react to the fact that nine of the members want a hike? I mean, how is this going to adjust what Wall Street thinks is going to happen with inflation?
Yeah, and you're seeing that in markets today. You know, the shorter end of the curve rates are significantly and you have to raise your odds of a near term hike. Knowing that many more FOMC members than was generally expected or looking for a hike before this meeting, I would say somewhere between. The expectation was somewhere between three and six members were expected to be penciling in a hike.
Now you're substantially above that. So now we're talking about about half the many is very much interested in hiking rates given the data that we have today. So whatever your odds were of a hike you know before today, you know it certainly has to be to be rising.
If you are just joining us. We're parsing through a very noteworthy FED meeting, the first for Kevin worsh as chairman, and he made a lot of changes.
I did want to make one correction.
I said that there were one hundred and seventy five words in the April statement. It was actually three hundred and forty one words versus the one hundred and thirty one words in this latest statement. As we've been mentioning in markets, you can see a real hawkish tilt that is filtering through markets. I'm wondering, Jim, from your perspective, do you like long bonds better given what we just heard?
I mean, does this actually give you.
More confidence that this is a federal reserve that wants to anchor inflation expectations at.
Two point zho not two points something?
It should The old Wall Street adage that as a bond investor, I can stop panicking when the FED starts panicking really applies. If the FED is going to vigilant about inflation, that in all of it self should be positive for bonds. Now today it's positive for bonds with the yield curve flattening because they're not rising and yield as.
Much as the front end of the curve.
But yes, you know, if you want to go back to twenty twenty two, to give another example, the infliction rate hit nine percent, but with the FED raising rates seventy five basis points of her meeting.
It never got above four and a quarter the entire year. The FED was in full panic mode.
Bond investors on a relative base is held in Kate.
You agree, ah man, we have been very underweight duration for like the duration of my time here in the city, to be fair, and we have debated over and over again, what is it going to be that lets us kind of extend duration in portfolios? But I just can't get there. I mean, our view as at inflation is going to be more persistent and broader than a lot of people
expected for quarters to come. So even against that backdrop, against the comments from I'm chair warsh and from kind of the tone of the FMC, you know, we're just not in a place yet more we're buyers.
How does this make you think about credit? Would you be changing any of your allocation to it or what you prefer?
Yeah, we think about credit a course in the risk asset spectrum too, not just in terms of yield. Right, And in this case, you know, equities, not credit, have had kind of a step down in valuation over the course of twenty twenty six because of course earnings have been much stronger than the price movement.
And so you know, we're still close to.
That kind of fifteen year high in terms of credit valuations, but we've come, you know, significantly lower in equities before to take our risk asset exposure inequities over credit. We've positioned that way over the course of the year. That doesn't mean no credit, but we just want to be more selective frankly, and I wish I didn't just love equities so much and think they're going to go higher.
Actually a pause to breathe.
I think, as we've seen over some last trading sessions, is a good thing going into the summer. But I also wish I could use fixingco more actively in portfolios. But given where we are on rates and inflation, as I said, we're very underweight duration.
Staying on that idea, we also heard from Kevin worsh Stuffanie about his thought on how restrictive policy is right now, and his answer was it's uneven. If you look at housing, for instance, FED policy does appears restrictive because you have that affordability crisis, not just in the actual housing crisis, but in mortgage rates. But he doesn't see that in financial markets, noting the record highs that we're seeing inequities and the tight spreads that we see in credit.
How do you think about that?
Yeah, I mean, so you know, the initial idea, well, policy is somewhat uneven. You could initially be interpreted as well, that's somewhat of a dubbish comment until he later said, you don't really see anywhere outside of housing, So it's pointing to that is policy is largely, you know, not that restrictive outside of one sector of the economy. So once you hear that further information, it suggests that, you know, the the economy is certainly running fairly hot relative to
to sort of where rates are. So, you know, our expectation is that was a you know, somewhat somewhat hawkish comment after you know, you could initially have been interpreted as a little bit more balanced.
We heard him say confidently Stephanie that he was not concerned with how the market was moving in the initial aftermath of this press conference. He wouldn't make too much of those moves.
Do you think that that was a mistake.
No, I mean, I think I think he believes that. I think he you know, he he came out and delivered a message of you know, credibility, and the market is seeing seeing through that. I don't think that was something he would wish, you know, wishes wishes, he didn't say necessarily. He knew he was going to be coming out and delivering, you know, a balance, all though perhaps somewhat hawkish message, and that's exactly what he did today. He came in there, he painted the FED is a
very credible institution, one that's working together. He noted, you know several times that you know, while they might have sort of family FEUs at the table, they're going to come out and deliver you know, an important and singular message. And that's exactly what he did. So I think he you know, came and went exactly as his plan, and I think he was very successful in doing so.
Stephanie just sort of a similar question to what we were asking before about whether this gives you more confident and some long bonds. Does this make you actually pulled down your longer term inflation expectations for the United States based on some of the shift and rhetoric.
Yeah, I think it has to. You know that the FED is going to be credible on getting inflation down, the market should and we also do take him at his word that they are. He's he's planning on getting inflation down one way or another. The hope or the expectation is you'll get it down through the passage of time and inflation naturally coming down because there have been
shocked to the economy that should eventually fade. But if we don't, if that doesn't play out that way, then Warsh is certainly going to be behind the Fed hiking rates in order to get there. So there are two paths to get there, but the end goal is certainly going to be that two percent inflation. He very much made that clear.
Stephanie ro thank you so much for your insights.
Just to go back to what President Trump said, he was answering a question from our Josh Wingrove about what happened with the FED, and his exact quote was, it's all right whatever when asked about the Fed's decision to hold interest rates stuff.
Well, there you go.
It got the endorsement, I guess of the President of the United States. Ship do you think that yield kurt flattening is the path of travel from here?
Yeah.
If the FED is going to be committed to raising rates to fighting inflation, the long end again, as they said, on a relative basis, should like it more than the front end. Front end yields go up. Long end yields kind of hold steady or go up a little bit, and you get that FED or you get that Kurt flattening Kate, What will.
You be looking for in the FED minutes when those come out in three weeks?
I mean, I guess I'll be looking for that one small tiny bit of discussion for the person who was suggesting that there would be space for a rate cut. ID love to see kind of how fast that discussion laws or how it's addressed. I'll also be you know, kind of thinking about overall fleetion expectations. This is something we want to see. You know, how does the FED talk about that? Are they going to be acknowledging if
we care a lot more about market pricing? You know how that reflects back in terms of their overall debate. But in general, I think we already know what we need to know, which is like, this was a split set of decisions the people with varying different degrees of interpretation of the inflation data and the economy, how tight financial conditions are, how much we need to worry about
break events. I mean, no, it's all over the map, so I'm not sure we're going to get a single cohesive special message from the minutes if.
I jump in on that.
There's one other thing that we haven't discussed. The FED didn't disclose their vote for the first time ever.
They didn't tell us.
Whether it was a twelve zero vote or if there was.
Any dissenter design.
Yes, by design, So maybe we'll get that out of the minutes. But if we don't get it out of the minutes, they're going full ECB, which never discloses their vote, and that says to me the fed's more independent that there's twelve voters across that table, and they don't want to be publishing seventy five votes eighty four votes having all these descents.
So, as he said, they'd rather keep it as.
A family fight, let them all hash it out in the meeting, and then come out with a decision later on, and not have to have people put out statements two days later about why they dissented for these meetings, So it's going to be very different thing, and maybe the minutes will help de sign that.
Let's not forget that Jay Powell was part of the discussion. He was in the room because he's a member of the FED board, even though he's no longer the FED chair, which is a highly unusual Lisa, you has to.
Wonder exactly what's so broken and whether he personally feels a little bit of attachment to the old way of communication, given that he was really helming that right now, I do want to bring in Jeffrey Rosenberg of black Rock.
There is a sense right.
Now in markets that this is a FED that is newly renewed, really newly renewing their commitment to controlling inflation, clearly, yield curve flattening, clearly risk off and stocks.
Is this signal or is this noise?
Well, there's there's a lot of both.
This is quite the change, and I think we're all trying to digest what we just heard.
I think there's a real risk here.
Jonathan's not on the program, so I'm going to do my best interpretation.
The first reaction is.
Not always the right reaction, and I think there's a risk here of overplaying the yield curve flattening and the questioning of the long end that I'm listening to here. So first of all, you know, this is a market that is sort of split between the old reaction function, which really moved on the dot plot. Right, the nine votes, the nine dots voting for a hike were well in excessive expectations, and that's what moved the market. But then you have Warsh basically telling you we're going to get
rid of the dot plot. I mean, he got you all the way. They almost to the goal line, but it didn't want to, you know, pre judge the outcome of the of the task force. But it's very clear, you know, the task force has its job ahead of it, so that underminds a little bit of that interpretation.
I think the second reaction from the.
Market is just a very clear hawkish statement.
But I think here.
There's the possibility here that the market may want to rethink or all I'm rethinking. Not I'm talking about the market, but you know, is this hawkish for rates? Or is this hawkish for the balance sheet? Because if you look underneath what he said, there were some very kind of telling interchanges there. And when you think about the pat dependency of Warsh and his history during.
The POSTGFC, you know, first you.
Know, why was it that the communications of the FED became paramount for markets. That interchange about why markets stopped paying attention to the data and instead of having their own reaction function, they were reacting to what they thought the fed's reaction function would be. And that's because the era of the POSTGFC was the era of we will do whatever it takes and believe me, it will be enough.
That was the quote from the ECB and Droggy when he threatened bond markets that the central banks balance sheet was bigger than the market's balance sheet and that ushered in or was reflective of an where central banks were the dominant price makers and he wants to do away with that. Well, what's the primary tool for doing away with that. It's the balance sheet. So one of those tasks for US is maybe more important than the others
when it comes to markets and market reactions. Then the second interchange that was really quite revealing was when asked about restrictiveness. It wasn't so much about the unevenness, but what he went on to say about what is the source of the unevenness. I found that to be the most revealing comment because he said that might be due to transmission mechanisms, that one might be about the interest rates, that's reflective to housing and the other the easiness of
financial conditions is about the balance sheet. Well, that's about some of the risks of running an ample reserve system.
That maybe here is being hinted at being changed.
And if you were to change that, what has been the biggest beneficiary of the big balance sheet the flattening of the term premium, Right, That was a whole point of a lot of the bond purchases was to bring down that term premium, and we're still seeing the legacy of that benefit. So if the signal here is maybe we're gonna be hawkish on the balance sheet, I'm not
sure your reaction is big curve flattening. I get the initial reaction hawkish surprise in terms of the focus on price stability, but there may be some other second order effects here we'll think about that actually will become first order.
So, Jeffrey, I got a question for you about the balance sheet. I agree with a lot of your sentiment about it, and.
I'm thinking back to.
Earlier with the FED when they adopted inflation targeting. It took under BERNANKI five years before we eventually got inflation targeting. We're gonna have to wait five years for them to change the balance sheet. Can this institution, especially since they've got FED Governor Michael Barr who's kind of against it in the first place, to move that fast. So while I agree with you about the balance sheet, is this something that's going to take years to unfold?
Jim? I wonder you know we're around the same generation.
My reaction to the statement was, Wow, that looks like one of the first statements I saw in my career Feb. Ninety four about the same length, similar kind of tonality.
And how quickly did.
FED chair Wash change the communications basically on his first day on the job. So I don't think from that signal we're going to be waiting with this FED and this FED share five years to make these kinds of changes. And when asked the question, I think he even intimated that he expects these committees to come back by the.
End of the year.
Well, Jeff, anyway slice it though.
This isn't great for risk assets, right, I mean, if you're trinking the balance sheet, that's tightening and financial conditions. If you're hiking interest rates, that's tightening of financial conditions. Does this make you rethink some of your risk bet.
You know, the FED may be less supportive in terms of financial conditions, but it's occurring in an environment where the contribution, particularly to risky assets, of the fed's role is much secondary, much more secondary to what we're seeing in the real economy, right, and that's the AI impact, the incredible amount of capital expenditures, the incredible amount of
earnings growth. So it might be an opportunistic moment for the FED to take a step back on supportive financial conditions when financial conditions can stand on their own.
Yeah, I mean, Jeff, I couldn't agree with you more on this one. What's been driving the equity market, of course, has been the earnings in the AI and the AI ecosystem, as well as all the capex beneficiaries and the companies and the industries that are benefiting from adopting this technology. So it's hard to say that earnings are really coupled in any way with the rate position at this point.
And then if we are fundamentally driven, which our team certainly is, we have to stay focused on where the earnings are going.
Who's growing them in this case is.
The US over everywhere else and regardless of where we are, and kind of a relative monetary policy. The one thing I just would want to highlight though, is that for the fringe companies, the smaller companies, those that are reliant on borrowing, people had gotten themselves incredibly excited, as you remember in the beginning of the year around rate sensitive parts of the equity market, like this is a time
for rotation, We're going to get excited. But now I think we're getting a message very clearly from policy makers that the rates trajectory is not lower in the near term. At best case, we're kind of flat, and that's not going to be an environment where companies that need to borrow in order to keep up with their large cap counterparts are going to be able to do so at
a very attractive rate. So that needs to be factored into people's expectations for margins and then earnings, and if you care about earnings in this case, which we really certainly do, that should tilt your size overall exposure.
I wanted to go back to the idea about how communications is changing under Fetcher Kevin Worsh. A question from Michael McKee was on communications and press conferences, whether Worsh would continue holding them after every meeting. He said that they can be a useful way to communicate household and businesses, but you need to have something to say. So that suggests that perhaps it won't be a meeting a news
conference after every decision. Having said that, if household and businesses are learning from this news conference or listening to this, Jeff, what do you think they heard from this new FED chair, what's the message for them?
Well, I think he wants us to reiterate the main message, right he said. The other useful thing is everyone here in the room helps to amplify. I don't know if you said that, but I think it was implied you help to amplify that message. And the message was the recommitment to the fed's stability price stability of Price's goal.
And I think that's the message that he wanted to get out, the recommitment to the attainment of the goal and all the task forces and everything else around that is really in service of that, in recognition that for the past five years there's clearly been a failing on that far on that part.
Jeffrey Rosenberg of Blackrock, thank you so much for being with us and breaking it all down. And Kate Moore, Jim Bianco you're still here, Jim. Final thoughts on exactly what we've experienced in this history making day.
We're going to see a different type of FED right now, with a different type of objective and communication style, and that that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think the market reaction is appropriate because part of the path that they're going to go on is going to follow a lot of the other central banks. In the last week, the CBS raised rates, the Bank of Japan has raised rates, and now the Federal Reserve is suggesting that they're going.
To raise rates too, so they're all moving in that direction.
Okay, I love the overall message again around working with the rest of the FOMC, around bringing in outside voices to these task forces. But I do want to say something. It's important to reiterate that commitment to price stability and to the target. But there's a phrase I keeps coming back into my mind, which is your action speaks so loudly,
I can't hear what you're saying. So let's see if there's follow through in terms of action and not just trying to jobble in the market to say, hey, we do care about it, not taking the necessary policy actions.
In order to get us closer to that goal.
So I'll be watching very closely what happens over kind of the next you know, six to twelve weeks, against the next couple of meetings.